From YT:

00:00 Zoë Bell
00:15 Lucy Lawless
00:20 Tara Macken
00:23 Drew Barrymore
00:27 Juliette Lewis
00:32 Tamiko Brownlee
00:38 Rosario Dawson
00:45 Amy Johnston
00:49 Cameron Diaz
00:55 Kim Murphy
00:58 Daniela Ruah
1:03 Michaela McAllister
1:09 Kaitlin Oslon
1:18 Lauren Mary Kim
1:25 Florence Pugh
1:38 Zoë Bell
1:47 Julia Butters
1:54 Angela Meryl
2:00 Sarah Irwin
2:08 Daryl Hannah
2:13 Sophia Di Martino
2:19 Tracie Thoms
2:32 Shauna Duggins
2:41 Zoe Saldana
2:46 Ming Qiu
2:50 Renée Goldsberry
2:53 Rosie Perez
3:01 Lilly Aspell
3:04 Thandie Newton
3:08 Mel Stubs
3:14 Jessie Graff
3:17 Zoë Bell
3:24 Monique Ganderton
3:32 Halle Berry
3:43 Heidi Moneymaker
3:51 Scarlett Johansson
4:00 Dayna Grant
4:04 Margot Robbie
4:12 Renae Moneymaker
4:18 Zoë Bell
4:25 KT Tunstall

@vil
here is the thing though,and it is something that i find very disappointing.

when maddow came over from air america radio,who worked with such hosts as thom hartman,sam seder,lawrence odonnell,al franken,laura flanders.she was fantastic.

yes,she was a tad biased and the political points she chose to cover tended to lean liberal democrat,BUT her analysis and her ability to break down complicated and complex political issues into easily digested and understood nuggets,was a talent i truly admired in her.

in my opinion,she was the best host MSNBC had on their channel,and proved time and time again just how political saavy she was,and her ability to expose political shenanigans was unmatched by any other host..again..my opinion..but then obama won his second term,and i noticed a shift in her show.

she slowly stopped being so voracious when it came to exposing the more...shall we say..venal and destructive policies obama was beginning to execute,and started making excuses for those activities.apologizing in essence.

ok..ok..she was becoming an apologist for the highest office in amercia.there..happy?

to say that watching this transition bummed me out is a understatement.for years i could always count on maddow to break down and disseminate political talking points,partisan wordplay and reveal the bullshit behind the polished turd.

then here comes the run up to the 2016 election,and i watched maddow,in real time,go from a part-time apologist for obama to a full time apologist for hillary clinton.

you can watch her actively cheerlead for clinton against sanders.even when the DNC was caught RED-HANDED fucking sanders over,maddow downplayed the entire mess,and focused on debbie wasserman shultz,while giving clinton a pass.as if debbie wasserman shultz was in no way connected to hillary..even when the evidence plainly proved that there WAS a connection.

so you are right @vil .
much of how maddow disseminates political situations is eerily similar to RT,when it comes to state sponsored cheerleading.

host:the problem we are being faced with is:apple or oranges.

viewer: but what about those bananas over there? and those cherries.

host:there are NO bananas or cherries!
there are ONLY apples and oranges!

viewer:but i am pretty sure i see bananas and cherries.

host:you are being a pinko commie,and why do hate america? are you a sympathetic terrorist? or just simply a racist?

viewer:sorry i asked.i don't want to be called an unpatriotic racist.

at least that is how i see it.
not saying my opinion amounts to anything more than screaming into a wind tunnel,but i used to really admire maddow.

What kind of balance are you speaking of? For the sake of argument, I'll assume that you mean spending somewhat equal time and effort on different sides of an argument.

That kind of balance can be expected from a news outlet. Many of them, especially American ones, overcook is massively by refusing to make judgements on the validity of opposing arguments. If argument A is backed by empirical evidence and argument B is smoke and mirrors, argument B should receive ridicule, not the same kind of respect that A receives.

Now, applying this kind of balance to individuals strikes me as wierd. They are not obliged to give a balanced view: they are obliged, as journalists, to present facts, and offer interpretations. The issues we're talking about here are not disputes between neighbours. We are talking about the war on terror, macroeconomics, propaganda, things of the utmost importance. And the media is doing a woeful job at presenting any dissenting view.

Thing is, you can get the major consensus narrative from countless news outlets out there. Want to here about the supposed benefits of multinational trade agreements? The NYT and the WaPo have dozens upon dozens of articles with praise of TTIP and TPP. If, however, you would like to hear about the consequences of previous trade agreements, or just some hard math on the numbers they like to throw in there, you won't find any. You'll have to go to Dean Baker at the CEPR, to Yves Smith at NakedCapitalism, you'll read Rick Wolff's take on it.

These people do everything in their power to restore the balance that the media drowned in buckets of party-line puff pieces. People recognise RT for propaganda, but somehow think propaganda stops when ownership is private.

Try to find proper articles about the global assassination program (drone warfare) and its effect on sovereign people abroad -- won't find anything in the media, you'll have to go to Jeremy Scahill.

Try to find proper articles about the desolation brought to communities in the developed world by (the current form of) capitalism, the epidemic of loniliness, the breaking apart of the social fabric, the monetarisation of every aspect of life -- silence. What about the slavery-like conditions it creates through indebtedness? The absurd inequality? Nothing.

What about the massive atrocities in Jemen? There was plenty about the atrocities committed by Russia in Syria, but when Saudis use US weapons to destroy an entire country, mum's word.

There is no balance in the media. They are the gatekeepers of knowledge, and anything outside the establishment's agreed upon consensus is ignored, marginalised, ridiculed, or straight up demonized.

CJ Hopkins had a great piece at Counterpunch the other day, titled Why Ridiculous Official Propaganda Still Works. He puts it more succinctly than I ever could. Reality doesn't matter, not for the mainstream media. The narrative matters.

And that's why I listen to dissenting voices like Chris Hedges, Abby Martin or Thom Hartmann, even when they are employed by a state propaganda outlet.

@vil
RT does have an issue when it comes to russian politics and military operations,but the same can be said about CNN.so i agree in certain instances to be a tad skeptical.

abbey martin lefts RT for the very reasons you mentioned.

but this is thom hartmans show,who is a liberal and has always been critical of power,american politics and american military interventions.

the real substance of this video is william black.who you may not be familar with,but he was one of the main regulators who prosecuted the bankers from the saving and loan scandals of the 90's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

he also wrote a great book:
http://utpress.utexas.edu/index.php/books/blab2p

so while RT can,and is at times,a propaganda arm for russian politics.
it aint pravda.

Mm, no thanks. She changed the meaning of the song here and not for the better. Instead of Thom Yorke's solemn plea for real love, she sounds bitter and jaded and spiteful. Nope.
The Scala & Kalacny Brothers' cover, on the other hand, or Homeless Mustard's cover, are both quite moving...

>> ^deathcow:

Well, where I work, the CEO formed the company and now has 1700 people working for him. How much is that worth?


I don't know if your company is private (all of the profits belongs to the owner), or public (everything belongs to the shareholders--and the originator has the money from selling the company--or stocks).

The corporations Thom is talking about are huge--probably multinational--corporations which are run by a Board of Directors. These boards are comprised of people who are either: CEO's themselves, related to CEO's, married to CEO's, or--at least--belong to the same country club as all the CEO's. The incestuous nature of the corporate structure which we are dealing with now is so bad--and the interconnections so intertwined--that no one corporation is going to knock the top tier salaries down. That would eventually mean that their own income would go down significantly. It is in the interests of the board members (note: not the shareholders, or the company) to keep top salaries very high.

I like Thom.

she jumped right in with the f-bomb version from the first verse... Thom's version at least waits for the second verse... But I suppose we're so familiar with the song and she needed to make clear that she's singing the song, and not the cover.


Good version. Nice sift.

thanks for the info, it is alive.
In reply to this comment by jonny:
*dead

>> ^jonny:

dead


it's alive!

Did you know that I make just under that and I can't afford to feed my kids or even take my family on a holiday, or go for a drive, just for pleasure etc. We don't even have cable TV, credit cards or insurance.

Just sayin' what's your point.

I work a decent job with a fair wage and I can't afford the basics in life. The cost of living is beyond the wage. So when you state that 40,000 is the one percent "Globally" - you need to remember, it's all relative to the living expenses.

>> ^rebuilder:

Did you know that if you make about 41,000 USD per year, after taxes, you are in the top 1% income-wise?Globally.

>> ^marinara:

really like thom hartmann on the russia tv channel.
can't credit it to just one thing, but it's better.
IMHO it replaces Olbermann and Cenk


I really liked Thom Hartman when he was on the radio here (before all progressive radio was bought out & replaced by Catholic radio). I should probably try and watch his show on RT.

really like thom hartmann on the russia tv channel.
can't credit it to just one thing, but it's better.
IMHO it replaces Olbermann and Cenk

Very little.

A lot.

Your point?

>> ^notarobot:

How much interest do you get on a savings account?
How much interest do you get charged on a loan or credit card?
>> ^budzos:
The banks don't give a living shit about your savings deposits.

How much interest do you get on a savings account?

How much interest do you get charged on a loan or credit card?
>> ^budzos:

The banks don't give a living shit about your savings deposits.