Lee Scott didn't "beg" Congress to raise the minimum wage in October 2005; he suggested that they "look at it." Even as he reiterated his view that the current minimum wage is outdated this week, he noted that the company is not devoting resources to lobbying for an increase.

There's a company in Massachusetts called Koch Industries. They pronounce it like Coke.

Those are all valid points, James.

The issues I typically see with sub-$1k LCDs are ghosting, relatively inaccurate colors, and unacceptable black levels. A few of the high-end 32" LCDs (the Sharp Aquos displays, the Sony Bravia KDL-V32XBR1, and a few others) seem to have overcome some of these issues, but the Sony's MSRP is $2700--nearly three times as expensive.

Unless you're a heavy gamer or plan to use the panel as a computer display (which might discourage you from buying a plasma), I think plasmas offer the better value at the moment.

But if you're set on an LCD and can't wait for the price/performance ratio to improve, I'd lean towards the cheaper models at this point. Given how rapidly LCD prices are falling, the performance gains of an Aquos or Sony Bravia XBR just doesn't justify the additional investment.

A universal approach won't be as easy as it sounds. There are many issues with intellectual property rights. For those interested, News.com took a look at some of the challenges here:

http://news.com.com/A+DVD+combo+Dont+hold+your+breath/2100-1041_3-6024875.html

Agree with #1. The most common criticisms of flat-panel direct-view LCDs are black levels, color accuracy, and response time. If the 6ms is black-to-black, the contrast ratio is real, and the color accuracy is improved over earlier Aquos models, consider me stoked; I think Sharp makes the finest LCDs short of Sony's XBR series at a significantly lower price, and these improvements might narrow the gap.