@newtboy
that's what you took away from this?
jimmy dore is akin to glenn beck and alex jones?

ok,not gonna judge.

i thought the real take away,in my opinion,was a journalist was taken to task for being lazy and uncritically accepting the current corporate media narrative,and gets a thrashing from an independent journalist from canada.a polite and soft spoken thrashing,but a thrashing just the same.

eve bartlett has been doing some amazing work in regards to syria,and exposing the lies and manipulations of corporate media.

jimmy dore is a comedian,i am just a loser nobody who comments on the internet,but we all come to our own conclusions.

and i no longer give corporate media any authority,because of their utter and complete failure to inform.

i question any and everything that they attempt to spin as "truth".

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Some incorrect information near the start where he says "the vast majority of expenditure goes to medicare, medicaid" etc.. More than half of each tax dollar is going to the military/defence, certainly far and away more than health expenditure.
http://videosift.com/video/53-of-each-American-tax-dollar-going
-to-the-military

Not to totally sidetrack things, but that number requires a lot of dubious decisions about what "counts" as spending.
Since I had this argument not all that long ago with blankfist, here's the thread where I did all the research & response to it.
Basically the short version is to get military spending above 50% you have to a) not count social security, medicare, or medicaid outlays as "spending" and b) count the entire interest payment on the national debt as "military" even though our present debt mostly comes from Reagan & Bush tax cuts.
Too much of our taxes goes to defense & war, but it's more like 20% than 50%.


i'll check that out when I get some time, cheers.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
*quality


very awesome my man!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
*promote


sweet.thanks man!

Great stuff.In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
After watching and understanding this fabulous interview, it's probably worth checking this one out, too... just fyi.

>> ^ghark:

Some incorrect information near the start where he says "the vast majority of expenditure goes to medicare, medicaid" etc.. More than half of each tax dollar is going to the military/defence, certainly far and away more than health expenditure.
http://videosift.com/video/53-of-each-American-tax-dollar-going
-to-the-military


Not to totally sidetrack things, but that number requires a lot of dubious decisions about what "counts" as spending.

Since I had this argument not all that long ago with blankfist, here's the thread where I did all the research & response to it.

Basically the short version is to get military spending above 50% you have to a) not count social security, medicare, or medicaid outlays as "spending" and b) count the entire interest payment on the national debt as "military" even though our present debt mostly comes from Reagan & Bush tax cuts.

Too much of our taxes goes to defense & war, but it's more like 20% than 50%.

Your video, bill moyers-bruce bartlett on where the right went wrong, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Former baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti (father of actor Paul Giamatti) wrote this about the game.

"The Green Fields of the Mind "

"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone. You count on it, rely on it to buffer the passage of time, to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies alive, and then just when the days are all twilight, when you need it most, it stops. Today, October 2, a Sunday of rain and broken branches and leaf-clogged drains and slick streets, it stopped, and summer was gone."

From - From A Great and Glorious Game: Baseball Writings of A. Bartlett Giamatti

sustainable growth is an oxymoron... what you mean is low or zero growth, where the number of things "dying" are more equal to, or do equal, those things being "born". Logistic growth etc.

Logistic growth population models imply density dependent population regulation. Such a model assumes that when populations increase in size (1) the per capita birth rate decreases (as a result of competition for resources) and/or (2) the per capita death rate increases (as a result of competition for resources, predation, or the increased spread of disease). Thus, there is a population size at which the per capita birth rate equals the per capita death rate. At this population size, known as the carrying capacity, the population growth rate is equal to zero.

- http://www.eoearth.org/article/Logistic_growth

Good math resource here: https://www.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/materials/diffeq/logistic/index.html

also look up Albert Bartlett's lectures, they might be sifted. He lays it out in no uncertain terms how growth is regulated on earth.

Anyone ever see that episode of the West Wing where President Bartlett "accidentally" let rip when there was an open mike?

I think we just had that happen for real.

To quote Josiah Bartlett, "Shaken, not stirred, will get you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth. The reason you stir it with a special spoon is so not to chip the ice. James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it."

>> ^vairetube:
God doesn't decide. Bartlett does.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Arithmetic-Population-and-Energy
someone get that sifted


Done.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-most-important-and-boring-video-youll-ever-see

God doesn't decide. Bartlett does.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Arithmetic-Population-and-Energy

someone get that sifted

Bartlett is hardly alone. Nixon expanded government and though Reagan fought doing so, a Democrat Congress made sure to spend all the INCREASED revenue from tax cuts.

If the people are dumb enough to give up their freedom, they deserve to live in chains. I'd rather conservatives fight for principles and lose than just be a lite version of socialists.

BTW, the assumption is that America will end up another European-style socialist state, when there's nothing to prevent it from degrading further into a communist one.

On further reading and research I have found Bartlett to be a fairly well-rounded thinker, but I still find this talk to be lacking in a number of critical areas, so much so that I would call them errors of omission.