Slashdot Mirror


Sound Bites of the 1908 Presidential Candidates

roncosmos writes "Science News has up a feature on the first use of sound recording in a presidential campaign. In 1908, for the first time, presidential candidates recorded their voices on wax cylinders. Their voices could be brought into the home for 35 cents, equivalent to about $8 now. In that pre-radio era, this was the only way, short of hearing a speech at a whistle stop, that you could hear the candidates. The story includes audio recordings from the 1908 candidates, William Jennings Bryan and William Howard Taft. Bryan's speech, on bank failures, seems sadly prescient now. Taft's, on the progress of the Negro, sounds condescending to modern ears but was progressive at the time. There are great images from the campaign; lots of fun."

31 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds condescending to modern ears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    sounds condescending to modern ears but was progressive at the time

    As opposed to the non-condescending progressives of today.

    1. Re:Sounds condescending to modern ears by Neeperando · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The examples you quote are good ones (and I won't try to defend Obama's comments), but there are just as many cases where this idea of "anti-elitism" is misused.

      It's come to a point where simply being elite is considered elitism. John Kerry was considered out of touch with the common man because he liked wind surfing and went to Yale.

      How many times during the last few years have you heard people say something along the lines of "Just because you're a respected (climatologist | biologist | economist | theologian | lawyer | diplomat) doesn't mean you know more than me (global warming | evolution | economics | religion | law | foreign affairs) than I do"?

      I don't approve of intellectuals being condescending, but it's just as bad when people dismiss an idea as "elitism" simply because they disagree with it and it came from someone with a PhD.

      --
      Being a computer scientist means you tell people how computers should work, not that you know how they actually work.
    2. Re:Sounds condescending to modern ears by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Today's conservatives conserve the values of yesterday's revolutionaries. Today's progressives fight for what tomorrow's conservatives will fight to conserve.

    3. Re:Sounds condescending to modern ears by badasscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you seen the furor over Palin's belief in creationism? What about people who oppose all religion? All of these things show that they think they know better than the people that they're talking about.

      People think that conservatives are anti-intellectual, which isn't necessarily the case. It's that they're anti-elitism.

      If you believe in creationism, then yes, you are anti-intellectual by definition. There is no reason guiding a belief in creationism; only faith.

      And "elite" means "above average" or "excellent". If you're anti-elite, then you're pro-mediocrity, and that's certainly not a quality I look for in a leader. But it is a belief that got us George Bush.

      I'm pro-elite and proud of it. We should be demanding more from our leaders, not less. If I want somebody I can drink a beer with, I'll call up a friend. That's not what I'm expecting from a President (or Vice President, for that matter).

      When it comes down to it, there are people in this country and in the world who think that if you hold a certain belief, you are instantly a moron and someone who isn't to be given respect.

      When your beliefs have been disproven by science many, many times in many, many ways, and those scientific results have been published in very public ways over a period of a century or more, then they're probably right to think that.

      Do you also believe the world is flat? And should I not think you a moron for that belief?

    4. Re:Sounds condescending to modern ears by Kagura · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... Pro-Life, etc....

      I think pro-life is about as indefensible of a position as anyone can come up with. I'm anti-life. Kill 'em all, I say! ;)

    5. Re:Sounds condescending to modern ears by TheLostSamurai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, as some guy (probably an elitist son of a bitch) once said, "Common sense is not all that common."

      --
      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
  2. Can't listen, Flash only by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Had they put up some mp3, FLAC, WMA or similar files, it would be easy to listen to. However, they chose to use that insecure, and wholly inappropriate, Flash to distribute an audio file.

    It's a shame too, because I'm sure the recordings would be interesting to hear.

    It just goes to show why Flash must die.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Can't listen, Flash only by Kratisto · · Score: 5, Funny

      Spoiled kids today. In MY day, we had to listen to presidential debates on wax cylinders! And it cost us the equivalent of eight dollars, too!

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
    2. Re:Can't listen, Flash only by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's nice, but why the hell couldn't they just link to them directly? Why do they go out of their way to make their site completely unusable to those of us who don't use flash? It's so easy to do it right, why do so many places get it wrong?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Can't listen, Flash only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, and some day my "why can't all sites work the same without javascript" campaign will catch on, too.
       
        Why can't all sites work the same without javascript! I shouldn't have to use that trash!

    4. Re:Can't listen, Flash only by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Funny

      What are you talking 'bout, you young whippersnapper? Tarnation, in MY day we didn't have no dad blamed newfangled wax cylinders. We had to trudge hundreds of miles through the snow, uphill (both ways) to find a whistle stop where we could hear the varmints. Before shootin' at 'em, of course. Gotta make sure ya ain't shootin' at the wrong one. Then we'd tar and feather 'em and run 'em outta town on a rail.

      I'd tell ya to git offen my lawn, but we didn't even have no durned lawns back then.

    5. Re:Can't listen, Flash only by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why can't all sites work the same without javascript

      Because people don't know how to code. Some javascript is needed and useful, but 99% of it isn't. My old Quake site used javascript, but if you didn't have javascript it degraded gracefully. The Stroggs still danced, but mousing over the one on the right didn't have Sonic the Hedgehog running past and getting squished. With javascript the nav buttons were animated when you moused over them, without they just sat there with the arrow cursor turning into a hand pointer.

      "Dopey Smurf" was a medical student who had a rat he was dissecting wake up and bite him once. When he decided to close his site, I "sent him a box of invisible rats". Actually we set it up with a news item on his site that I'd sent a box of invisible rats, so whatever you do FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T CLICK THIS LINK!!! or the invisible rats would escape and eat his site. If you clicked the link, invisible rats actually did come out and eat his site; there was a GIF animation of teeth marks, yellow rat shapes covering the page, which left it just like Joost Shuur's Slipgate Central after it closed. We didn't use a single line of javascript, just an HTML link and an animated GIF.

      You young folks missed it, the internet was lots of fun back then. Now it's all javascript, flash, and advertising.

  3. banking by thermian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't the whole reason you got the greenback dollar because Lincoln didn't want to get the US govt into hock with the banks?

    I was under the impression that there was always a significant distrust of banks in the US, until recently that is. I am astonished that a country which refuses to pay for a national 'free at point of provision' health service, supported by taxes, yet they happily hand over the entire country's income tax to the banking system, and now 700 billion because they stayed greedy for a bit too long.

    That also puzzles me. Why not, just to throw a wild idea out, take a portion of the bad dept on for the people who are getting kicked out. I mean like buy 1/2 or 2/3 of the dept from the citizens affected, so they aren't evicted.

    Surely that would work just as well.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:banking by rhsanborn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's been mentioned that for about 75 Billion the US Gov could give 100k to each of the households currently in foreclosure, which should stop that process. Unfortunately, the issue isn't necessarily the houses that ARE in foreclosure, as only between 1-2% (from figures I've heard) are in foreclosure. The issue, is that no one wants to buy the securities based on the possibility that more will go into foreclosure. The US Gov is offering to buy all the securities based on the sub-prime mortgages which would remove the concern about buying a mortgage backed security that might be poisoned with possible, future foreclosures.

      Unfortunately, either option seems silly. First, we're rewarding foolishness on the part of both the buyer and seller, which only encourages further such action in the future. Second, unemployment is still at reasonable levels, there may not be as much credit on the market, but the market is definitely not dry, and won't be as long as the fed keeps money available which it's done all along.

      It looks like fear mongering on behalf of wall street is about to put 700 billion dollars into the pockets of the upper 90% via stock increases as banks unload these securities which they should have never created in the first place.

    2. Re:banking by philspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      which to many Americans (who are, let's be honest, people and therefore stupid)

      Fixed that minor point for you. It's not like the good people of the rest of the world are magically resistant to propaghanda or sufficiently knowledgeable about economic systems.

    3. Re:banking by superdave80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not, just to throw a wild idea out, take a portion of the bad dept on for the people who are getting kicked out. I mean like buy 1/2 or 2/3 of the dept from the citizens affected, so they aren't evicted.

      So, my taxes, that came out of my pocket, should pay off the loan of another person? Why stop there? Use my money to pay people's rent, utilities, etc.

      People seem to think that a person losing their home is the end of the world. Rent an apartment (people do it all the time), and make sure you save wisely enough to be able to pay for your house next time.

    4. Re:banking by robertjw · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The real problem here was the burst in the bubble of real estate prices. I thought (not completely sure of this) that we were likely through the worst of the foreclosures. Of course, this may depend on the economy. Problem is, home prices have dropped and many people owe more on their home than it is currently worth. This makes these mortgage notes extremely high risk. Forclosures aren't really a problem if the property values match up with the mortgages. This is why, traditionally, you had to have a certain percentage downpayment on a house. The mortgage companies have looked the other way on some of this, and now are looking at owning a bunch of overpriced houses.

      It is unclear to me if helping pay housing debt will fix the problem, and it would be incredibly expensive to give everyone in the country who is (currently) upside down in their mortgage enough money to make the notes they hold worth something - more expensive than helping the banks out.

      We have two suggestions on how to solve this:

      1. Government buys securities from banks, giving the banks a shot in the arm, and getting the "bad" securities out of the way so that investors will be more willing to purchase new ones.

      2. Government helps pay housing debt from individuals, preventing their foreclosure. Knowing that the foreclosure rate isn't going to spike up (because gov't is preventing exactly that), the securities start being purchased again (as they are no longer perceived to be a bad investment, since a massive foreclosure spike isn't on the horizon anymore). The difference is that a bunch of people get thrown out of their homes on option 1, and they likely have very different costs (not sure how different, offhand). It seems like either gets you to the same place in the end, however.

      No, the difference here, is that in solution 1 banks and other financial institutions that have made bad decisions get a pass. This is only acceptable because a failing bank, insurance company, brokerage firm, etc... impacts EVERYONE. This staves off another great depression.

      Solution 2 results in a bunch of individuals who made bad decisions getting a pass, plus a lot of profiteers jumping on the bandwagon (heck, if they passed something like this I might get real delinquent on my mortgage really fast). IMHO if you made a bad decision you should get thrown out of your home. One of my pet peeves in this whole situation is the 'thrown out of your home' argument. MOST people who are in trouble have only owned their home a few years. It's not like this property has been in the family for generations and now they are losing it. It's not like the kids grew up there. They purchased a home on a bad loan, couldn't afford it, and will have to move out. Most of them have no equity in the home (otherwise we wouldn't have a problem), so if the lender allows them to make a short sale, they really aren't out too much. It's not like we are going to have millions of people living under bridges - they just won't OWN their house anymore.

  4. Surprised, Am I by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    35 cents, equivalent to about $8

    I'm surprised that the inflation rate is so low for what had to be cutting edge technology of the era. Considering that a modern music CD that costs literal pennies to press sells (or attempts to sell, considering recent sales figures) for up to twice that price I wonder what figure was used for the amount of inflation over the last century.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  5. Panic of 1873 by MrMunkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just got done reading an article about the Economic Panic of 1873 and how that depression more closely resembles what's currently happening. This might explain why Bryan was talking about bank failures. It was still fresh in their minds.

    http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=477k3d8mh2wmtpc4b6h07p4hy9z83x18

    1. Re:Panic of 1873 by goatpunch · · Score: 5, Funny

      People didn't have the same concept of time in the olden days, two events in the same century seemed practically simultaneous to them. They also walked very quickly, talked in funny voices, and could only see in black and white.

  6. Todays Presidental Race by [cx] · · Score: 5, Funny

    McCain must be excited to hear his old wax cylinder recordings again.

  7. Re:Tag failures by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a purpose to having tags?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  8. Bit-torrenting like its 1908 by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course what they don't tell you is that most people just ripped the wax cylinders into an oral history form and passed it on that way via a peer to peer approach.

    People complained that the problem with the P2P network was that you couldn't tell what was the original and what was either a bad copy or just some virus put in there by someone else to mislead people, but people in South Texas claimed it was the only way they could do it as the Wax cylinders were not available in their area due to them melting.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  9. Banking and Democrat Change by Orne · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem is that the people who were supposed to oversee Fannie Mae are the same people that are now supporting a certain Democrat candidate for president, and it would not be beneficial for the media to expose those relationships to the public-at-large until after the election.

    I don't understand how the Enron Trial is on the tip of everyone's tongue, but the media isn't calling to put these banking executive in jail for a fraud that is 10x worse!

    1. Re:Banking and Democrat Change by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're so full of misinformation. Barney Frank was the one who passed regulations on Freddie & Fannie. In July 2007 Frank became chairman and he and the Democrats passed regulations within two months. These regulations had been blocked by the house Republicans since 1994.

      It's incredible that the Republicans claim the big mean Democrats prevented them from instituting a proper regulatory framework despite over a decade of Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

  10. Re:Prescient? by WamBam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your argument seems to be that the government forced companies to take on loans from 'minorities and the poor'. You didn't quite work yourself into a froth about liberalism, affirmative action or whatever else you think is wrong with left but it seems like you were heading in that direction.

    If you look at the people who are defaulting on mortgages it's not really minorities and the poor (I guess in your mind minority = poor?) but mostly middle class Americans who took out loans that they couldn't afford to pay back. Just look at where these defaulters live and you'll see that suburban middle class (white, black, hispanic, etc.) enclaves are most effected.

    I won't disagree with you that some of this crisis has it's roots during the Clinton era or that the government is partially to blame. I'd blame the government for not regulating the lending industry enough rather then accusing them of forcing risky loans on companies. These companies, as well as the housing industry, wanted to take on these loans because they saw green and more importantly, other institutions wanted the securities these loans were wrapped up in because they thought it would make them money.

    Please don't use this crisis as some sort of attack against the poor and/or minorities. It just makes you sound ignorant.

  11. You must be able to see to hear this Flash audio by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really? Flash is pretty easy to use, too.

    How easy? Can you use it with your eyes closed? For sake of argument, I'll allow you to have a braille display.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  12. Re:Prescient? by Herkum01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The government may have adjusted the rules to try and give people loans to poorer people, but you cannot say the bank was forced to give them loans. There is a lot of process that goes into getting a loan which includes checks and balances on whom is supposed to get approved. The fact of the matter is that too many people had in an interest in pushing loans, good or bad, because they got an immediate payoff and they could pass a bad loan to someone else. Think of all the people who get a cut when you sell a house,

    • Real Estate Agent
    • Property Assessor
    • Mortgage Broker
    • the Seller
    • Rating's Agencies
    • and the BANK!

    That's right, the bank got an immediate payoff for making the loan! Why? Because they turned around and sold the loan. Basically everyone could pass the buck onto someone else. Unless your were the final sucker who got caught holding the loan which ends up worthless. It was a game of hot-potato being played by financial experts who convinced themselves they knew better than someone else.

    As for politcal activism, that is a load of crap. It came down to businesses wanted to do business anyway they like without any oversight, it was only a matter of time before someone came up with this Ponzi scheme. If people had to actually hold onto the loans that they made none of this stuff would have happened. But you would have had rich financial analyst's screaming "this not a free market!"

  13. What CRA Whiners Aren't Telling You by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The CRA only applies to banks.

    Despite the fact that CRA appears to have increased bank and thrift lending in low- and moderate-income communities, such institutions are not the only ones operating in these areas. In fact, with new and lower-cost sources of funding available from the secondary market through securitization, and with advances in financial technology, subprime lending exploded in the late 1990s, reaching over $600 billion and 20% of all originations by 2005. More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision

    http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/barr021308.pdf

    The CRA is only at worst 50% responsible (an additional 30% of the subprime loans were made by "affiliates" of banks, and therefore partially covered by CRA, the remaining 20% of all loans were made directly by banks... and the worst case scenario is that the regulators were there twisting the banks' arms for every single loan). The other 50% of the mortgages were irrefutably made of the originators' free will.

    Secondly, the CRA doesn't call for Option ARMs or interest-only loans or giving people money with zero down or piggybacking another mortgage for the down payment or liar loans... those are entirely the invention of the banks and mortgage companies that offered them.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  14. conservatives are anti-elitism? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like Phil Gramm, McCain's economic advisor, who calls people "whiners" if they think the economy is doing badly?

    Heck, conservatives are most of the elite---Bush beat Kerry by huge margins among people making $200k+, even in states that Kerry otherwise won handily (he won 64-35% among that demographic in California). Rich liberals are a fairly small subset of overall rich people---even in California, conservative aerospace/defense industry, real-estate, and import/export businessmen far outnumber Hollywood actors and tech bosses.