>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores indicting Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.


Lawrence Lessig is on the front line of that battle.
http://videosift.com/video/Lawrence-Lessig-Authors-Google

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^jwray:
I like the majority of his speech, but he's buying into the whole "HFCS is significantly worse than sugar" myth. The research doesn't support that. HFCS-55 is only about 10% worse than sugar because it contains 10% more fructose per calorie. Replacing HFCS with sugar in the modern diet would have a tiny benefit compared to just getting rid of sweeteners. If you absolutely positively have to use a sweetener, straight up glucose (aka dextrose) in a low % solution is fine.
The difference between a coke with sugar and a coke with HFCS is like the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese and a double quarter pounder with cheese and a few bacon bits sprinkled on top.

Here you go:
http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth
A 1.5h long exposé on the danger of HFCS.
edit because embed script failed...


Trying to support your position by linking a source that actually refutes your position is epic fail. The presenter in that video says sugar is the same as HFCS for all intents and purposes. He says the problem is fructose itself, which is present in both sugar and HFCS in nearly the same proportion (sugar is 50% fructose and HFCS is typically 55% fructose).

>> ^jwray:

I like the majority of his speech, but he's buying into the whole "HFCS is significantly worse than sugar" myth. The research doesn't support that. HFCS-55 is only about 10% worse than sugar because it contains 10% more fructose per calorie. Replacing HFCS with sugar in the modern diet would have a tiny benefit compared to just getting rid of sweeteners. If you absolutely positively have to use a sweetener, straight up glucose (aka dextrose) in a low % solution is fine.
The difference between a coke with sugar and a coke with HFCS is like the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese and a double quarter pounder with cheese and a few bacon bits sprinkled on top.


Here you go:
http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth
A 1.5h long exposé on the danger of HFCS.

* edit because embed script failed...

>> ^jwray:
The difference between a coke with sugar and a coke with HFCS is like the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese and a double quarter pounder with cheese and a few bacon bits sprinkled on top.
The difference is the Coke has HFCS in it because the government has artificially made HFCS cheaper with our tax dollars and at the same time made cane sugar artificially more expensive through tariffs. This directly benefits corporations...it can be argued that it does or does not benefit the people indirectly but the fact remains that it's being done regardless of how it effects the people because thats what big money wants.

Me, before clicking video: Hey look, a Lawrence Lessig video without the long tag! Yay!

Oh.

*long

I really like Lawrence Lessig. I should probably get one of his books.

>> ^geo321:
With the rules of the political game that the white house and congress have created for themselves over the years they've pretty much legalized corruption. Honest politicians are few and far between. It takes a talented populist to truly represent the people above corporate interests and not get shoved out of the political process by party leaders.


Agreed. We -may- have a very few of those populists now...Weiner, Grayson, and Franken all show some possibilities. But I refuse to rush to judgement on them too quickly. Let's see how their records look in a few more years.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Steven, Colbert, Show, Remix, challenge' to 'Steven, Colbert, Show, Remix, challenge, Lawrence, Lessig, Creative, Commons, Copyright' - edited by Trancecoach

*doublepromote for Lawrence Lessig. Skip to 19:00. The first 2 minutes is completely useless crap and I don't know what the video-maker was smoking there.

Jon Stewart - Lawrence Lessig '08

Actually, Obama.
He is flawed but 1000x better than McCain and 1000000x more likely to defeat McCain than any of the other candidates.

Dupe of http://www.videosift.com/video/Lawrence-Lessig-Palins-experience-in-just-12-minutes

>> ^Trancecoach:
too bad the American...


Også min opmærksomhed

I really enjoy listening to Lawrence Lessig's speeches. I'm a Republican and Ron Paul supporter, but I know that he doesn't have a chance to win. I voted for him in the primaries, BTW. So if I can't have RP, then Barak is my second choice. I used to love McCain, but something changed in him around 2005-2006. He is creepy now. Hilary is ultra-liberal and has too many ties to special interests. She's my senator, and she has done some good for NYS. But I would hate to have her be my president.

McCain cannot rally Republicans and he can just forget about the independents. Hilary is also way too out there to really capture all Democratic vote. I really think Barak will win the presidency. He does have some checkered things in his past, but overall I think he is the best person out of this bunch (save RP) for the job.

there's a pretty decent chance, that many won't know who Lawrence Lessig is, so i thought i'd include this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig

Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society, has written a critical review of Andrew Keen's 'The Cult of the Amateur' on his blog here: http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003784.shtml