..and how does one wash a microphone. ..eeeeew!

If we let the people out of prison, who will operate the factories they are attached to? Where will we get our cheap paint and crappy fiberboard office furniture?

(In the United States)the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people. (...)

Profits are so good that now there is a new business: importing inmates with long sentences, meaning the worst criminals. When a federal judge ruled that overcrowding in Texas prisons was cruel and unusual punishment, the CCA signed contracts with sheriffs in poor counties to build and run new jails and share the profits. According to a December 1998 Atlantic Monthly magazine article, this program was backed by investors from Merrill-Lynch, Shearson-Lehman, American Express and Allstate, and the operation was scattered all over rural Texas. That state's governor, Ann Richards, followed the example of Mario Cuomo in New York and built so many state prisons that the market became flooded, cutting into private prison profits.

After a law signed by Clinton in 1996 - ending court supervision and decisions - caused overcrowding and violent, unsafe conditions in federal prisons, private prison corporations in Texas began to contact other states whose prisons were overcrowded, offering "rent-a-cell" services in the CCA prisons located in small towns in Texas. The commission for a rent-a-cell salesman is $2.50 to $5.50 per day per bed. The county gets $1.50 for each prisoner.

Source=/globalreasearch.ca/Vicky Pelaez/2008

Lavalier microphone.

That being said, if you're a woman and someone asks you to strap a large cylindrical object between your legs...tell me your mind doesn't conjure the same image mine does when I see it.

That's the exact same microphone we have.>> ^dag:

I've got that wicked mic pictured above, the Blue Yeti.

http://camstudio.org/ can record the screen and audio from a microphone and is free. You also want to install xvid and make camstudio use that to encode the video so you don't end up with files that are many GBs just for a few minute long video.

It's pretty sad that Ted Nugent is somebody someone listens to, so much that Cenk feels the need to fling shit at him. In a real society his voice wouldn't be considered unless he made poignant reasonable arguments. Instead our society points a camera an a microphone at anyone who's just got shit to say, inflammatory shit hopefully.

Disagreeing is not fighting, troll.

See 0:50-1:00 here.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^RhesusMonk:
No one asked you to defend anything, bub. Didn't mean to pick a fight.>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^RhesusMonk:
I'm pretty sure I know why you don't think this is real (whether you're aware of it or not), and it has nothing to do with nuance. Play it again. (a) The voice does doppler as he moves to and from the mic; (b) There is not a single moment where the lips or Adam's Apple are not perfectly in sync with the recording (a near impossibility while lip-syncing, especially with this guy's idiosyncratic syncopation); (c) The acoustics in that auditorium are excellent (considering how loud the performers' snaps come through), which may explain the reduced dopplering that you experienced; (d) It is very unlikely that the mic in the video is the only device through which the recording was made, which again explains reduced doppler effect. I hate to call you out, but the unlikeliness of this guy's voice is what makes this so incredibly promote-able.>> ^MaxWilder:
I find it hard to believe this is real. Not because he doesn't "look" like he could have that kind of voice, but because the sound of his voice is rock solid and extremely nuanced while the man is nowhere near the mic and constantly changing position. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think you get that kind of recording outside of a studio.
Edit: Awesome version of this song, whoever actually sang it.


You're pretty sure of my deep inner beliefs? Pray tell, what are they?
Also, moving toward/away from a mic should cause change in volume, not a noticeable doppler effect. He would have to be running past the microphone for that to happen.
And since I explicitly said "I could totally be wrong" I see no need to defend my opinions, which are my honest opinions and I stand behind them after multiple viewings.


Ok... contradicting everything I said, claiming to know what I'm actually thinking is different from what I posted, and then using the phrase "call you out"... and you didn't mean to pick a fight? I think perhaps you need to consider your words a tiny bit more before hitting that "submit" button.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

No one asked you to defend anything, bub. Didn't mean to pick a fight.>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^RhesusMonk:
I'm pretty sure I know why you don't think this is real (whether you're aware of it or not), and it has nothing to do with nuance. Play it again. (a) The voice does doppler as he moves to and from the mic; (b) There is not a single moment where the lips or Adam's Apple are not perfectly in sync with the recording (a near impossibility while lip-syncing, especially with this guy's idiosyncratic syncopation); (c) The acoustics in that auditorium are excellent (considering how loud the performers' snaps come through), which may explain the reduced dopplering that you experienced; (d) It is very unlikely that the mic in the video is the only device through which the recording was made, which again explains reduced doppler effect. I hate to call you out, but the unlikeliness of this guy's voice is what makes this so incredibly promote-able.>> ^MaxWilder:
I find it hard to believe this is real. Not because he doesn't "look" like he could have that kind of voice, but because the sound of his voice is rock solid and extremely nuanced while the man is nowhere near the mic and constantly changing position. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think you get that kind of recording outside of a studio.
Edit: Awesome version of this song, whoever actually sang it.


You're pretty sure of my deep inner beliefs? Pray tell, what are they?
Also, moving toward/away from a mic should cause change in volume, not a noticeable doppler effect. He would have to be running past the microphone for that to happen.
And since I explicitly said "I could totally be wrong" I see no need to defend my opinions, which are my honest opinions and I stand behind them after multiple viewings.



Ok... contradicting everything I said, claiming to know what I'm actually thinking is different from what I posted, and then using the phrase "call you out"... and you didn't mean to pick a fight? I think perhaps you need to consider your words a tiny bit more before hitting that "submit" button.

No one asked you to defend anything, bub. Didn't mean to pick a fight.
If anyone else is in doubt, see 0:50-1:00 here.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^RhesusMonk:
I'm pretty sure I know why you don't think this is real (whether you're aware of it or not), and it has nothing to do with nuance. Play it again. (a) The voice does doppler as he moves to and from the mic; (b) There is not a single moment where the lips or Adam's Apple are not perfectly in sync with the recording (a near impossibility while lip-syncing, especially with this guy's idiosyncratic syncopation); (c) The acoustics in that auditorium are excellent (considering how loud the performers' snaps come through), which may explain the reduced dopplering that you experienced; (d) It is very unlikely that the mic in the video is the only device through which the recording was made, which again explains reduced doppler effect. I hate to call you out, but the unlikeliness of this guy's voice is what makes this so incredibly promote-able.>> ^MaxWilder:
I find it hard to believe this is real. Not because he doesn't "look" like he could have that kind of voice, but because the sound of his voice is rock solid and extremely nuanced while the man is nowhere near the mic and constantly changing position. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think you get that kind of recording outside of a studio.
Edit: Awesome version of this song, whoever actually sang it.


You're pretty sure of my deep inner beliefs? Pray tell, what are they?
Also, moving toward/away from a mic should cause change in volume, not a noticeable doppler effect. He would have to be running past the microphone for that to happen.
And since I explicitly said "I could totally be wrong" I see no need to defend my opinions, which are my honest opinions and I stand behind them after multiple viewings.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

I'm pretty sure I know why you don't think this is real (whether you're aware of it or not), and it has nothing to do with nuance. Play it again. (a) The voice does doppler as he moves to and from the mic; (b) There is not a single moment where the lips or Adam's Apple are not perfectly in sync with the recording (a near impossibility while lip-syncing, especially with this guy's idiosyncratic syncopation); (c) The acoustics in that auditorium are excellent (considering how loud the performers' snaps come through), which may explain the reduced dopplering that you experienced; (d) It is very unlikely that the mic in the video is the only device through which the recording was made, which again explains reduced doppler effect. I hate to call you out, but the unlikeliness of this guy's voice is what makes this so incredibly promote-able.>> ^MaxWilder:
I find it hard to believe this is real. Not because he doesn't "look" like he could have that kind of voice, but because the sound of his voice is rock solid and extremely nuanced while the man is nowhere near the mic and constantly changing position. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think you get that kind of recording outside of a studio.
Edit: Awesome version of this song, whoever actually sang it.



You're pretty sure of my deep inner beliefs? Pray tell, what are they?

Also, moving toward/away from a mic should cause change in volume, not a noticeable doppler effect. He would have to be running past the microphone for that to happen.

And since I explicitly said "I could totally be wrong" I see no need to defend my opinions, which are my honest opinions and I stand behind them after multiple viewings.

Thank you kindly! I <3 SMZ so much.
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*promote

IF. And I say IF you ever find yourself in this position again.

REMOVE THE F-ING MICROPHONE OUT OF YOUR MOUTH!!!

>> ^Yogi:

One uses facts and respected intellectuals or authors. One is a guy with a microphone who is only there to make money.


Now, that's not fair. Limbaughs show serves a useful function. It allows us to easily identify idiots by listenership.

>> ^quantumushroom:

For all of you that chide Fox, Moyers's trumpeting shows are nothing close to being fair or balanced, he's a mirror for liberal vanity. At least Rush does his schtick on how own dime and creates wealth, which the Moyers's of the world then siphon away for who-knows-what.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Probably not, but do you notice how calm, reasoned and intelligent his show is? Why is it, do you think, that publicly funded media is so vastly superior to privately funded media? >> ^quantumushroom:
Has Moyers ever had a show that taxpayers didn't have to pay for?




One uses facts and respected intellectuals or authors. One is a guy with a microphone who is only there to make money.

LOVE IT!



Also, and this is nitpicky, but couldn't the sound-guys have just plugged in the microphones and kept the mics on the tables silent for a little more "realism"? I KNOW IT'S NITPICKY BUT COME ON!