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 think it's political posturing on behalf of the White House. It mirrors their original strategy of allowing the senators and congress to at least publicly appear to design the policy so the president can strike a moderate and neutral position. Since the public option ended up becoming so divisive, by scrapping it they're building a convincing narrative that they were willing to compromise whereas the Republicans simply weren't interested in entering the debate at all.

Will be interesting to see if they're right. The real tragedy though is that they missold it in the first place and allowed it to get to this point. What they initially proposed was an already compromised and moderate position that should have been palatable to Republicans since from my understanding it was quite similar to the one enacted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. The point they lost the Senate and the ability to pass the bill in both houses easily in the state that already has mandated health insurance and to a Senator who supported that state plan should have been the talking point for weeks yet I only read it a couple of times in print.

So, something tells me, no matter how much they compromise here, the narrative will still be that they've created a fascist socialist (?) utopia.

>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^Jinx:
How is the distance between Nevada and Iraq any different from the distance between a bomber and its target, or from an Artillery gun to its target. Is engaging your enemy only when you see the whites of their eyes somehow more palatable? Who'd have thought the most user friendly interface for shooting people in Virtual Reality would eventually be adopted to real life. You should all welcome it. Is it mere coincidence that collateral from modern wars is much less than from 100 years ago? Do you think thats because of improved weapons technology and training, or do you think its because todays GIs are saints compared to their 1945 brothers?
Yeah, guided missiles are better at not killing stuff.


I believe you are wrong. It is a difference because your taking life without the chance of your being taken. Its no different than playing halo online with some god mode, you get to live while everyone else dies. War in itself is wrong unless your purely defending imho. Look at that I did it without calling you a douche. A sense of pride overcomes me.


This is also much like when guns were invented. The further you are from your enemy when you attack, the less likely you'll witness any harm to yourself.

I believe this is misdirected anger. Being able to click a button and have someone die somewhere else on the planet is scary stuff. The real problem is the imaginary need to do this.

At the end of the day, the people in the position of those in the video likely have the same issue of knowing that they executed x number of people. I play violent video games in bliss, knowing nobody is harmed by my actions.

>> ^Jinx:
How is the distance between Nevada and Iraq any different from the distance between a bomber and its target, or from an Artillery gun to its target. Is engaging your enemy only when you see the whites of their eyes somehow more palatable? Who'd have thought the most user friendly interface for shooting people in Virtual Reality would eventually be adopted to real life. You should all welcome it. Is it mere coincidence that collateral from modern wars is much less than from 100 years ago? Do you think thats because of improved weapons technology and training, or do you think its because todays GIs are saints compared to their 1945 brothers?
Yeah, guided missiles are better at not killing stuff.



I believe you are wrong. It is a difference because your taking life without the chance of your being taken. Its no different than playing halo online with some god mode, you get to live while everyone else dies. War in itself is wrong unless your purely defending imho. Look at that I did it without calling you a douche. A sense of pride overcomes me.

As long as we all swallow the fact that we are killing on behalf of corporate profits, I have no problem with allowing our men and women in uniform to become more detached from the killing and safely on our own soil. Focus your anger on the bullshit happening in Washington DC on behalf of the military industrial complex, not the technology that keeps our people safe and their targets more precise.

If there was an actual team in the aircraft, would it be more palatable for you? If this kill required a squadron to punch through enemy lines and pull the trigger up close after mowing down hundreds of people in between, would you be happier?

Fight the root of the evil, not the improving tactics.

Totally solid point, Jinx. Still disgusting to me, though.>> ^Jinx:
How is the distance between Nevada and Iraq any different from the distance between a bomber and its target, or from an Artillery gun to its target. Is engaging your enemy only when you see the whites of their eyes somehow more palatable? Who'd have thought the most user friendly interface for shooting people in Virtual Reality would eventually be adopted to real life. You should all welcome it. Is it mere coincidence that collateral from modern wars is much less than from 100 years ago? Do you think thats because of improved weapons technology and training, or do you think its because todays GIs are saints compared to their 1945 brothers?
Yeah, guided missiles are better at not killing stuff.

How is the distance between Nevada and Iraq any different from the distance between a bomber and its target, or from an Artillery gun to its target. Is engaging your enemy only when you see the whites of their eyes somehow more palatable? Who'd have thought the most user friendly interface for shooting people in Virtual Reality would eventually be adopted to real life. You should all welcome it. Is it mere coincidence that collateral from modern wars is much less than from 100 years ago? Do you think thats because of improved weapons technology and training, or do you think its because todays GIs are saints compared to their 1945 brothers?

Yeah, guided missiles are better at not killing stuff.

^NR-At the core of your own "root ethics" is herd mentality having been spoon fed you through media, society affected by the indoctrination and mind control of the same, and your own individualistic ideals filtered through a collective ideal which is in actuality, an illusion created by those well-versed in controlling large numbers of people-My observations being based solely on your contributions to the sift, and your faith in a system of control and brainwash which used to be something fundamentally different in the early days of it's inception-
Group-think as described here by BF in the D&D cartoon example is part of every cartoon show, every public school classroom, every pep-rally or political event disguised as the same. People in the US have been systematically indoctrinated for years on time-honored models of mass mind control used by the best of the worst regimes throughout time immemorial to amass and concentrate wealth and secure empire. History does, is, and will repeat itself because humans are incredibly predictable. The fantasy created by the machine continues to strip away individualism from the masses as the same become increasingly less educated and subdued by creature comforts and endless mundane and unfulfilled toil-Reality checks become more and more difficult as the mind becomes more saturated with the illusion they create.

Eugenics has become more covert and insidious and mind control more palatable as endless diversion, manipulation of facts, and the systematic dumbing-down of an entire nation continues.

Bring back mallets to the head and TNT-back in the old days, cartoons were part of a special trip to the cinema and the only thing they were trying hard to sell was popcorn, candy, and a cool place to chill out in....well, sort of-Looking back on the early days of media manipulation and mind-control, the tactics look remedial compared to today, to the un-schooled eye.

I voted yes, but campion is righteous in his observations, eh? Tell ya what, fellow strummer....may I? Make a website dedicated just that. I tried an accordion channel, it did not work out so well.

By the by, bang for the buck-wise, I have decided that the guitar to use as the primary care giver for myself, to be the Gibson SG...Out of the box, perfection but a bit of tweaking in the hands of a smitty, n she'll give ya hours of unadulterated pleasure-I like the effects package of the Digitech EX-7 expression factory pedal, though the functionality of an everything-in-one pedal is a frikkin live-music nightmare....you simply can't beat the individual spread of the palatalized gearbox.

My second choice for guitar would be a resonator , one that fits yer particular style of pickin' and pressure...try a Johnson or a Dean. Oh and, the warm glow of the tube amp, only. The Marshall has gotten better and better with the solid-state/tube combos...try a Vintage Modern 2266C, for all yer ear-bludgeoning needs.

Alas, I have lost my gear this last year to pawn....another reason to forego nitrous oxide and cocaine, until you become liberated from the bonds of the devil, money....or I mean, forever.

Pwn'd.

To clarify:
John Stewart pwn'd this segment. Hilarious, concise, and well-dissected. "Hello, I'm ReverendTed. I'm a Republican, and I love John Stewart."

The Republicans pwn'd this election. Of all seats to win at this particular moment - Kennedy's.

The Democrats pwn'd the Republicans. Because the Republicans are celebrating the fact that they're no longer being absolutely dominated.

I'll say this: a Supermajority with an Executive of the same party is dangerous and damaging regardless of who is in power. The two party system is fundamentally flawed, yes, but when the parties know cooperation is necessary then things get watered down until they're palatable (or at least not patently offensive) to the majority of Americans - people who have nuanced and personal opinions about issues rather than the right-wing\left-wing party lines. The Democrats have crafted this health bill knowing that Republicans have been powerless to oppose it, and then accused the Republicans of partisan politics and refusal to compromise. "I live in New York, and you live in L.A., so let's compromise and meet in Philadelphia. What? You can't accept that? Well you just don't believe in compromise!"

Heh. Did I seriously just suggest that Americans have "nuanced and personal opinions" about issues?

Well, it works, but apparently there's a little bit of a trick to it - there's a natural tendency for the soft palate to close off communication between the nose and the mouth when the mouth is open, so you have to get a "feel" for what's going on back there. Even when it was working, the effect wasn't as pronounced as shown in the video, though admittedly I didn't ram the buds too far up there. I'd guess it probably works better for people with a lower Mallampati score.

I think part two was better than part one. Also, I agree, Michael Moore is far more palatable. He's willing to continue discussing points. Hannity diverts whenever he doesn't like where it's going.

When people blame this financial crisis on the borrower it makes me sick. Is it someone's fault they got hit by a car, couldn't do their job, and hence couldn't pay back a mortgage? Does any amount of "reading the contract" help with that?

Now, is it someone's fault if you ask them to watch their wallet, and they put the whole damn thing on the blackjack table? I don't care if you can count cards. Put the wallet in your pocket and bet your own money.

Why haven't they fixed the capital requirements yet?

"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." -JMK

Crudely put, exaggerated, and using loaded language - but I think the fundamental analysis is sound. Obama is a racist. A black racist, and he holds many racist views and opinions about white people. It's sad to say, you can't examine his words and his record without arriving at this conclusion. The man is uncomfortable around white people and holds many prejudices against them. That's racism.

Look at how he treated the whole Beergate issue. He blatantly admitted that he "didn't know the facts", but went ahead and made the assumption that the white police officer "acted stupidly". Well, thanks to a smart police officer we know that's total bullcrap. Gates was belligerent, offensive, insulting, and WAY out of line and it was all on tape. The officer did everything by the book, and was more than forbearing with the obviously racist Mr. Gates who routinely refused to cooperate with simple, common sense requests just because he was dealing with a white cop (who happened to be an expert on racial profiling).

So Obama weighs in without any facts and ASSUMED that this was all the officers fault for no reason except that in his racist brain "White cop + black citizen = white person bad". Well it all blew up in his face because when you make a STUPID RACIST ASSUMPTION based on your negative prejudices then it doesn't hold up. The facts proved that not only was Crowley right, but that Gates was a class-A jackass racist.

So what does Obama do? Does he apologize to the cops that he maligned and insulted. Nope. He has the cheek and gall to go out and say how he 'regrets that people mis-interpreted his comments". He doesn't even have the guts to admit when he's wrong because in his racist mind he thinks he's RIGHT. He's such a racist that he can't even bring himself to admit that Gates was totally 100% wrong in how he handled himself, and that Crowley was 100% right. Instead he clings to his prejudices and his biases and pretends that the cop still could have handled things better. That's RACISM.

So's crap like saying his own grandma is a 'typical white person'. So's going to Reverend Wright's little race palace for 20 years and not walking out when he rails against all the whiteys. So's writing a freaking BOOK called "A story of RACE and inheritance" in which he talks about the 'act' he puts on around white people.

Face facts folks. Glenn Beck isn't exactly very eloquent about it, and he tries to make it sound worse than it probably is, but when you get right down to it his basic accusation is correct. Obama is a racist who holds a TON of prejudices against white people. It's as plain as a Bulgarian pin-up. It doesn't mean Obama 'hates' white people. It just means that when he bumps into a white person that the little wheels in his brain paint a picture of that white guy which is colored with the palate of his biases. The result is that he 'treats' that person as if they're the "white man" caracature he's created in is brain. It doesn't mean he's going to joing the Blu Blax Blan or torch whitey homes. But when he's faced with a situation like the Gates/Crowley fiasco you better believe it makes him side with the jackasses like Gates 100% of the time for no reason except the other guy is white.

And that's sad. Pathetic and sad. I like to hope that intelligent people have more sense than that. But I have to shake my head and reluctantly conclude based on the preponderance of evidence (Obama's actions & words) that our President is a small, petty, prejudiced man.

It's is all about the lack of correct incentives.

Higher profits that doctors receive from running frivolous tests, combined with the overarching risk of lawsuits leads to the US having the highest per capita cost of health care for a developed nation.

Silmutaneously, and as a result insurance companies are pushed into a business strategy that underprovides care over a mass market approach that seeks to cover a larger portion of the population by subscribing healthier, younger people to cover the costs of insuring a greater number of sicker, older people - most likely because it's simply too expensive to cover sick people.

It doesn't really matter in the broad sense what kind of form a health care system takes, Switzerland's shown that compulsory health insurance provided by the private sector can work. On the other hand France and Canada have working publicly provided systems. I'm sure they all have their respective problems, but all of them are cheaper per capita and all are able to provide a reasonable level of care for all citizens leading to a productive, healthy workforce. Certainly none of them lead to a nation of 47 million uninsured.

Clinging to the derogatory label of socialism or espousing the vague virtues of libertarianism specifically when applied to health care provision is just meaningless noise in this case. The specific and only reasonable argument they made in this clip as far as I could tell is that a lack of competition will stifle innovation, but that's irrelevant here given that no one is proposing a compulsory public only system.

For what it's worth I'm not too keen on a public competitor. It's definitely the most expedient and political palatable in that it's immune to much of the propaganda that decimated Hilary's attempt at reform because people are able to stick with their current private providers. The problem is, okay suppose a public option does offer far more reasonable premiums that private insurance companies right now. As a result both the currently insured and those that could not previously afford it sign up. Assuming everything else stays the same, yes a larger portion of the population will be insured, but they'll be footing their bill through their taxes. The assumption is, this will force private insurance companies to cut costs and become more competitive, and sure there is no doubt they'll find ways to lower costs to some extent when pressured by increased competition.

The problem is though, they can't fix the structurally broken incentives they have no control over. They can't fix a tort system that encourages unnecessary lawsuits. They can't fix the tax exclusion that large employers get for health insurance which screws over small businesses and the self employed. A public option itself won't address this and at best it will work as a temporary bandaid. It's be far better at least in the long run to simply fix these structural issues through regulation and judicial reform, than introducing an unnecessary public option that arbitrarily set its own rates and is not itself subject to any real competitive pressure.

It cracks me up when the camera pans to the audience and at least one person is either picking their nose, yawning, sleeping or staring off into space.

This one is even better for this phenomenon: http://www.videosift.com/video/Daniel-Dennett-Is-Science-Showing-We-Don-t-Have-Free-Will

Dan Dennett is a true genius. It's too bad he isn't as flashy as Dawkins, as his ideas and the manner in which he communicates them would be much more palatable to religious conservatives.