>> ^shinyblurry:

So, what this is saying is that God has made His existence plain to you. Your idol worship suggests that you prefer a dead god over the living one, probably because it doesn't demand anything of you, like to stop sinning. This is empty and vain, and even if you mean it as a joke I know you're only half-kidding. Which is why I am warning you, because this is a serious sin. It would be better for you to just remain an atheist and believe in nothing than to engage in idol worship.


Surah: 112
Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.

I am warning you, for Allah is the one true God, and Muhammed is His Messenger. He has made His existence plain to you, yet you dare worship your false idol Jesus Christ. Sin at your own peril.

Their central argument was that it is wrong to impute the harshest condemnation possible on a person when you know next to nothing about them. In other words - exactly what I said...


Actually, no, I dont think that was their point at all, They are saying its wrong because he does he knows next to nothing about WHY he believes what he believes. Let me put it this way: If we are to take the bible to be true, then obviously things are not looking up for us atheists, right? Now, blabbering about hellfire and so on might not be the most productive, and certainly not the nicest thing you can do to us, and its probably not what Jesus would have done, fine. We agree so far. But then there is Mark: Heres my guesses as to some of the stuff he believes:

He believes Jesus is the son of God
He believes Jesus died for all our sins
He believes we must repent to Jesus/God
He believes Jesus will forgive you if you do.
He Believes Jesus will come back to judge the living and the dead
He believes, that if you dont believe in Jesus or god, and blaspheme and sin and whatever, you will not get into heaven

Now, if Mark really, really believes all this (after all, it is the central theme of Christianity) Then I completely understand Mark if he wants to warn atheists about the perils they face if they keep up their disbelief, After all why shouldnt he? if the bible really IS true, I really hope someone warns me in time, seriously! The way it looks now is that I'm surfing the lake of fire before even the white tunnel appears.

But you see the problem is, there isnt a shred of evidence to suggest any of that nonsense is true, I might as well bet all my money(as if i had any) on Kim Jong Il to win the PGA Tour, after all, according to North Korean sources ( a country way ahead of the bronze age middle east, by the way) The fat little bastard had no less than 5 hole-in-ones in his first round of golf.

... and by the way, what I propose would have the same effect as some kind of inane "maximum wage" legislation. If you get people who have worked (in the sense that the guy in the video uses it, meaning "added value") in an industry to more often be in charge of such decisions, more often the decision will include giving a raise to workers which will increase the proportion of "live money" in circulation. In other words I get what he's saying but he seems perilously close to a well-meaning tyrant to me.

*promote the T800's pain and peril!

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

Life would be better with a little more peril every day.

>> ^dag

"Relying on doctors to hand down their wisdom to us is completely the wrong strategy. Question doctors, suspect doctors - trust them as much as you would your mechanic. Sorry, but I don't see why doctors must be put on to a noble pedestal any more than other professions.
They do lots of great work. So do teachers - so do computer programmers. I get pissed when people bow to their unswerving knowledge. Respect science, get medical advice - but make your own decisions.
"



If you are not caught up on the current research, how are you supposed to make an accurate informed decision regarding your health? That's why people defer to doctors, just like they will to any professional. Allowing the patient to make their own decisions is the cornerstone of any patient doctor relationship, but ignore advice at your own peril. View your doctor as a mechanic only if you value your life as much as you value your car.

"I respect science- but the medical profession has a culture that is distinct and separate to pure science. For one, it's a client based industry that deals directly with people to provide a service- like your mechanic. For another- I don't trust the medical-big pharma culture that is way too self-serving, incestuous and profit driven."



This is where you are completely wrong. First of all, clinical medicine is evidence based. Science is the hand that guides patient care. Many clinicians are also researchers. Secondly, there's been a huge amount of effort to separate medicine from industry. Big pharm are completely forbidden to advertise to medical students, and unlike for pharmacists, "kick-backs" and other perks to influence doctors' prescribing habits are illegal. Any industry ties for researchers must be clearly documented and reported, and conflicts of interests are strictly monitored.


"I was just reading over on Reddit that as of 2002, prescription drug deaths outnumber drug deaths from heroin and cocaine. Who is responsible for pushing that 30th prescription refill of Vicodin®? - why yes- it's those pillars of society - the all knowing oracles of the human body - Doctors.
We definitely can't have people smoking a bit of weed to chill the hell out - but keep coming in for those Valium® refills people. Those new golf clubs aren't cheap."



Lets see just how many things are wrong with this post.

1. Prescription drug deaths outnumber drug deaths

First of all, you even quoted the article wrong. The article says: "as of 2002, prescription drug overdoses have started outnumbering deaths from heroin and cocaine." Obviously overdoses does not equal death. The article does not provide a source for this statistic, and even if this is true, all it means is that prescription drugs are a lot safer than street drugs, considering the number of people on prescription medication far outnumber the hardcore heroin abusers. It also doesn't take into account just how many of those people on prescription medication have serious health issues - a 80 year old with heart failure and multiple co morbidities doesn't have a good prognosis in the first place.



2. Doctors pushing unnecessary Vicodin.

This is incredibly unlikely, since the doctor gets nothing from the drug company in return. In fact, a frustrating portion of any doctor's practice is filtering out drug seeking behaviour. Ask any doctor and they can tell you the ridiculous excuses they've heard.

Also, the article you linked is about celebrities. You can't judge the medical profession based on a small subset based in LA. Seriously, you think Michael Jackson will say "you're right doc, I shouldn't be using all these prescription meds to help me perform" or "Screw you doc. I can find someone else who will give me what I want"?

3. Blaming the medical profession for marijuana laws:

Right, lets ignore the complicated political issues re: America's war on drugs, and blame it on doctors instead. Let's just say that medicinal marijuana is one of the few ways that you CAN smoke pot legally.

It's pretty clear that you are heavily biased in your view of the medical profession. You use phrases like "self-serving, incestuous and profit driven", sarcastically referr to doctors as "oracles" or "pillars of society", and insinuate that doctors would compromise your health for a set of new golf clubs. I don't know what horrible experiences you've had in your past that has made you feel this way, but this is as far from the truth as possible.

Your distrust of the profession is bathed in ignorance, and your blind accusations, including your previous rant against obstetricians, is incredibly condescending and insulting.

Sigh - is the Sift STILL parroting HuffPo talking points about the Tea Party? The Tea Party is a huge group of citizens who are against debt spending, huge deficits, and expansion of social entitlements in a time of economic difficulty. Millions of citizens who are concerned about the self-destructive path of our domestic policy are no longer the 'silent' majority.

The left can't bring itself to admit that the Tea Party is a legitimate, sensible majority of the American people. This is in despite of polls that show the Tea Party is comprised of Republicans, Moderates, Independants, Blacks, Hispancis, and - yes - even Democrats who all happily inhabit the same tent. The fact that this group is so wide-spread and ecclectic is exactly why Obama is tanking in the polls, and why the Democrat congress is facing the prospect of being gutted like a sea-bass in November.

I've said it before - but you lefties and Democrats need to learn a lesson REAL fast. You're making the same mistake Bush2 made. He ignored the people who opposed his Iraq policy. The right tried to paint Iraq protesters as a bunch of astroturfed Democrats. It was true Democrats were actively supporting the rallies. It was true there were more than a few genuine lunatics in the anti-war movement. But ultimately the truth was that the protests reflected the true feelings of the majority. Bush ignored that, and paid for it.

Obama & the Democrats are currently doing the exact same thing by trying to marginalize the Tea Party. They're trying to paint a false picture that the Tea Party is a bunch of fringe racist kooks, and only astroturfed goons could possibly align with it. Bull. The Tea Party is supported by Republicans - true. The Tea Party does have a small number of kooks in it - true. But - like the Iraq protests - these things do NOT mean it isn't a legitimate, large-scale movement that reflects the will of the vast majority of Americans.

Truth. Ignore it at your peril, neo-libs.

I don't think I hold to that doctrine of monopoly on violence as I understand it. There are 2 issues about it that bug me. First, I don't believe in natural rights, or at least we could never know what they "really" were if they did indeed exist. It is a matter of social contract that we arbitrarily decide which ones we wish to make the foundation of our government. As such, one of those is that no person can commit an act of violence against another person. Violence is prohibited. Our government is only an extension of our own rights, as I see it. The government isn't above those natural rights we all agreed upon, it is the custodian of them. It would then hold that it has no powers greater than any individual; it would have no power of to be violent.

This might seem to create a system unable to maintain itself because of a lack of impetus to defend the rights of those in it. However, when you act out in violence, you are in breach of the contract of non-violence. Therefore you are also no longer protected by the rules of non-violence. We see this in our own system all to clear; that government does not hold the sole act of reciprocity. If you are being violently assaulted you can defend yourself, violently. Most all civil law holds that governments do not hold a monopoly on violence, in fact, there should be no such crude understanding of violence as a sole arbiter.

The distinction is subtle I admit, but it is key in the fundamental application of law and placing the role of government. Government is the enforcer of the social contract. If one violates it then he is no longer protected by it. This distinction alleviates the moral problem of a government or a person using force against a person even though force is not to be used. It also allows the for the moral position of self defense. To assume that governments are above the people; that they inherit some right that the people do not have themselves is grave.

If I have mis-characteristic the monopoly on violence, it was not my intent. But from reading what others have posted and the links provided I can definitely say that I find that moral position unassailably perilous to an overly (and overtly) violent role of government.

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.

Just because you can? It's a privilege(right) to carry. It should be exercised regularly at the peril of it's loss. But obviously not in this context, the man initiated contact with the police not the other way around.

He should have parked a safe distance away and taped from there.

Wow i've been waiting for the "put up or shut up" for a while, it's nice to hear Maddow actually say it -

"you ignore the public option .... at your very grave peril"

But it makes me wonder, does America even care enough for this to be true?

It's pretty, but also realize the perils of PC graphics where it might be a while till you get this in your average game. Three years later after DirectX 10 and you still have AAA name titles being released in DirectX 9. When DirectX 10 was new the cards that supported the features were noticeably slower in DX10 stuff. Now, cards have caught up so I imagine the same cycle will happen again for DX11. The number of DX11 titles currently available can literally be counted on one hand and few people have the necessary hardware (ATI Radeon HD 5xxx series)

As far as tech, the only really big difference vs. DirectX 9 I noticed were Crepuscular rays and a bit better detail. The ambient occlusion was not really that standout, perhaps not the best demo for it in sunlight like that?

At thats before we even talk about the perils of an aging population!

Come on. Pointing at a comic and saying "your suggestions simply are not feasible!". No fucking shit. Its still funny.

And Socialist Nazis

Every large movement has more than its share of fringe elements who try to maximize their own kookery by attaching themselves to a more legitimate movement. For example, the anti-war movement in the Bush administration was jam packed with kooks. The Code Pinkers, the Cindy-Sheehans, and on and on. However, simply because there was a bunch of kooks sucking like leeches on the anti-war movement does not mean that the movement itself was misguided or composed ONLY of lunatics.

Republicans tried to marginalized the anti-war movement by falsely attempting to paint the anti-war 'kooks' as the bulk of the movement. It didn't wash because the bulk of the movement WASN'T anti-war freak-niks. The bulk of the movement in that case was AMERICA who didn't like the war or (at least) how it was being run. Exact same thing as the Tea Party movement. Sure there are a few radicals. But by and large the vast bulk of this large movement is composed of normal, everyday Americans who are angry and displeased with lack of government fiscal responsibility.

Ignore it at your peril, Democrat party. You can pretend the Tea Party isn't 'legitimate' all you want. You can send flacks like MadCow and Doberman to try and falsely portray them as kooks by focusing on the fringes and ignoring the majority. But what group is truly the delusional one in that event?