One thing is for certain, no one is treated equal. Equality like freedom is mostly and illusion for our mindless consumers to keep the with out a mind. If you want to be treated equal you have to fight for it no matter who you are, (non violent fighting works best). Ill explain; if you do every thing in your power to do with out resorting to violence, and the other side takes violence as an action you have already won the battle! We are so close to actually have a majority of very good people who can make the "Color Blind society" work that this crap that the media puts out there is sickening.

A quote i saw on a classmates shirt today: "Violence is the last refuge of the Incompetent." - Ive seen many violent things happen because of racism, and I have been the victim of racial slurs as a Caucasian child in the south from people of my race, and other races. These things cause quick tempered reactions.

What we must understand is that the Civil rights act is only a piece of paper, it comes down to groups of people and their actions toward a minute few. Examples whats to keep a group of policemen for shooting a suspect because he is black or white? I think that a piece of government paper is not going to stop that bullet, or that night stick. Its the meaning of that paper that will check that bullet before it is fired, or break that night stick before or after it falls on the heads of those being beaten. We must endure to teach our children, and all those around us that Violence is not an answer to anything, and to approach any situation with violence as a first action is an undertaking of complete stupidity.

hulk vs giant? no way. What about undertaker and the warrior??

Don't have time to watch all of it but looked relatively interesting, if not particularly original. The convergence of the world's economic, political, military and communication systems has certainly had a huge effect on the nature of news, especially in the United States. It's for that reason that I try to get most of my news from the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS, as it has remained disentangled from the politics and money, and the politics of money, that has destroyed the creditability of network and particularly cable news. When CNN devotes it's 5:00-8:00PM timeslots to Nancy Grace and Entertainment news, it's pretty clear where their priorities are.

The real reason I decided not to watch all of this video however is that it did not appear that it was going to investigate the most important question associated with it's subject matter. The guy already seems to have decided what ethical war reporting is, and is devoting his movie to showing how war reporting of the Iraq War is unethical. I am already aware that reporting of the Iraq War, especially in it's run up, was hardly critical; I don't need an hour and a half long video to tell me that. What I would like to see examined is to what extent media manipulation during wartime is permissible in a democracy. I raise this question because the United States' most glaring military weakness is it's dependence upon popular support for any war it chooses to undertake. The Media war therefore becomes nearly as important as the ground war, yet two entirely different sets of rules and outlooks apply to the two wars.

An ethical war is the most desperate action a state can take, it is the least worst of bad options undertaken to acheive a greater good that exists in the long term. For a population accustomed to instant gratification, sacrifice and struggle for an uncertain positive outcome in the distant future is anathema. That's why leaders of states exist: to have the broader perspective of what is in a state's, and hopefully the international community at large as well, best interest. In democracies however, those leader's power is dependent upon the support of a general populace that is incapable of looking at the long term. To what extent then, is a leader ethical in taking undemocratic action to serve the best interests of the people? During wartime this becomes a question of what price victory. It's easy to dismiss this as an absurd question, that of course we shouldn't allow undemocratic action by our leaders because that would be undemocratic, but to do so would be to say that if the majority has decided it wants to march off a cliff then those in a position to redirect them should stand aside and let them march to their doom. Not all wars, and not all policies are such life and death issues, but even in less desperate situations I think it's an appropriate question to ask.

I bring all of this up because it seems fairly clear that the American public has decided that the sooner American involvement in Iraq ends, the better. The problem with that line of thinking is that Iraq is located in the Middle East, not South East Asia. Even if tomorrow the entire nation rallied behind a plan to end dependence on foreign oil and to cut all ties with our allies in the region, it would still take us several decades to completely disentangle ourselves from the middle east. My point here is that even if we wanted to, we cannot immediately end involvement with the most strategic region in the world. The outcome in Iraq is one that we are going to have to live with for a long time to come, we cannot simply wash our hands of what happens there. So the idea that rapid withdrawal is in America's best interest is in my opinion pure fantasy. It may be nice in the short term to stop having to read reports of American casualties, but in the long term we will have to deal with the consequences of a failed state smack dab in the Middle East. Victory is critical in my opinion, but the American people no longer have the will to win. The politically expedient move is to withdraw but such a move would be to the long run detriment of the nation. The rational decision for our leaders is irrational. This is perhaps the greatest danger of democracy, to what extent should we try to correct it?

I can only imagine the exorcism she undertakes if her toaster turns her bread to carbon squares.

While it would be ill advised to train low rank troops on these issues of questioning orders, it's clear that the officer corp should integrate this into their curriculum for future conflicts. Not only on moral, ethical grounds but on grounds of sound military strategy and force loss reduction (a vital thing for an all volunteer force). Enough autonomy must be allowed to factor in the safety of deployed forces.

US intervention in Somalia, the Mogadishu incident is one example where military leaders conceded with a lack of forces and lack of information. Am sorry but its terrible when politics run military operations, any military strategist would have told you back then that Somalia is a country filled with militias that have been fighting a civil war for decades. Not factoring that vital piece of information cost 18 lives. Always know the lay of the land. Vietnam should have taught the administration and military that, but they came off too proud from successes of an air war in the Gulf War.

I say this because I frankly don't understand why the US army has to at times undertake duties not within their mission objectives on the ground, why previous plans for re-construction of Iraq are thrown out with nary of a protest (see Bob Woodward), disbanding the Iraq army created an unemployed army for hire. Or worse when they come under equipped into a combat zone they have been drilling for (See Red Flag & OPFOR engagements). War is seriously horrible business and should be taken as such. If you are going to do it. Do it properly, do it with minimal civilian losses (civilians are the eyes and ears in a guerrilla war), do it with minimal force loss, do it when it has the backing of the people. Because morale is affected by how a conflict is seen. This is why by the way there is no longer the raw Vietnam era style of reporting of conflict but embedded reporters.

[Understand that my comment applies to unilateral military engagements in a no-other option scenario]

Thanks again Mooseman! You should be the official Grim Reaper/Undertaker of VideoSift!

Wow DavidM, I'm glad you joined VS just to comment on MJFox videos, or sockpuppet for your masters. Is there a freeper thread about the libherhal enclave that is videosift?

What the hell do you care about MJFox medication levels? You obviously don't care about how much opiates Rush has consumed on a given day, or how much Viagra he has taken when on vacation with a bunch of men. So why does it matter one small iota if MJFox is taking too much ot too little medication. He has Parkisons you twit.

From Time magazine, "The Bush Administration's limit on the use of federal money for human embryonic stem-cell research in the U.S. since 2001 has reduced funding and deterred some scientists from undertaking the controversial work. A report in Nature Biotechnology in April found a widening gap in the rate at which U.S. and non-U.S. research teams have published articles about human embryonic stem-cell research in scientific journals since 2002, and concluded that the U.S. was "falling behind in the international race to make fundamental discoveries" in the field."

You are a real retard with your chicken and egg argument that no discoveries have been found from stuff people aren't allowed to research in. Research takes money and time. If you say other stem cell treatments work, then I guarantee "embryonic stem cells" (like I care) would also yield results, if not better, or different. Who gives a rat's ass where the cells come from, they are medical waste anyways if not from organ donors.

This is the type of aid the western world should be providing Africa, not just debt write offs and bundles of cash loans with strings attached. I worked with NGOs, with EWB specifically and witnessed their effect in Central Africa. While many mean well, their intrusion into the environment, short term provision of aid which dissipates once the mission leaves is only creating a beggar mentality in the African people.

An example is the provision of agricultural service to the populace, if there is a famine, the western world floods the nation with surplus food aid, this of course cures the immediate problem but destroys the local agricultural market, which means the nation becomes dependent on aid until the market recovers from an influx of goods (which is free don't forget). The western world never tries to actually work on the trade relations between nations which could easily support any famine relief themselves and in effect create a network of agricultural markets that could sustain and prevent further disasters. But borders are closed because of minor disputes between African leaders, the west could easily force borders open via negotiations, especially since WTO and IMF aid package negotiations allow this to happen to equip the economy for capitalization and recovery.

Further more, money donations such as the outburst of contributions seen last year with Live 8 Aid and Make Poverty History campaign, are USELESS. We never hear of the results these aid packages provide, there is no reportage or follow up, because most of the money is earmarked by the organization for self growth! How else do you think Make Povery History, AIDS and other campaigns get all those celebrity endorsements? Or the large office blocks these organizations possess? It's sick. This type of money aid has also been around for 40 years, combined totally over a trillion dollars worth of aid has been given to Africa since the 70s, clearly this doesn't work, actual GDP has fallen in most nations. Mostly because these aid packages go to naive inexperienced corrupt governments, that produce a large public sector snuffing private development, resulting in mismanaged economies. Most of these aid donations can be reflected in the shiny fleets of government Mercedez cars.

Time and time again it has been shown that provision of educational services, and on site training with available resources creates entrepreneurship and development, Engineers Without Borders works in such a way, providing engineering solutions to problems faced there everyday. These solutions are always built via locally available resources, training of the population ensures that the knowledge will be retained, and the systems could be rebuilt if broken, without NGO presence.

Once these aims are achieved actual economic growth can have a chance to take place. However the West has to finally come to a decision to whether it will continue undertaking economic policies that are determental to third world development. Currently both the US and EU maintain high tariffs and quotas on agricultural products coming from the third world, and subsidize their agricultural producers. Meanwhile 70% of Africa's economy is agriculturally based while in the US and EU this is only a small percentage, due to the subsidization, the agricultural industry in the west has ballooned to large inefficient size, government subsidizes created artificial demand and both have been producing surpluses, so much so that the EU pays farmers not to use a percentage of their land now! The government actually buys the surplus (to artificially raise the price), and then dumps the surplus into the world market which hurts the African producers even more.

There are layers and layers to this issue that I won't even dwell into, but the basic fact is that the west keeps it's markets closed to the third world which stumps growth of their economies. And this has to change, but the problem lingers as WTO after WTO meeting ends in deadlock over this pivotal issue.

This was really just a study in how possible a large visualization project like this was for a few people to undertake. Not entirely intended to disprove myths (or even be entertaining).

That said, I'll do a voice-over for them right now: "This is a complicated rendereing of the plane hitting the Pentagon... it took a lot of work... we published the work in some journals... thanks to the NSF for the funding."

It does interestingly show how crazy the descent of the plane must have been.