This is the 2nd video where the author got the Concorde story wrong... It became profitable 8 years into service (1984), largely due to BA raising ticket prices and making it more of a luxury. And the Concorde division remained profitable until the crash in France, when they grounded all Concordes while they investigated the root cause. After they started flying again, people were still wary to buy Concorde tickets, and airlines could get more profit out of 1st class tickets on larger, slower planes. So both BA and AF phased them out ~2003.

Nope, me neither.

Which is sort of the point. It's unheard of that all of these agencies came to the same conclusion on a specific matter. Some may take this as an indicator of how damning the evidence really is, others see this as an indicator that the "assessments" were made on hierarchical levels reserved for political appointees.

The absence of dissent supports the second point of view. No group of analysts in their right mind would create a report without also strongly pointing out contradictory facts, inconsistencies, and separating fact from interpretation. That's what Hersh is referring to. This is not an NIE, it's an opinion piece. This memo by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (wierd name) goes down the same route:

As you will have gathered by now, we strongly suspect that the evidence your intelligence chiefs have of a joint Russian-hacking-WikiLeaks-publishing operation is no better than the “intelligence” evidence in 2002-2003 – expressed then with comparable flat-fact “certitude” – of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Now, an opinion piece might be sufficient if it came from credible institutions and had a moderatly important subject. But this is throwing serious accusations at a sovereign nation in times when diplomatic relations are stressed as it is. And that's not going into the credibility problem of many of these agencies, who have a very dubious track record on these issues.

Ian Welsh had a piece the other day on the CIA vs Trump, and his take on intelligence agencies is pretty close to what mine has been since I learned about the Stasi some 20 years ago:

The CIA and NSA are not the friend of any left-wing worth having: they are innately anti-democratic, anti-privacy, and anti-rights. Secret agencies are anathema to any open government. At an existential level, intelligence agencies are at best a double edged sword, and by their nature, they always wind up serving the interests of the few, against the interests of the people.

@asynchronice @Engels
this is opinion that just happens to be on RT.
the opinion is coming from chris hedges,a pulitzer prize winning,war correspondent for 20 years for the NYT.who has been extremely vocal in his criticism of american neoliberal policies.

he also has a show on RT called "on contact".

as always,the answer is discernment,and for that to happen there has to be a basic understanding of what propaganda actually is,and to dismiss hedges analysis simply due to the venue,is intellectually dishonest.

example:
it has been known for years that FOX news is a meme machine,a message of the day producer of misinformation and obfuscation.

does this mean that every story FOX covers is false? or manipulated?

of course not.

conversely,does this mean that every story RT posts should be taken at face value?

again,the same calculus applies.

i find that when RT deals with the russian state,and stories regarding putin,they tend to lean towards state "message of the day",but when they cover stories that are critical of american foreign policy,they tend to source and back their conclusions in a solid journalistic manner.

in regards to the washington post and their latest appeals to power and influence,is just a symptom of a much larger problem.

if you recall back in 2003.when the bush administration was pushing for an invasion of iraq,the washington posts editorial board was possibly the biggest cheerleader.they outshine even the new york times in their desire to please their masters in the white house and pentagon,and because at that time print news still had credibility and washpo was,indeed,considered a beacon of stellar journalism (remember watergate?).they almost single handedly handed the war powers to president bush to execute an illegal war,based on lies.

so in my opinion,the washington post last it's credibility over a decade ago.this is also a main,driving factor why i abandoned corporate news media.

i prefer independent news outlets.the very same outlets that washpo,and their un-sourced propornot,targeted.

lie to me once...shame on you.
lie to me twice..shame on me.

If you're going make a video about the weird ways animals communicate, but neglect to mention herring farts, well, that's a missed opportunity.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1110_031110_herringfarts.html (TL;DR - Herring fart as a way of communicating.)

*promote

gay sex was illegal in certain states up until 2003. there are still statutes and attempts to keep it illegal in certain states. prior to 1963 it was a felony in every state. not the death penalty but worth noting.

I just know/work with the tech intimately, and I'm showing my aversion to PR videos. Their claim is *technically* true insofar as they had to write the software to do it the way they wanted to, because that's how they do things (and well; zero criticism of Pixar here). It certainly would have been more technically challenging to animate it with the tools of 2003, but whoever said it wasn't possible for technical limitations works for marketing, not art or animation.

Why do you say that's not true? I'm guessing they mean one of two things, both of which are plausible:

1: the hardware wasn't fast enough, i.e. it wasn't possible to render Hank in a reasonable timeframe. Remember, GPUs in particular are several orders of magnitude faster now than they were in 2003.

2: the software wasn't written. Almost certainly true, but not exactly accurate to say that it "wasn't possible with the technology".

I guess I didn't understand that part. That's incredibly depressing, that even discussing removing unconstitutional parts of a law would stop all discussion. We're worse off than even I imagined.

OK, considering what Mr Jones said, "Futile" I can agree with, although it also makes me depressed to think that's where we are as a country.

Sorry, I don't know acronyms, it probably is commonly known.

Touche. I guess yes, I can imagine a politician supporting it, but I WISH I couldn't. I WANT to think we're more adult than that....I would be wrong, but that's what I WANT to think.

Please note, we had a ruling against ALL these laws in 2003, so another precedent from 2015 doesn't give me much hope we won't see more of this.

Again, it doesn't make it WORSE, because it's already terrible. IF these laws were unused and just never removed, that would be one thing. Since they are STILL used against people, this is a battle I wish someone had picked.

I never intended to imply that it was an either/or choice. (EDIT: Sadly, it seems that may be the case, as they have yet to meaningfully address the water issue)

Since they DID change the law, they debated it. Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?
And for the reasons I delineated above, it's not pointless. Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless. They certainly have been a problem in the past, and as I said, holding the specter of their use returning is a horror we should not tolerate being inflicted on so many for no reason.
IANAL?
Your next paragraph is my point...I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes. That they neglect to take those 2 minutes, and instead again ratified this disgusting, unconstitutional part of an otherwise (seemingly) reasonable law is more than disgusting, it's a total shirking of their duty.
But yes, that's the US political climate. We're doomed.

*How's 1 year ago? Recent enough? There may be more recent.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/20/3624719/louisiana-police-arrest-two-men-anti-sodomy-law-declared-unconstitutional-2003/

EDIT: I understand that most people outside the US would be surprised that these laws are still on the books and being used, but they are. Often not prosecuted, but used to PERSECUTE instead.

Exactly, in the same way that Pandarans from Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne (2003) are a clone of Kung Fu Panda (2008). I don't know how Blizzard so consistently rips off the future.

@RFlagg
i am watching the video right now and have not gotten to the jessica lynch segment,but the jessica lynch story was utter bullshit:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0905-09.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/bbc-proves-jessica-lynch-rescue-story-was-a-hoax/

i agree with his underlying message that opinions are being manipulated by those who most profit/benefit.noam chomsky probably makes the best argument in his book "manufacturing consent".

No and yes. Its the violent and warmongering western policy in that region. We have always destabilized it, yet have learned nothing from it. We just keep going and then wonder why its getting worse. Its a neocon policy. Easy to stop, many people have already said what the solution would be, yet there are always the powerful neocons who live from fear mongering, suffering and wars. And of course from blind following people like you who support them.

2003 was just another puzzle piece. The support of extremists in Syria too, the support of them in Libya aswell. The support of Saudi Arabia is a very big puzzle piece. The CIA operations in that region just as much.
The support of Saddam Hussein also is another small puzzle piece, just as much as we made him think that he can attack Kuwait and we wont interfere. He thought that because we allowed him and instigated him to attack Iran, then supported both sides, because we wanted to destabilize that region once again. Did I mention the coup detat in Iran yet?
And its not that we werent warned about it. Lots of smart people said that giving the Jews Israel would end in disaster. The signs were easy to spot. Lots of people warned about an Iraq war in 2003. Even the neocons own people warned about the IS in documents, yet they ignored it and kept going, strengthening it even more. People warned about what would happen to Libya after Ghaddafi was gone. Again they did not care. Lots of people warned about what was going on in Syria, that Assad was confronted with an extremists group long before the "revolution" that is now known as Al Nusra, a branch of Al Kaida. What did they do? They weakened Assad. Lots of people warned about the refugee crisis and extremists flooding into Europe among those refugees. What do they do? They open the borders and let everyone in without any checks at all, even inviting the whole world to come, ignoring actual laws.

You see, good knowledge of history is mandatory to understand cause and effect. You dont have that knowledge, as you have proved already, because you try to marginalize it by including things from centuries ago and try to solve those with the same solutions from centuries ago. But I dont blame you, since youre probably American. American history teaching is as messed up as their foreign policy.
You cant see coherences in all that. Lots of people dont. Thats why we are doomed to repeat history.

I mean just look at the policy since 9/11. It was meant to bring us all more security from terrorist attacks like that. Yet it has only become worse. Extremists are stronger than ever before and keep getting stronger with everything we do to "weaken" them. And yet people like you dont ask themselves why, actually attack people like me who have realized whats wrong.
Intelligent species my ass.

The problem is that you think that you get to decide where the starting line is. The path you are pointing down requires taking in the totality of history, not using some arbitrary point that is within living memory

For example, when do you think this started?

Was it with the Arab Spring and Assad's put down of the revolution? Maybe the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Perhaps when Iraq invaded Kuwait? When Libya bombed the plane at Lockerbie? The 6-day war? The establishment of the state of Israel? British Colonialism in the Middle East? The Crusades? The Battle of Yarmouk in 636?

Trying to find a singular, root cause is not how you end a conflict. That is done through humanizing your enemy, recognizing the futility of your efforts, finding alternative means to meet your needs, compromising and forgiving.

(source: MA in conflict resolution and 5 years of peacebuilding work)

*Related

Satan Since 2003
http://videosift.com/video/Satan-Since-2003

I think it should be able to. Back in the Server 2003 days some people liked it better for desktop use than Windows XP.