Seething. But accurate.

In reply to this comment by dotdude:
George Will has it in for Alan Grayson:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/24/america-s-worst-politician.html

George Will has it in for Alan Grayson:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/24/america-s-worst-politician.html

And yet, once again, she's right.

HIV and AIDS are not among the ten leading causes of mortality in the U.S., yet receive considerable amounts of federal research dollars. Compared to the number of lives that cancer and heart disease claim each year, HIV/AIDS research received a disproportionate amount of federal funding. The federal government should reduce AIDS research funding and divert money to research programs fighting more pressing diseases such as heart disease and cancer, which claim hundreds of thousands more American lives annually. Furthermore, unlike many other diseases, a majority of HIV/AIDS cases can be avoided by abstaining from promiscuous sexual contact and intravenous drug use.

* Around the globe, 2.6 million people died of AIDS in 1999.

* It is estimated that 16,000 people are newly infected with HIV each day throughout the world.

* In 1997, 16,516 Americans died of AIDS.

* In 1997, heart disease claimed 726,974 lives.

* Between 650,000 and 900,000 Americans are currently infected with HIV.

* For fiscal year 1999, the federal budget allocated $6 billion to AIDS research and education.

* The National Cancer Institute's 1999 operating budget was $2.9 billion.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Newsweek, National Center for Health Statistics



You've a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Speilberg directed the film. It was his baby. He was only uncredited because of contractual limitations. From the Wikipedia entry...

A clause in his contract with Universal Studios prevented Spielberg from directing any other film while preparing E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Time and Newsweek tagged the summer of 1982 "The Spielberg Summer" because E.T. and Poltergeist were released a week apart in June. As such a marketable name, some began to question Spielberg's role during production. Suggestions that Spielberg had greater directorial influence than the credits suggest were aided by comments made by the writer/producer:

"Tobe isn't... a take-charge sort of guy. If a question was asked and an answer wasn't immediately forthcoming, I'd jump in and say what we could do. Tobe would nod agreement, and that become the process of collaboration."

"In terms of my background, I suffer from voice immodulation. I'm unable to control the pitch or volume of my voice. Also known as Van Horton's Syndrome, VI is a recognized psycho-medical condition which you may have read about in Newsweek or Crack Magazine. Numerous prominent Americans suffer from this debilitating disease, including the guy who played Rodge on "What's Happening" and tennis great Pete Sampras."

>> ^VoodooV:

I remember when I used to think he was the funniest guy ever.


Agreed. Now he's shit.

His comment on the Newsweek article surprised me though. When did Miller become one of the "American exceptionalismists"?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Stephen Colbert, Newsweek, Sean Hannity, randy, inexperienced, syphilus' to 'Stephen Colbert, Newsweek, Sean Hannity, randy, inexperienced, syphilis' - edited by thinker247

>> ^radx:

For your viewing pleasure: Newsweek's data.


Holy shit that's a terrible UI. A scrolling list that moves out from under your mouse when you aim for something!

For your viewing pleasure: Newsweek's data.

And the bitch thinks she's being tortured. Quick, someone bring me a a water board and some water.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/lindsay-lohan-defends-her_n_638913.html
From the article:
Later Lindsay vented about "cruel" and "inhuman" punishment. Over several rambling tweets she quoted from the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

It is clearly stated in Article 5 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights that...., "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." this was taken from an article by Erik Luna.. "November 1 marked the 15th anniversary of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. But there were no celebrations, parades, or other festivities in honor of this punishment scheme created by Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission... Instead, the day passed like most others during the last 15 years: Scores of federal defendants sentenced under a constitutionally perverted system that saps moral judgment through its mechanical rules."

In a surprising twist, Lindsay linked to a Newsweek story about Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian mother of two who may be stoned to death for adultery, and asked her followers to retweet. It's unclear whether she meant to lump her 90-day jail sentence with the inhuman punishment Ashtiani faces.

>> ^srd:

Ah come on. 65 feet is plenty with TV cameras. 300 feet is over the top and I would be able to understand. But do you REALLY need to stick your TV camera up a stressed out oiled birds beak to get the images needed to penetrate the jaded mind-shell of the average TV viewer who is happily munching his TV dinner, exhilirated in his induced 30 second outrage? And do you need to get closer than 65 feet to a clean up boat to shoot it? Maybe you'd be interfering with their work if you're any closer? And not just one, but a whole flock of journalists in boats.
You're behaving as if a media black out was being enforced - and all that's happening is getting the media to give a little room. So what?


40 Thousand dollar fine, and Class D felony charges. Pretty much says, "Fuck you 1st ammendment." As if the media being two feet from boom on the beach is a problem. Perhaps you weren't watching the same video as I was. But it's not just a water 65ft rule. It's also for beaches too, if not by extension but by use. If a boater cannot get to an island that is affected by oil because of the rule, then they cannot photograph the impact it has having on said beach.

It's not the rule itself, or the numbers. It's a matter of principle. If you can't understand that, go read a constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#United_States:_three_branches

The Media should be up the cleanup crew's, coast guard's asses with a flashlight and magnetic probe, after all that's exactly what we expect of them.

The article below is beside the point, but interesting nonetheless.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/26/the-missing-oil-spill-photos.html

Critical review by a veteran:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234064
The Hurt Locker tries to articulate that experience, but those of us who have served in the military couldn't help but be distracted by a litany of inaccuracies that reveal not only a lack of research, but ultimately respect for the American military.

Pasted below are Roman's responses to our Roast Quiz. The RoastMASTER's commentary appears in parentheses.

My real name is Roman Novak. I'm from Europe, Slovenia (we don't know what cheetos are), but I'll try to answer your stupid questions as best as I can.

1.What do you, do most of the day when you are not lounging, but not on the computer?
Roman: Mostly I do nothing or as little as possible. I watch tv shows, movies, read books and smoke weed. When I become bored of that I go outside and get drunk at a pub. In the summertime I ride mountain bikes. I don't like winter or winter sports much

2.Who are you more fond of?
A..Mother
B.McDonalds
C.Beer
D.Technical Assistance
E. Dairy Products
F.All of the above
G.None (kill them all)
Roman: Kill'em all, leave the beer.

3. How many pairs of shoes as opposed to matching undergarments.... boxers or briefs
Roman: weird question. (editor: no shit, what were you thinking Choggie?) I'd say 1 shoe for 10 underpants. there

4.mac or pc?
Roman: pc. or at least hackintosh

5. Who’s your guru?
Roman: I don't have guru's, but there are a few people I love and would buy beer for them. mostly writers I like, movie directors, scientists and people who make me laugh.

6.Bush or No Bush?
Roman: I don't care

7.sprinkles, gravy, or cherry on top?
Roman: gravy ( Ass gravy, of course)

8.tits, ass, or legs.
Roman: face first, gotta be cute. tits are not a priority, but a fine ass is a must. also, i hate fankles

9.supine or prostrate?
Roman: i sleep on my back if that's what u mean (It’s not, but whatever. You have to cut the guy a little slack for his ESL handicap)

10. cat, dog or other
Roman: dog, i guess. not really a pet person

11. Car, bike, public transit, walking or motorcycle?
Roman: bike first, then car (I don't own one for past 3-4 years now)

12.time, newsweek or USNews and World Report?
Roman: i get my news from Stephen Colbert (like every good Videosifter)

13.beer preference?
Roman: Laško (slovenian), Heineken

14.Religion: Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Atheist,Agnostic,Jedi?
Roman: no religion (Again, like everybody here at Videosift)

15.Ever arrested?
Roman: not actually arrested, I was charged a couple of times, most were drug related, couple of fights, and theft once - which I was innocent of and proved it in court, too. (I guess the definition of “arrested” is different in Slovenia than in North America)

16.cheetos: crunchy or puffs?
Roman: crunchy

17.dog or cat person?
Roman: look at 10 (holy double post, batman!)

18.bangs, balding or rug?
Roman: bangs

19.five most cherished possessions
Roman: possesions ... my bike, i guess. my computer. I'm not really attached to material things (+ I don't have many so it's kinda meaningless question for me) and mementos don't do much for me either. every few years I throw ever4ything away and start over

20.clean shaven, beard, goatee or moustache
Roman: beard (it only tickles for a little while)

21. Desert Island albums?
Roman: hard to decide. something jazzy, definetly (sic)

22. Pro gay marriage, or agin?
Roman: do whatever the fuck you want, is my motto. just don't piss on other people

23. Communicable diseases... be honest
Roman: never ever. besides, I hardly have sex any more except with myself (no wonder he fits in so well here, plus he gives amazing backrubs)

To help you understand better, NinjaInHeat, on American politics, just think on this. The concept of a conservative/liberal agenda news agency did not emerge until Fox News turned from 'journalistic quality' in the early 90's to sensational news coverage. Basically, that 'news' agency started to embrace more weird things and not so much stable ideas. During that time, it was not leaning to one or the other side of the political spectrum. With the 'election' of George W. Bush, the owner of Fox News started to switch it from 'neutral' to 'conservative' journalism. During the first couple of years, pass 2000, more and more Americans started to hear of differences between Fox News an all others.

They called it 'the elite media' or 'leftist media'. In an effort to undermine good journalism in favor of their style of journalism. Journalists/reporters were often charged with the task of reporting the news, as it happened, and allow the audience to form their opinions. They would show facts and evidence, and would stay away from opinionated journalism. Think 'Walter Conkrite'. So, Fox News, turned to having a political 'bent' on news reporting. They often tried to put the Republican President, Mr. George W. Bush in the best possible light. Anyone who remains neutral on the subject would point out, that, it undermines good journalism. They were the last ones to report about events in several spots (i.e. Gitmo), and did try to spin the knowledge of an event in the most favorible manner towards the Republican president and Congress (which until 2006, was controlled by the Republican party).

During this timeline, radio, in an effort to draw more listeners, started to bend towards conservative politics. Radio was getting heavily hammered thanks to the Internet, and needed a gimmick to draw more listeners to its site. Largely to get people to buy products and services the radio stations aired on ads.

Conservative radio, actually changed how Fox News 'reported' information. On talk radio, often the host would try to keep the tone and mood of any discussion on subjects that would anger its listeners. Making callers respond in angered voices. As anyone who has studied psychology will understand. Someone who talks in a calm, rational tone, generally can think and be reasoned with. When someone is beyond angry, their ability to think rationally is severally if not, totally, eliminated. Hence were the concept of 'blind rage' comes from. The Frontal Lobe of the human brain shuts down.

So, back to Fox News, and your question. Any news source that doesn't blindly agree with Fox News or conservative talk radio, is, to those people, liberal media. Whether the media is actually liberal bias or not, is irrelavent. So, for example, CNN (i.e. cnn.com) is considered liberal. The BCC, in England, is liberal. The Washington Times (or is the Post?), is liberal. The Boston Globe, is liberal. Newsweek, Money, and even Forbes, is liberal. Generally, any publication that questions Republicans, is automatically liberal. Conservative media will not show things, that hinder its philosophy or show moderates/liberals in a positive tone.

/end neutral bias

I've seen alot of news coverage by Fox News on the sift here, showing how they undermine good jounalism in favor of the latest spin to keep Republicans out of scrutiny. I'm sure many of the people here could post links of some of the more amusing moments in which Fox News, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, or even Rush Limbaugh tries to change the facts to place conservatives/Republicans in to the best possible light. And, to lump moderates as liberals. Then, to show liberals/Democrats in the worst possible light.

Honestly, to understand American politics, one needs to listen to all possible sides on a given piece of information or event. Use, 'critical thinking skills', wisdom, and reason, to figure out what the reason information and facts are, THEN, decide on how to accept that information. For most conservatives, and some liberals, that's way to much effort to expect to take in.

Well, it's pretty accurate, but it's also awfully exaggerated.
It seems to assume that every Israeli that goes through the IDF will either be in a combat or a command role. In reality, the majority will be in non-combat units, and a lot will be in units that are just bureaucratic or logistical.

My own army experience was in an IT support unit. I wasn't in a command role, and I mostly went in the IT direction both because it was something I was good at before, and because I really didn't want to be in a combat unit. For me it was basically a crappy job that paid ridiculously low and had a 1.5 hour commute in each direction.

Still, though. There were positive aspects. It gives you training in fields that you might otherwise not know at all, it puts you with people from social groups you would otherwise not know (melting pot, etc), and it gives you discipline. Silly teenagers coming out of high-school are suddenly made accountable for their actions, required to make decisions that shape their future, take orders from people their own age, etc. It tends to change your priorities.

So, while it exaggerated on the whole leadership experience front, I hereby declare this article to be mostly accurate

In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
Hey DemonIX, is this really what it's like?
Soldiers of Fortune: How the Israeli Army became the most prolific innovation engine on earth
http://www.newsweek.com/id/222793/page/1