@eric3579
agreed,and i suspect most people struggle with this,but i think he made a really important point that we all need to address,and that is our own bias.

too many people for far too long have sought information that aligns with their own narrative,their own,personal and subjective understandings.we see those who identify as conservative reject anything that does not adhere to their own,narrow worldview,and we see those who identify as progressive do the exact same thing.

and yet if challenged,BOTH will stubbornly declare that their information is solid and without reproach.this is statistically impossible.

another great point he makes is how some people have been conditioned to accept opinion and conflict as somehow being "news".

he also makes a point on how some news outlets have done shoddy and poor work,but we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.while this may be true,i feel he was far too lenient on those who profess to be journalists.he gives them a pass for doing mediocre work,because that is what many journalists do in this new climate of:partisan hackery,access and propaganda.

so when we talk about "mainstream media",we are talking about only a few,monolithic corporations who DO have an agenda,and that agenda is PROFIT.

so we can look back to the run up to the iraq war,and see how phil donahue was fired from MSNBC for being critical of the war.the highest rated show on that network at that time.so if PROFIT is the model,then donahue being fired makes no sense..UNLESS you consider that the owners of MSNBC were general electric,who at that time were heavily invested in military contracts on the dawn of a new war.

so the profit was not from advertising from donahue's show,but rather the billions in defense contracts general electric was poised to receive from the impending iraq war,and donahue's criticisms of that war had the possibility to affect the profits of general electric.

and that is the one point that is missing from mr green's take on the mainstream media:their inability or outright refusal to criticize the current corporate establishment,and how many journalists kneel at the altar of their corporate masters.

so while he makes a lot of great points.that particular glaring omission is disturbing.

speaking only for myself i tend to only consume independent media,and focus on journalists who have earned my trust.

ultimately it is up to us to decide who we trust and who we are suspicious of,and to discuss those important issues among ourselves to better refine our understandings.

Very helpful from my perspective as someone who knows less about this than I should.

Why downvote, @eric3579? Do you disagree with the content? Certainly possible that there could be incorrect or misleading stuff in there, I'll admit I don't know enough to tell. But this seemed solid and not agenda-driven to me.

I lived in Cape Canaveral during the shuttle program and was fortunate enough to watch all but 5 launches live.

An excellent video with scenes I thoroughly enjoyed in slow motion and HD.

A brief mention in the video about the 6 seconds from when the main liquid engines ignite until the solid boosters ignite is called "twang."

When the main engines ignite, the power causes the whole assembly to rock forward. It takes 6 seconds for the assembly to fall back to vertical again and then the boosters light up and away it goes.

when radical right wingers,who lean towards an authoritarian,dogmatic way of approaching certain subjects,yet will attempt to disguise their bigotry,prejudice or hatred under the banner of "free speech",or nationalistic pride" and even sometimes "common sense" (because in THEIR world view,thats what it is to them:common sense).

they receive pushback,and rightly so,because you have to allow them to express their ideas in a public forum for the diseased and twisted philosophy to be exposed for the shit ideas they were in the first place.

but if you disagree with their philosophical viewpoint,and deal with that disagreement by shouting them down,calling them horrendous names,disrupt their chance to express those ideas you disagree with,and in some cases..engage in violence..you lose the moral high ground,and whatever solid argument you had to either destroy,or at least reveal their position for the shit idea you think it may be.will be automatically dismissed by those looking from the outside in.

because you have engaged in tactics that lessen what could have been an extremely important point by becoming the very thing you state you oppose.

you do not fight authoritarian fascism.....with authoritarian,and sometimes violent...fascism.it does not work,in fact the only thing it does it weaken your position and make you look like the very thing you are opposing.

in the free market of ideas,philosophies,ideas,viewpoints,political positions all need to be openly aired in this market to be either accepted as 'good' and "worthwhile" or "of substantial consideration",or be rejected for the shit ideas they are,but they need to be openly spoken and/or written in order for people to even consider those ideas.

when you shut down any and all opportunities for a person to even SPEAK about these ideas,and using tactics that can only be considered "bullying' and "shaming".you shut own any and all conversation without the idea itself being challenged,and BOTH sides go to their respective corners still convinced of their own "righteousness",and nothing was actually addressed.

both the ultra left and the ultra right are guilty of this tactic,and in the end we all lose,but especially those players in their particular realm of ideologies.

because now they can sit happily and contentedly in their own little,tiny echo chamber bubble with their other,like-minded people,and congratulate themselves on their own righteousness.even though they were the ones who shut down all challenge,all criticism and all scrutiny.

if your ideas,and/or philosophies cannot withstand a modicum of scrutiny or criticism,then maybe those ideas were shit to begin with.

so shouting someone down,and being so disruptive as to make it impossible for that person to even begin to articulate their position,is not a "win".you did not strike a blow for equality or justice,because you pulled a fire alarm,or violently attacked a person you disagreed with.

you lost your moral high ground,and anybody who may have been on the fence,or was simply curious and wanted to hear a differing opinion.saw how you behaved when your ideas were challenged,and they outright dismissed you and your cause.

the only people you have left in your circle are the very same people who agree with you already.so enjoy the circle jerk of the self-righteous,but do not delude yourself for one second that you are "right",or have struck a blow for "justice" and "fairness".

i have been accused of being "anti-sjw", a 'closet bigot" and (this is my favorite) 'a cis-gender white privileged oppressor".

as if the goals i seek are not dissimilar as everybody elses:equality,fairness and justice.

but when i point out the wrong headed tactics of attacking innocent people just trying to listen to a persons opinions,which may possibly be:racist,bigoted and antithetical to a fair and just society.that is when i am attacked,and it is done so with the most arrogant of presumptions,with little or no evidence to back up their personal attacks upon me.

because i had the audacity to question the tactics of the protesters,and defended that speakers right to free speech.

you are free to express whatever little thought pops into your pretty little head,and i have the right ridicule you relentlessly.you are free to espouse your opinions and philisophical ideologies,but you are NOT free from offense.

because,ultimately,in the free market of ideas,if your ideas are shit.someone WILL call you out on them,and if you think the tactic of shouting people down,disrupting their lecture and/or attacking the attendees somehow makes you "right" or your cause "morally justified".it does not.it just makes you look exactly like the people you are disagreeing with,and not for nothing..it kinda make you look fucking stupid.

so let those people talk.
let them make their ill-thought arguments.
allow them to spew rhetoric and propaganda,and do what should be done in a free market of ideas.

destroy their argument,with logic,reason and a sense of fairness and justice that appeals to the majority of us.

and i mean,come on,let's be honest.there are certain portions of the population that are true believers.you are not going to change their minds but for those who are NOT fundamentalist,dogmatic thinkers,use your brains,talk to them,destroy those who propose ill-thought and bullshit arguments to reveal them for the sychophants they are.

don't be attacking them.
do not engage in violence,or disruptive behavior.
because then you lose any credibility before you have even begun.

that's my .02 anyways,take it for what it is worth.

David Leitch is a seasoned stunt coordinator/choreographer. His stunt work can be perceived to be hit or miss, but he has a fairly solid track record. Look him up, he has worked on some SHIT movies, but he's also worked on some modern action classics. It's easy to get triggered by women beating up men though, so I feel ya.

He's also the director of Deadpool 2.

I thought the context of the title meant "hard" as in "a solid, unyeilding surface", rather than "difficult". Was expecting something a bit more interesting, although this was still... enlightening.

"No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”

Wait, so does that mean that any senator put forward as a nominee for a cabinet position can't be accused of any "conduct or motive... unbecoming of a Senator" during their confirmation hearings? Nice way to keep all the dirt nice and hidden, or at least not mentioned in a highly public manner.

I would assume this rule was designed to prevent Senators from fighting with each other during Senate proceedings, and to stick to policy matters. Sessions at the time of his hearing was present as a cabinet nominee. Why would the rule apply when he isn't there as a Senator? The purpose of the hearings is to learn enough about the nominees to provide some solid Advice and Consent to the larger group. Hard to do that when nothing negative can be said, or the person saying it will be silenced.

I am a fan of well-made films, and both John Wick and Jack Reacher (released around the same time, similar premise) seemed like really solid work. I was actually excited they both got sequels.

Good one there! "I know you are but what am I?!"

Trump is not afraid to lead? What's he leading in exactly?

An idiotic, poorly thought out travel ban that won't help anything?

Mouthing off to our allies, making us look like idiots? (Mexico will pay for the wall... wait, maybe not, but they'll pay 20% tariffs.... well actually the Americans will be the ones paying... sounds like a solid plan everyone!)

Appointing unqualified cabinet members? Rick Perry for energy secretary.... the department he wanted to destroy... the department that he had no idea manages our nuclear stockpiles... the department whose previous leader under Obama was a nuclear physicist. It's now Rick fucking Perry.

The only thing he's leading in is in being the most embarrassing statesman this country has ever seen, arguing with celebrities on Twitter like a child. This moron was actually ranting about Schwarzenegger and The Apprentice ratings in his National Prayer Breakfast speech. All he had to do was just recite a short passage from the bible or something. But nope, not him. He needs to ask like a 12 year old.

We have a 70-year-old man, who also happens to be THE PRESIDENT, who can't control himself and act the part. He really has a few screws loose. There's no other explanation. But we did give him the nuclear codes! Yaay!

Leader - my ass. (Besides, it's Bannon leading him anyway.)

Beat me by a rather long way... so *promote. I personally loved the lack of shaky cam and quick cuts and just sticking to nice solid shots that allowed the action to flow more naturally than force it on you via the cuts and shaky cam.

@transmorpher
i would say we disagree but i cant even say that.
you didn't counter ANYTHING i said,you just accused me of being dishonest.

which has been pretty much your position this entire thread.i thought i was doing you a solid by laying down some history,which helps explain some facets of radical islam.

notice my wording:facets.

do you realize that i taught comparative religion and cultural religious history?
do you realize just how foolish you appear to me right now?

you want to counter my argument....by not countering my argument,and implying i am being dishonest.

ok sweetheart,
i think i see the problem here.
YOU are seeing the dynamic through a singular lens.

you want to ignore the historical implications and simply focus on islam itself?
ok,that's fine.
i find it stupid,short sighted and incredibly biased,but whatever..

yoooou have an agenda to get to don't ya?

ok.
then let us just strip the dynamic of ALL historical implications and focus solely on islam itself.
(which is why you mentioned Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Hitchens )
you clever clever boy...
i see what you did there../ruffles hair.
you are SO adorable when you are being myopic and lazy!

so what would you like to discuss?
how islam is in desperate need of a reformation?
or maybe how the original intent of islam from a spiritual perspective was hi-jacked by his cousins and turned into a political conquest machine,that subjugated ...

you know what?
why am i bothering?
you have revealed yourself to be a condescending,sanctimonious know-nothing.who read a couple of books and thinks he 'get's it".

no dude..you read sam harris.

look man,
i am not here defending islam,because as religions go,islam is kinda shit.
but to ignore how neoliberalism and american interventionism have amplified,and worsened and already crappy situation.

that's not even intellectually dishonest.
that is just plain lazy.

whats next?
you gonna do some 'thought experiments" and try to argue that at least america's "intentions" were nobel?

you WERE! weren't you!!

and this little revisionist nugget "Those countries have had problems long before any western intervention."

oooh really?
because,unlike YOU,i actually know the history of that region.
so if you want we can compare how some cities and countries were considered "progressive" and even "liberal",and even some (granted,only a few) that were considered "secular" *gasp*.

how about this,instead of me repeatedly taking you to the woodshed to give ya some of that "learnin",how about you just go look up the history of kabul,afghanistan.

that's it.just one city.

and then come back and tell me that neoliberalism,colonialism and good old fashioned empire building hasn't been a major force in the rise in fundamentalism and radicalization in the middle east.

it looks like you really ARE going to make go all the way back to the dark ages!

and dude..seriously..hitchens ROCKED,but sam harris?
no..juuust no.
i don't do apologists as a counter argument.

edit:i will say that i agree with this "There are actual muslims (such as Maajid Nawaz)that say islam has a problem(especially particular strands of it), and it needs reform. Embracing the muslims who want reform is the only way forward."

you mean that islam may need a reformation?
*gasps*/clasps hands to face.
didn't i fucking already SAY that?

ah well,foiled by my pedantic ways.

soo the problem is the title?
ok,kind of ignores the historical implications for every empire and powerful nation state.
i thought it was interesting,and made solid points how history in cinema is almost always either wrong,or slanted.

whatevs..message received.

*discard

29 comments, most of them rather long and more-or-less well reasoned, yet none about the content.

I get if you don't trust RT. It's a propaganda outlet of a foreign government, after all. But RT is not Chemical Ali style of propaganda: it is solid, well-researched reporting on many topics, subtly slanted on others, and completely balls-to-the-wall denial of reality on others again.

You want to take that as a reason to ignore it entirely? Knock yourself out.

I won't. Which isn't saying much, because I prefer text over video.

Anyway, they regularly offer a valuably "Korrektiv" with regards to reporting in the mainstream media. Of course I would prefer if I could get that from a less-dubious outlet like, maybe, the Indepedant, or the NZZ, but I can't.

Let's talk about the content of this clip, shall we.

Hedges references the Prop-or-Not pieces run by the WaPo. Does anyone here disagree that those were a total and utter smear job? Painting Truthout, Truthdig, Counterpunch, Alternet, BlackAgendaReport, NakedCapitalism and others as stooges of the Kremlin is such an obvious attempt to discredit dissenting voices that it's, quite frankly, rather offensive. Yves Smith and Glen Ford as mouthpieces of the Kremlin... my ass cheeks.

On the other hand, quite a lot of journalists in the US seem to have embraced the Red Scare with open arms, seeing as it gives an excuse as to why their previous HRC lost against the orange-skinned buffoon. Kyle illustrated it nicely with Rachel Maddow.

Second point: they had James Clapper present the report. Seriously? The fucker was caught lying under oath during the initial stages of the NSA revelations. Wasn't the fuckface also in charge of the satellite reconnaisence prior to the Iraq war, who could have presented imagery that debunked the claims of WMD "factories", and decided not to? He is just as trustworthy as Chemical Ali, but less entertaining.

Third: half the report was about RT. Why? I thought it was meant to outline how they "hacked" the election? What does their propaganda outlet have to do with that? And the critique they presented... has anyone read the passage about the "alleged Wall Street greed"? They are having a laugh, and people take it seriously.

Fourth: it distracts from the aspects of HRC's loss they don't want to be a subject of public discussion: class issues. They offered nothing for the working class, who got a shoddy deal over the last decades, and tried to focus entirely on identity politics, completely denying even the existence of class issues. Which is also why it's now the "white, male worker" who is to blame. Nevermind that >50% of white, female workers also voted Trump. Nevermind that significant portions of non-white working class folks also voted Trump. Can't be. According to the narrative, these people are minorities first, working-class second, and identity politics always trumps class politics. Except it didn't.

All this rage at the "deplorables", the "less educated"... it just reeks massively of class bigotry. Those plebs decided to vote for someone other than our beloved Queen HRC? How dare they...

And finally, RT's own part of this segment, about the credibility of the intelligence community's claims. Any disagreement on this? Anyone? Anyone think the torturers at the CIA are trustworthy enough to take their word without hard evidence?

I don't like his delivery but I like the message at the end. The perception people have of suicide in the US is crazy. It's a health issue and the US has shitty mental health services and a poor understanding of mental health issues... Just throw some powerful drugs on it and it will go away (and make me rich in the process)! On top of that, the US economy is depressing the hell out of a greater number of people, a lot of people after being out of work for a while or not having enough money will just choose to go. So, it's a political issue as well due to the class warfare that has been waged in the US especially since the 80's.

But to add some flame to it - sometimes I wonder if some of the people I know who chose to end it early - made a wise decision just to end it; maybe they thought it through to the nth degree and it was a solid choice - and the remaining mourning people are just selfish "no, you must live in this temporary fucked up little world with ME!!" or "don't remind me that I'm going to die too!" lol

@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.