thank you very much!
In reply to this comment by geo321:
*quality

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Lawrence Lessig' to 'Lawrence Lessig, taken 4 granted' - edited by MarineGunrock

Related: Larry's keynotes at the e-G8 summit this week.

thx DST for promote. I have 3 lessig videos, 1 needs votes.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'policy, change congress, trust, money, graft, ads' to 'policy, change congress, trust, money, graft, ads, lessig' - edited by marinara

>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.

I think you're blurring the lines of what his responsibilities are. He's a lawmaker. Not a law enforcer. Not a judge. Not a journalist. He's giving a speech on the House floor.
If you really want someone to go after the criminals pulling the strings behind government, then you should be all about Ron Paul. He's the only one that's got the stones to do it. Elect him President and his Attorney General will be your new hero.


Stones to do what exactly? I think it's easy to use rhetoric, but how exactly is he going to defeat the corporate influence while elections are not citizen funded.

I think the most salient point about all this comes from the Lessig vid @jwray posted earlier. Lessig's point is that even if a candidate does have good intentions, the corporate IV line that feeds these guys takes away any element of trust that the public can have for them. Sure, Paul takes less PAC donations than most, but that won't make a difference when it actually comes to passing legislation because the rest of them are feeding at the trough like little piglets (and everyone knows it).

lessig is a power point mastah!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores indicting Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.


Lawrence Lessig is on the front line of that battle.
http://videosift.com/video/Lawrence-Lessig-Authors-Google

Your video, Professor Lessig Bitches About Academic Publishing, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^TheGenk:

blocked in Germany, gaaaah!

Fuck! I want to see this.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*quality

ty gwiz!

>> ^TheGenk:

blocked in Germany, gaaaah!


ironic

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^jwray:
I like the majority of his speech, but he's buying into the whole "HFCS is significantly worse than sugar" myth. The research doesn't support that. HFCS-55 is only about 10% worse than sugar because it contains 10% more fructose per calorie. Replacing HFCS with sugar in the modern diet would have a tiny benefit compared to just getting rid of sweeteners. If you absolutely positively have to use a sweetener, straight up glucose (aka dextrose) in a low % solution is fine.
The difference between a coke with sugar and a coke with HFCS is like the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese and a double quarter pounder with cheese and a few bacon bits sprinkled on top.

Here you go:
http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth
A 1.5h long exposé on the danger of HFCS.
edit because embed script failed...


Trying to support your position by linking a source that actually refutes your position is epic fail. The presenter in that video says sugar is the same as HFCS for all intents and purposes. He says the problem is fructose itself, which is present in both sugar and HFCS in nearly the same proportion (sugar is 50% fructose and HFCS is typically 55% fructose).

>> ^jwray:

I like the majority of his speech, but he's buying into the whole "HFCS is significantly worse than sugar" myth. The research doesn't support that. HFCS-55 is only about 10% worse than sugar because it contains 10% more fructose per calorie. Replacing HFCS with sugar in the modern diet would have a tiny benefit compared to just getting rid of sweeteners. If you absolutely positively have to use a sweetener, straight up glucose (aka dextrose) in a low % solution is fine.
The difference between a coke with sugar and a coke with HFCS is like the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese and a double quarter pounder with cheese and a few bacon bits sprinkled on top.


Here you go:
http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth
A 1.5h long exposé on the danger of HFCS.

* edit because embed script failed...

>> ^jwray:
The difference between a coke with sugar and a coke with HFCS is like the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese and a double quarter pounder with cheese and a few bacon bits sprinkled on top.
The difference is the Coke has HFCS in it because the government has artificially made HFCS cheaper with our tax dollars and at the same time made cane sugar artificially more expensive through tariffs. This directly benefits corporations...it can be argued that it does or does not benefit the people indirectly but the fact remains that it's being done regardless of how it effects the people because thats what big money wants.