The comments from Reston could have been written by me, word for word. I might add, however; what's wrong with calling government good (perhaps not "wonderful", but good)? I think there is more harm done by right-wing talk show hosts like Boortz.

If anything, TV is all advertising, not selling; which means announcing, promoting, or presenting items to create interest and thus create sales. TV is ideal for that. Selling is an interactive precess, requiring a seller and a buyer exchang items of value, either over the counter, by mail, intrnet, etc. TV cannot complete a single sale, therefore, to be techincally accurate, Paley has it exactly backwards. It's sort of the difference being fishing and catching. You don't have to catch any fish to be "fishing".

I fail to see the distinction between advertising and a selling. At the least, television does both, not one or the other.

True enough for a vice-president of sales and marketing to say. I wonder if the Chronicle's news or editorial departments would say the same thing.

That’s very interesting, Ken, but a nation-state is generally defined as a group of a relatively homogeneous people who live as a sovereign state. That has little to do with Huxley’s statism, which is a fairly high degree of centralized control of all economic activity

Almost the only element. The only one that counts. The art of leadership is the power of persuasion.

What "large-scale popular movement toward decentralization" could possibly overcome the natural tendency for societies, from chickens to chimpanzees, to have their pecking orders, or hierarchies of dominant leaders, which all members must adhere to? Like it or not, it has always been that way and not a new phenomenon, or "present tendency toward statism" as Huxley calls it. There are leaders and there are followers in all societies. The lot of the followers depends on the benevolence of the leaders. As soon as an egalitarian system is established a new dominant class develops. All that separates humans from chickens and chimps is the complexity of the classes. Huxley is 100% correct, except for calling it only a present day condition.

It's a relief to read your comments, Reston, instead of the constant cynicism of those who resent every penny they have to pay for the common good. Obviously, there have been enough like you to have produced what good society does provide. I hate to contemplate what it would be like if it were truly every man for himself..

Some people might want to live at the expense of others - certainly not everyone. If it were true, absolutely nothing could have ever been accomplished.

Better for the individual perhaps, but death does nothing to resist tyranny

Honor, like virtue, is its own reward. You know when you've earned it... and when you haven't.

Especially the distilled variety

I guess it depends on wherer you get your guide for personal virtue. St.Paul said: "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."(I Cor. 13:13) I say, Who cares?.

I think I agree with EGL. I'll give Darrow a couple of extra stars for semantics, but protesters still only serves to cause intelligent discourse, not actually hunch the world along. We need them. but it takes the doers to get anywhere

Objectors and rebels may keep the world moving in the right direction, but it's more positive activists that keep it moving.

I would not have agreed government was force without reason -- until now

A little too clever, even for satire. I can think of a few Americns at least as distinctly criminal as Congress. What about CEOs who lay off thousands of employees or cut their benefits, claiming the company will go bankrupt, then bail out with hundred million dollar golden parachutes?

At 6 billion to one, is it a fair fight?

An honest politician lets it be known who bought him.

It depends on the sci-fi. Stories by Clarke himself, as a scientist, explorer, and author of "2001:A Space Odyssey", could be educational, but other fiction, such as Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes would be just as worthwhile. The quote has no validity.

It is always time to pause and reflect, but the main reason a majority exists is people don't, and just jump on a bandwagon, as they did in the spring of 2003 when the president decided to demonstrate U.S. machismo and boost his approval rate back up to the high 70s after sliding from inauguration. Now that they've had time to pause and reflect, that's almost his disapproval rating

Politicians know it's pork that beefs up their personal economy. It's what keeps getting them elected.

Intended to be a joke, but makes no sense. No tribe of idiots could achieve dominance, or have any influence, in human affairs. It takes some smarts to pull it off.

I actually can't think of any other reason than self-importance to seek public office, except ancillary ones such as the modest pay and a few perqs, or fringe benefits. If it turns out well, however, it can provide ample after effects of high paying speaking engagements and book sales.

Or perhaps make a State of the Union Speech. He doesn't even have to hire a hall.