Peter Weller

Actor, historian, cyborg supercop..

A true Renaissance man.>> ^shuac:

Fun fact: Peter Weller is a professor at Syracuse University. He is finishing up his Ph.D. in Italian Renaissance Art History at UCLA.
Dr. Robocop

Fun fact: Peter Weller is a professor at Syracuse University. He is finishing up his Ph.D. in Italian Renaissance Art History at UCLA.

Dr. Robocop

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then, secondly, like I said, it finds "most of the media" has a "leftist bias" thats because FOX has, as I said, moved the standard on the right into crazyville. This makes anyone left of Reagan basically into a "leftist." Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.

Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange. I'm not American, I'm Norwegian, and frankly American left or right politics mean very little to me, nor, I think, to the rest of the world. To me what matters is that American politicians are reality-based and care about other countries and their history as well as their own, that they respect international laws and treaties and that they know about real problems like global warming and so on.

Which reminds me,the fact that I mention global warming probably proves to you that I'm a "leftist" but in the rest of the world GW is not a partisan issue: It's just a scientific fact. And that example alone is enough to show how screwed up the American right has become. Not only are they denying undeniable scientific fact, but they've managed to make it a partisan issue. Basically they've managed to get half the country to ignore the available data on the changing climate, as well as a few other things, like evolution.

We don't really have partisan lines like that, sure we have fiscal conservatives and progressives, left and right and so on, but we dont have the same degree of reality denial. (Alas, I fear it might be on its way to some of the populistic parties, inspired by the success in the US) Anyway we have discussions and debates and disagree on important principles and so on. But no side lies and distorts systematically, no side is fundamentally antiscientific, and no side is full of religious nuts.. Oh well, I guess what I'm saying is that theres nothing wrong about being right wing, but theres something seriously wrong with the rightwingers.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I maintain - based on personal experience and analysis - that FOX News is no more biased than any other media outlet. Your perception that it is 'insane' is more a reflection of your own left-wing bias, than towards any inherently stronger bias in FOX News. As a leftist, your sensitivity to differential opinion is very high. You are on the lookout - so to speak - for right wing bias because it more easily upsets and angers you.
As a result of this hypersensitivity, you have a false perception that there is 'more' bias at FOX. In addition, what bias you do see become more exaggerated and extreme in your mind. However, research has repeatedly proven that FOX News is no more biased 'to the right' than MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, NBC, AP, and many other news outlets are biased to the left.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA
-6664.aspx
This research was conducted by the UCLA - hardly a right wing bastion - and clearly indicates that FOX is not some sort of outlier in the spectrum of media bias.
So I dismiss as poppycock the false accusation that FOX is somehow crazed, while other outlets are not. Such an opinion is balderdash and nonsense. I've watched all news outlets - and there is no difference between Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz on the left and Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly on the right. These persons are not 'news anchors'. They are opinion based infotainers, and they are all equally guilty of voicing strong opinions that their opponents would call 'extremist' or 'crazy'. However, the accusation that FOX is somehow the sole offender in that regard is pure bologna.

I maintain - based on personal experience and analysis - that FOX News is no more biased than any other media outlet. Your perception that it is 'insane' is more a reflection of your own left-wing bias, than towards any inherently stronger bias in FOX News. As a leftist, your sensitivity to differential opinion is very high. You are on the lookout - so to speak - for right wing bias because it more easily upsets and angers you.

As a result of this hypersensitivity, you have a false perception that there is 'more' bias at FOX. In addition, what bias you do see become more exaggerated and extreme in your mind. However, research has repeatedly proven that FOX News is no more biased 'to the right' than MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, NBC, AP, and many other news outlets are biased to the left.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

This research was conducted by the UCLA - hardly a right wing bastion - and clearly indicates that FOX is not some sort of outlier in the spectrum of media bias.

So I dismiss as poppycock the false accusation that FOX is somehow crazed, while other outlets are not. Such an opinion is balderdash and nonsense. I've watched all news outlets - and there is no difference between Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz on the left and Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly on the right. These persons are not 'news anchors'. They are opinion based infotainers, and they are all equally guilty of voicing strong opinions that their opponents would call 'extremist' or 'crazy'. However, the accusation that FOX is somehow the sole offender in that regard is pure bologna.

$14k for a semester is the OUT OF STATE tuition? he would have paid just about as much for in state back at a decent UC (UCSD, UCSB, UCLA, UCB, etc).

not sure what he's complaining about, seems like a helluva deal. it's not even his money.

You have to understand that college football is part of the college experience in America, especially if you go to a school with a great team. And some families only have a kid in college because of football. I work with, am friends with, and live with people who went to Berkeley, USC, and UCLA so it can get real ugly real fast during college football season. The rest of the world has their football, we have American football -- and it's way more epic, even if it's only us.

There's just no place to start with someone as blatantly dishonest as you

Well with a rational argument like that, you’re fully qualified to be a journalist for the Washington Post. Send in your application today while it still exists.

Hollywood, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT, AP, and PBS are not liberal bastions. They only appear to be to you because your viewpoints are so hopelessly skewed to the right of the scale.

A person such as yourself looks at the vast swathe of center/left to hard/left media and thinks, “nothing wrong here…” From this radical position, any news story that doesn’t hew to a leftist ideology offends you. So when a news outlet is actually 'fair and balanced’ your radical-left blinders force you to see it as being ‘right wing neocon'. You say the media isn’t liberal. Facts dismiss your opinion as incorrect and confirm my statements as accurate.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

using another unrepresentative quote?

Unrepresentative? No. Totally representative. And know what? IMMA DOIN' IT AGAIN!

You said “I’m sure there’ll be sufficient oversight” and then made a few unsupported opinions related to this naïve assumption. There is no need to triple down in the repetition. It was a bunch of non-factual opinions based assumptions which deny reality and precedent. Every specious opinion about “sufficient oversight” was also made regarding the tobacco settlement. The bulk of that never reached the ‘victims’. Same for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and even the vaunted 9/11 Victim's Fund can't account for hundreds of millions of lost dollars. This'll be no different.

Apparently it won't be controlled by the government either, and both BP and Obama are saying "[t]his fund does not supersede either individuals' rights or states' rights to present claims in court."

1. Putting the fund under his pay czar is putting it ‘under the government’. 2. You can’t trust anything Obama says as far as you could throw a tar-soaked dolphin. 3. !I! was the one that said people can sue anyway. That’s the point. If people can sue, then let them go to the courts. That’s where this belongs. We shouldn't get into the BAD habit of creating government slush funds for every event that comes down the pike. That will just repeat the "failed policies of the past".

Oh - and just so you know - I won't get my knickers in a knot if you just use 'pull quotes' from my massive texts. That's common practice for brevity - nothing sinister. It would be a truly silly goofball who would take umbrage to that...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'japan, organized crime, mafia, yakuza, lara logan, 60 minutes, jake adelstein' to 'japan, organized crime, mafia, yakuza, lara logan, 60 minutes, jake adelstein, ucla' - edited by kronosposeidon

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA
-6664.aspx
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1269

The first link is about a study that counts references to liberal vs conservative policy groups and think tanks in news stories between '95 and '05. It counts the NAACP as a liberal policy group. I don't think reporting on the NAACP indicates a liberal bias. The study removes context from all these references, so it really proves nothing. Fox News mentions ACORN every 7 seconds: does that mean they have a liberal slant?

The second link says nothing about bias. People can have a personal political opinion while working in an objective manner, such as judges.

The third link is a results grid for a large survey of journalists, and again none of those results show bias. I don't think a survey could even provide direct evidence of a bias.

The last link actually says that the majority of journalists are moderates--not that their political view would have proved bias anyway.

Maybe you don't understand what bias is, or what the complaints about Fox News are.

You mean there are no 'real' news network, and EVERYone is biased ?

Yes - to the right or left - every 'news' outlet is biased in (A) what it chooses to make news or (B) how it serves up what it chooses to present. Glad you picked up on that.

So your completely conceeding you have no facts what so ever and are just restating your opinion.

No - that is your personal interpretation. I have presented nothing BUT facts. You simply refuse to accept them. That is your problem, not mine. The fact that the mainstream news outlets are liberally biased is well established and documented. I doubt the presentation of the case will matter, but here is a tiny smattering of a far larger world.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1269

your more or less saying the 'left wing media' is bad... so the right wing media has every right ot be just as bad.

No - I am saying that ALL the 'news media' (so called) are biased and have to be approached with suspicion and skepticism. I am a skeptic of both sides. I listen to both, and make my own evaluations. I am wary of any person or entity (esp government) that advocates only listening to ONE side of the story. I really thought liberals claimed they were open minded and progressive. What then is the objection to a robust national discourse that includes both the right-wing and left? Explain to me why one side of the debate 'must' be silenced and shut down. What part of liberalism embraced the abolition of the 1st ammendment when the news outlet espouses a differing opinion? When did political suppression becine a guiding principle of the left wing? When did democrats become the party that spits on diversity and freedom?

If they were a legitimate publicly broadcast news network they would require a license from the FCC.

Are you saying that Fox News is somehow under a different set of rules than CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, and so forth? This is a new and fascinating claim to me and I must confess I am not aware of the specific legal and proceedural minutae you are doubtless referencing. Please elaborate and provide citations.

* ban candidate mucho, yes no?

In reply to this comment by CANNAMED:
Want MedicalMarijuana? Step1: Get Your MarijuanaCard Here Step2: Go to any Dispensary in CA




MEDICAL MARIJUANA EVALUATIONS/CARDS IN VAN NUYS AND THOUSAND OAKS FOR $99.00



Medical Marijuana Doctor Recommendations Available in Van Nuys and Thousand Oaks! Apply today and receive your prop 215 medical marijuana photo id card the same day if approved. Medical Marijuana consultations are $99.00 with coupon from www.cannamed.com Renewals from another M.D. are $80.00.

Don't Qualify, you don't pay!

If you suffer from Cancer, Chronic Pain, Chron's Disease, Depression, Epilepsy, Fibromyalgia, Glaucoma, HIV, Insomnia, Migraines, MS, Nausea, Seizures, Anorexia, Anxiety, Stress, or any other serious ailments, We can help you!

Louis J. Rosner MD President of CannaMed Inc. author of the best seller Multiple sclerosis : new hope and practical advice for people with MS and their families / Louis J. Rosner. Dr. Rosner is a former professor of clinical neurology at UCLA. He was also formerly head of the UCLA's Multiple Sclerosis Clinic. Dr. Rosner is now writing medical marijuana recommendation for the seriously ill at CannaMed Inc.


Cannamed Of Van Nuys
6309 VAN NUYS BLVD. 105G
VAN NUYS, CA 91405
(866) 624-1191


Cannamed of Thousand Oaks
1879 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362


Hours
Sun: CLOSED
Mon: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Tues: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Wed: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Thurs: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Fri: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Sat: 11:00am - 7:00pm

Payments Accepted
Cash Only!

Contact: Dr. Louis J. Rosner

UCLA students don't have anything better to do than build ramps for squirrels?

Definitely UCLA, no one shot BBs at them.

As far as pot and lung function I'll answer that with a video post in a few minutes, it'll be from Dr Tashkin of the UCLA medical center, the same Dr Tashkin who is the source for most marijuana and lung function research in the US over recent decades.

As far as change it's been in reach for years, it's just hard to get people involved and get them to care. We always wonder how such a minority as the far religious right got to be so powerful but it's pretty damned simple actually. They started at the local level. They took over local political organizations, most are starved for volunteers and as their numbers grew so did their influence. That allowed them to first control who was elected at the local level then later who appeared on the ballots for primaries and so on.

Very few vote in off elections compared to normal ones but other than President everyone else is still on the ballot and that's half of where the nation is run from. Those who get involved in the off years have a MUCH larger voice than those who join the crowd in the busy ones. Stay home and they make the choice for you.

Real change takes time, but it also takes being there. We've got to quit asking when the politicians are going to do it and stop asking why we don't have better choices. If we want better ones we've got to put them there ourselves.

"Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies is a 1997 book by Jared Diamond, professor of geography and physiology at UCLA.

"In 1998 it won a Pulitzer Prize and the Aventis Prize for Best Science Book.

"A documentary based on the book was broadcast on PBS in July 2005, produced by the National Geographic Society."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel