You make this point but I am guessing that you are not willing to accepts its inverse, which was the point Kofi was alluding to.

By your logic:
Syria is well within its rights to attack the US because they are actively aiding rebels.
Iran is well within its rights to attack Syrian rebels because they are undermining a client state.
Syria is well within its rights to bomb Israel because they are housing US weapons.

Or as Glenn Greenwald put it :

One could say quite reasonably that this is the pure expression of the crux of US political discourse on such matters: they must abide by rules from which we're immune, because we're superior. So much of the pseudo-high-minded theorizing emanating from DC think thanks and US media outlets boils down to this adolescent, self-praising, tribalistic license: we have the right to do X, but they do not.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Glenn Greenwald' to 'Glenn Greenwald, Obama, drones, human rights' - edited by Boise_Lib

the sift needs more @marinara sauce!
*promote greenwald calling our failed journalists out for their pansy and lock-step reporting.
we need a propaganda channel.

Also, here's a much better TYT segment on the issue:

http://videosift.com/video/Glenn-Greenwald-Vs-Prof-Lessig-On-Citizens-United

A debate between thoughtful people who actually know what they're talking about, as opposed to the silly demagoguery in this video.

^ Auger8

In 2009, Portugal's Decriminalized drugs which Showed a Positive Result 5 years after for deaths from overdoses and the rate of HIV cases. The theory however was to start focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users which would decrease the number of deaths and infections. (& i have not heard Paul make this his standpoint). "Now instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely," report author Glenn Greenwald said.

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

Drug legalization removes all criminal penalties for producing, selling and using drugs; no country has tried it. In contrast, decriminalization, as practiced in Portugal, eliminates jail time for drug users but maintains criminal penalties for dealers. Spain and Italy have also decriminalized personal use of drugs and Mexico's president has proposed doing the same. there is a difference between the two & legalisation of all drugs was not what was done here.

thanks back at ya =)

i'm a china analyst serving overseas for the state dept

and you?

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

You can't cause the electorate to become educated any more than you can cause people to stop being greedy, unless you're talking OWS-style education.>> ^marinara:

Feb 15, 2010 is the date of this video.
IMHO, there's no good way to prevent cash from deciding elections. public campaign financing is a start. but IMHO an educated electorate is more important.

>> ^Diogenes:

@criticalthud
let's be really clear... i agree with your position on corporate personhood
but... we can use "citizens united" to abbreviate the scotus decision: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission... and how that decision has overturned several previous legal precedents and aspects of bcra -- and we can also use "citizens united" to refer directly to the non-profit group of the same name...
i'm just pointing out the latter (the npo) filed suit against the fec because they felt that a media corporation (moore, et al) was violating bcra - the fec dismissed their complaint -- then the group made a similar 'documentary' about hillary clinton and promoted it with the same style and timing of moore's anti-bush film - a lower court barred it, stating that it violated the bcra -- this background led us to the troubling scotus decision
what i was pointing out was that bcra, etc, was already allowing corporate political advocacy through the media, i.e. movie producers, book publishers, newspaper conglomerates, and television networks, etc
this, imho, is what really muddies the waters


thanks i really appreciate the clarification. muddy waters for sure. You raise some good points. Especially in distinguishing an over-reach of political influence from entertainment and documentary media. But are we getting to the point where campaign finance legislation will necessarily intrude on free press and the works of film-makers? what is your take? I would prefer to think that legislation could and should be narrowly tailored in this instance.
and (edit)
@bmacs24 I think it makes sense to start with the fundamental underlying legal ambiguity by which the power grab occurs. The war on "terror" is another ambiguous area of laws that also leads to incredible abuse.
Otherwise you find yourself caught in the minutiae, trying to re-arrange the top bricks on the shit-stack

@joedirt

I think both I and Mr. Greenwald understand what a corporation is. Let me describe it in another way from you, even though I don't think your description is wrong. Is it a free collection of citizens arranged for a specific end. For instance, the ACLU is a corporation. Are we going to start staying that only certain groups of freely gathered citizens are allowed protection under the law? Are we going to start writing different sections of laws for different factions of people? I can honestly say this is the WORST idea we could have to amend the constitution in this way. This is the same kind of logic that denies voting rights to minorities, and to women, or to Catholics. Specifically limiting certain groups participation is censorship of the worst kind, it is also forbidden by the constitution, see Article I, Section 9.

And @dystopianfuturetoday, if money isn't speech, then isn't there no problem? I mean, no "group" has vocal cords persay, but factions are things we all are a part of. How is a political faction, or a family faction, or a business faction, or a religion faction any different? The ALCU isn't that much different than IBM computers, or the Church of Christ in the way the carry out their actions. They are groups of freely gathered people with common aim to achieve certain goals, and as such, have a right to freely petition the government in the affairs that concern them collectively. I don't see how collective spending is any more of less evil that individual spending. If you aren't free to petition the government as a certain faction because some other faction has successfully lobbied your legal pacification, then far have we fallen from what was supposed to be the thrust of the 10th federalist paper.

Not to say that I don't support some form of campaign finance reform of sorts, but I do not agree with the legal notion of denying people the ability to do with what they own they like; spare it harm someone else, because some other group doesn't like you...it is horrible and reeks of the worst kind of oppression.

Believe me Mr Dirt, I find all those subsidy and bail outs abominable, just as I found those terrorists on 911. But I will not permit anyone to pass a new sort of patriot act against the rich that really is attacking us all in the end. I say this not as a rich man, but one whom exists in poverty.

(crap, misclick on the upvote, sorry dirt )

Be careful, if there's too much outrage we're going to have to legitimize the law by using it against a universally loathed figure.
I guess all we need now is a civil emergency. Framework for martial law, check. Domestic "surveillance" drones, check. FEMA Camps, check. Looks like those damn conspiracy kooks were right after all. (again)

@NetRunner
You're living proof that psychological warfare is a more powerful weapon than any gun or bomb. So vetoing the bill would've been political theater, but the hollow signing statement is "good"? LOL What about Obama spending months pledging to veto the bill, was that political theater? I guess we don't actually expect the President to keep his word, do we?

Main point that Cenk omits:
Specifically, it was the White House, not lawmakers, that demanded Section 1031 be expanded to empower the government to detain U.S. citizens without trial.

Uploaded to YouTube Dec 10, 2011:


Also, Obama has been claiming for over a year and a half that he could target American citizens for assassination without any trial or due process. (http://www.salon.com/2010/06/25/assassinations_3/)

Recent Greenwald articles on the NDAA:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

@longde I too have struggled to find how I feel about Manning as well. You can't say you love the rule of law then turn around and support everything he did with out some further justification. And to that end, I think exposing hidden violations to the rule of law, violations where the term "classified" and "secret" were used intentionally to mask them, should be protected under whistle blower exceptions. I don't know if that is what Manning did exactly, which is why I am eager to hear the details in his trial. I can still see my idea of him going either way, I know Greenwald loves what he did, so I am leaning that direction, but I reserve the right to change my mind

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video CNN fails to comprehend basic concepts of journalism. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

I just read Glen Greenwalds piece, it seems obvious to me that Obama will not veto this. The supposed veto threat is just a posture, held for a few days.

I read the wiki article you posted, it says the opposite of what you suggest. That pre-1980, they had no ability to generate policy...they just gathered information. Do you have a link to something that talks about the freemarkety nature in the 80s?, because that link doesn't have it. Unless you are just talking about Regan doing free market stuff on the whole affecting education somehow indirectly, but the link clearly says he made it a federal government responsibility to create educational policy in the 80s. In that, I don't know that your argument fully answers @Grimm's claim that educational stardards have gone down since federal policy making has been done. We aren't talking about free markets here, even at the state level. We are talking about who makes better policies affecting children's education; federal or state. It has also been of my opinion that for important things, eggs in one basket methodologies are dangerous. Best to have a billion little educational experiments boiling around the country, cooking up information that the rest of them can turn around and use. Waiting for a federal mandate to adopt a policy can be rather tedious.

I have some friends that are educators, I will have to ask them how they feel about this. It is easy for us to have an opinion based on raw idealism of our core beliefs, but I would be interested to see what certain teachers have to say. I met a real interesting person at my friends bachelor party. He came from a union state, and moved down here to Texas, we have teachers unions and things, but they aren't as powerful as the north. He experienced a complete change in himself. He found that his own involvement in his union happened in such a way where he basically held the kids education hostage over wages. He said that is was basically the accepted role of teachers to risk children's education over pay. I am not talking about just normal pay, but he was making 50k as a grade school teacher in the early 90s. Not suggesting this is normal, but it is something we don't copy here in Texas. As for his own mind, he knows he would never teach in that area of the country again, and would never suggest anyone move their that values their children's education.

What would be interesting to me is if the absence of the DOE would break down some of the red tape and allow schools to "get creative" with programs a federal political body might not want to take a risk on. Education is to important to fail on, and applying "to big to fail" kind of logic to a failing system of education is to much politics to play for me. Empower teachers and schools, and try to avoid paying as many non-educators as possible would be one way to improve things I would wager. What aspect of the DOE do you think is successful that we need to keep exactly? I mean, I can tell you I don't like that the DOD is so huge and powerful, but I know nuclear subs and aircraft carriers can't operate themselves. What necessarily component of the DOE do you see as necessarily, beyond just talking point of either party line stance of it? I mean, the Department of Energy's main goal was to get us off foreign oil, like a long time ago, that is pretty failed as much as the DOE. Different approach needed, or a massive rethinking of the current one. You don't usually get massive rethinking nationally of any coherent nature, which is why I think a local strategy might be a good way to go here. Perhaps then, you could have that initial part of the DOE before it became the DOE of providing information to schools about what works from other schools kick in again.

This kind of talk of "Ron Paul addresses none of this" about something that isn't related exactly isn't really fair. It is like trying to talk about income tax issues and saying changing them doesn't address the issue of the military war machine...well of course not, it is a different issue. Did you see that recent Greewald video where he talks about the founders did think that massive inequality was not only permissible, but the idea...just as long as the rules were the same for everyone? What I mean to say is that there does need to be a measure of fairness, but that fairness needs to be the same for everyone, rich and poor. I still say the real problem lay in the government creating the monster first and the monster is now eating us. If legislators simply refused to accept the legitimacy of corporate entities and instead say that only individuals can deal on the behalf of themselves with the govenrment(the elimination of the corporate charter as it refers to its relationship to the government) things could get better in a day. But since the good ol USA thinks that non-people entities are people, well, I don't see much hope for restoration. Money is the new government, rule of law is dead. I liked the recent Greenwald input on this. Rant over Sorry, this is just kind of stream of consciousness here, didn't plan out an actual goal or endpoint of my ideas....just a huge, burdensome wall of text

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).