The real bias is corporate. There are some clear standouts: MSNBC and FOX NEWS. Everyone else is clearly influenced by their corporate masters.

If you believe in some liberal media conspiracy, that means you are not sane. Period. Look at the parent companies. Dominated by liberals? Not usually.

edit: Oh, look, a questionable report based on paper-thin methodology, supported by a think-tank designed to find liberal bias in the media (big surprise that they found it!), contradicted by a poll that shows the majority of journalists are moderates. Master debater spotted.

If you want to talk about silly ideologies, maybe you should start with your own.

Have you ever considered how convoluted your concept of liberty is? It excludes social liberty, opposes democracy and embraces the free market, which is a constant source of tyranny all around the world. There is no functioning example of this brand of 'liberty' in action, nor has there ever been, yet on faith alone you are 100% convinced that somehow such a style of governance would be a good idea.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you have been duped, and that the American libertarian movement is only telling you what you want to hear? Have you ever considered the possibility that the 'virtue of selfishness' was meant to discourage your own sense of empathy and community?

A coupla points:

-Why does American 'libertarianism' need to be joined at the hip with the so called free market? Doesn't this compromise it's objectivity? Doesn't this hamper it's ability to criticize free market tyranny? Why is it necessary to have a bond with a system that has wrought so much havoc on small countries and big countries alike?

-Have you ever wondered why the libertarian think tanks that tell you what to think (like Cato) are funded by large corporations and dubious individuals like Mellon Scaife? Do you think Richard Mellon Scaife, the Ford Foundation, Wal*Mart, the oil industry, the tobacco industry, credit card companies, etc. really all have your best interests in mind? Or is it possible that they have adopted disingenuous postures of liberty only to further their own interests?

I know you pride yourself on individualism and that in your own mind it is everyone else that has been taken for a ride, but have you ever considered the possibility that it is you that has been duped?

You've admitted that most of your friends are liberals, including the smartest person you know. You work in a creative industry populated primarily by liberals. You hang out on a website populated primarily by liberals.

Maybe it's not everyone else. Maybe it's you.

Have you ever considered how convoluted your concept of liberty is? It excludes social liberty, opposes democracy and embraces the free market, which is a constant source of tyranny all around the world. There is no functioning example of this brand of 'liberty' in action, nor has there ever been, yet on faith alone you are 100% convinced that somehow such a style of governance would be a good idea.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you have been duped, and that the American libertarian movement is only telling you what you want to hear? Have you ever considered the possibility that the 'virtue of selfishness' was meant to discourage your own sense of empathy and community?

A coupla points:

-Why does American 'libertarianism' need to be joined at the hip with the so called free market? Doesn't this compromise it's objectivity? Doesn't this hamper it's ability to criticize free market tyranny? Why is it necessary to have a bond with a system that has wrought so much havoc on small countries and big countries alike?

-Have you ever wondered why the libertarian think tanks that tell you what to think (like Cato) are funded by large corporations and dubious individuals like Mellon Scaife? Do you think Richard Mellon Scaife, the Ford Foundation, Wal*Mart, the oil industry, the tobacco industry, credit card companies, etc. really all have your best interests in mind? Or is it possible that they have adopted disingenuous postures of liberty only to further their own interests?

I know you pride yourself on individualism and that in your own mind it is everyone else that has been taken for a ride, but have you ever considered the possibility that it is you that has been duped?

You've admitted that most of your friends are liberals, including the smartest person you know. You work in a creative industry populated primarily by liberals. You hang out on a website populated primarily by liberals.

Maybe it's not everyone else. Maybe it's you.

In reply to this comment by TheFreak:
Always take the time to investigate sources.

"The Acton Institute is an ecumenical think-tank dedicated to the study of free-market economics informed by religious faith and moral absolutes."
Who funded the Acton Institute?
The Bradley Foundation: $225,000 (laissez-faire capitalist organization)
Philip Morris: $10,000
ExxonMobil: $30,000

No thank you Acton Institute. You're assertions are rejected. Not because your points are short sighted, naive and laughable and you show an obvious agenda towards promoting corporate power through manipulation of religion...no wait, that is the reason.

while i agree knowing and vetting a source is valuable. information should not be dismissed out of hand based soley on that factor.
is it your contention that what america has now is a free market?
that what has transpired in the past few years could not remotely be considered a flirtation with plutocracy?
while i am not a purest when it comes to capiltalism,what we have now has become an abomination.

Always take the time to investigate sources.

"The Acton Institute is an ecumenical think-tank dedicated to the study of free-market economics informed by religious faith and moral absolutes."
Who funded the Acton Institute?
The Bradley Foundation: $225,000 (laissez-faire capitalist organization)
Philip Morris: $10,000
ExxonMobil: $30,000

No thank you Acton Institute. You're assertions are rejected. Not because your points are short sighted, naive and laughable and you show an obvious agenda towards promoting corporate power through manipulation of religion...no wait, that is the reason.

Of course you can respond. I don't want a concession I haven't earned.

The failure of Circuit City (or any of the others on your list) has had no meaningful impact on reducing corporate abuse. Circuit City was replace by Best Buy, which treats its employees worse than its predecessor. So in this case, 'wallet democracy' has actually made things worse.

This is because "wallet democracy" isn't based on intelligence, wisdom, morality or any kind of desire for social justice, it's based on convenient location, ad campaigns, low prices and blue light specials. These out-of-whack priorities have no real chance at achieving anything positive, and usually end up doing the opposite, by empowering the worst offenders, like Wal*Mart. I've not shopped in a Wal*Mart in over a decade, but still they thrive, despite my furious wallet. I guess the people have spoken, and working class dignity is an inferior candidate to low low prices.

'State's Rights' is another favorite corporate think tank meme, for the simple and obvious reason that corporations would rather face small enemies than large ones. Corporations have vast resources that they can use to bribe desperate states, to pit states against each other, and to punish states that don't toe the line, among other things.

I don't see local politicians being any less susceptible to lobbying; or local voters being any less susceptible to expensive ad campaigns, in fact, small town folk might be more suceptible to the glitz and glamor of corporate favor than their seasoned national counterparts. A few of the larger metropolitan areas might be organized enough to make a stand, but I can't see it realistically living up to your expectations.

Beyond all that, do you ever use the local control you already have?

-Have you ever attended a city council meeting?
-Do you research your local candidates in any depth?
-Do you know the names of local politicians, state senators, state congressmen, local judges and/or city council members?

Anyway, I like the old Clinton quote that goes something like 'there is nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what is right with America'. For better or for worse, our country is 'our' country, and as long as it remains our country, we have the ability to change it. It's easy to feel down about our country, because we are getting our asses kicked by a very small, but wealthy and powerful segment of our population. If enough of us can figure this out, and are mad enough to do something about it, we win. It's a big if.

(hahaha, nice dick joke)

The sad fact is, THIS, is going on in the other 49 states of the Union on a daily basis. It is easy to dismiss someone you dont know, or care about. Rather easy to demonize them. In this video, the production group is demonizing the company directly, and health care system at large. It would have been good, to have the health care company defend itself on the charges. Frankly, I do not think I could take a company rep serious, if he said this woman could not be treated as her doctor perscriped, given that the same company has a high profit margin.

The statistics given, should be listed with a source. While the numbers sound fantastic, I'd like to know where those numbers come from in their original form. Its not that I distrust what the production team are doing, I'd like to read the information myself. I feel this *IS* important, as the other side of the arguement, typically does not want to show their sources. As those sources more often then not, come from a bias base (i.e. a 'think-tank' that opposes health care reform, because it gets it money from the health care industry).

I certainly hope that woman gets what ever treatment she needs. NO ONE, should suffer, because some citizens in our country are selfish.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/77_oklahoma_high_school_students_cant_name_1st_president/

Read this. It links to the actual survey results and discusses the credibility of the survey. It wasn't even a test, it was a phone survey done by a conservative think tank that wants to push private schools. The number 1 answer on almost every question was "I don't know".

The CFR (Council on Foriegn Relations) is a think tank whos members comprise basically every prominent US politician, central banker and mega corp executives. They have a publication called Foreign Affairs that propagates the kind of thinking they're developing.

Trilateral Commission is much the same with international members spanning different countries in Europe and Asia.

Bilderberg group is secretive to the point of armed guards, people claiming not to have been there/know about it when it is provable that they do, etc. It seems to have many of the same members, however it is more selective than CFR/Trilateral, so probably at the top of the power structure (if there is one).

Combining these three groups, you've got perhaps the most powerful 500 people meeting in secret which are all then connected to the CFR and Trilateral commission. Both are extremely influential groups in the Foreign Policy arena, with the ability to effectively create cases for things like trade agreements that undermine national sovereignty, world food regulation by the WTO, and potentially their goal, a global central world government ruled by them, the most powerful people.. the elite.

As far as I can see it, the CFR in particular is the mouthpiece for this ideology and it happens that Obama's actions seem to fit in quite nicely with it.

Why? To go to war.

To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers, magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and their supporters could assume control.

This happened with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush in 2000. The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking all sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP -- which was more isolationist, more opposed to expanding the role of the federal government, more opposed to military adventurism abroad -- they needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. (In one of their major reports, written in 2000, they noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.")

I'm really beginning to get more and more pissed of at Penn. He asks us to think independently but then shoves down our throats two "experts" that contradict opinions as gospel truth.

Do a little research on the two institutions these two skeptics/"experts" represent.

1) Hudson Institute
The Hudson Institute is an American, conservative, non-profit think tank founded in 1961, in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, by futurist, military strategist, and systems theorist Herman Kahn and his colleagues at the RAND Corporation.

Companies such as Eli Lilly, Monsanto, and DuPont fund this place. And YES, they are tied in DEEPLY with BIG AGRICULTURE!!!

2) Reason Magazine
Reason is a libertarian monthly magazine from the Reason Foundation.

Reason was founded in 1968 by Lanny Friedlander as a more-or-less monthly mimeographed publication. In 1970 it was purchased by Robert W. Poole, Manuel S. Klausner, and Tibor R. Machan, who set it on a more regular publishing schedule. As the monthly print magazine of "free minds and free markets", it covers politics, culture, and ideas with a mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews.

Key phrase above: FREE MARKETS

People, think for yourselves, even while listening to the very Libertarian Penn Jillette. It doesn't take long to look up some information on your own to find out who's trying to do the real spinning.

If you come to the same conclusions as he does, then great, but don't let him brainwash you the same way he believes the organic farms are brainwashing everyone else.

Me? I actually grow my own food and purchase what I can't grow at a local farm in a valley nearby where they use organic methods to grow their food. I know where the source of the majority of my food comes from; and that's my favorite part of it - knowledge of the source.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

That's the biggest misconception that all you non-Americans need to get your facts straight about. Canadians & Europeans look down their noses and say, "Oh how awful that you evil American's don't 'cover' all your people..." Bullcrap. There is a difference between being 'covered' and being TREATED. I would venture to say that the end result of the evil American system is that far more people are TREATED than in the precious socialized countries where everyone is 'covered' but is routinely denied treatment. I'd rather have a system where 42 million people weren't 'covered', but almost everyone was being treated as opposed to a system where everyone was 'covered' but that people are not treated.


Via Wiki

One complaint about both the U.S. and Canadian health care systems is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Wait times in each country are affected by various factors. In the United States, access to health care is primarily determined by whether a person has access to funding to pay for treatment and by the availability of services in the area and by willingness of the provider to deliver service at the price set by the insurer. In Canada the wait time is set according the availability of services in the area and by the relative need of the person needing treatment.

A report published by Health Canada in 2008 included statistics on self-reported wait times for diagnostic services.[47] The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.[47][48] The median wait time to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 86.4% waiting less then 3 months. [47][49] The median wait time for surgery is a little over four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months. [47] [50] In the U.S., patients on Medicaid, the low-income government programs, can wait three months or more to see specialists. Because Medicaid payments are low, some have claimed that some doctors do not want to see Medicaid patients. For example, in Benton Harbor, Michigan, specialists agreed to spend one afternoon every week or two at a Medicaid clinic, which meant that Medicaid patients had to make appointments not at the doctor's office, but at the clinic, where appointments had to be booked months in advance.[51]

In Canada, waiting is prioritized by patient according to relative urgency, with urgent patients receiving immediate access and the least urgent waiting longer. [52] Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S., but Canadians had more chances of getting medical attention at nights, or on weekends and holidays than their American neighbors without the need to visit an ER (54% compared to 61%).[53] However, statistics from the free market think tank Fraser Institute in 2008 indicate that the average wait time between the time when a general practitioner refers a patient for care and the receipt of treatment was almost four and a half months in 2008, roughly double what it had been 15 years before.[54]

A 2003 survey of hospital administrators conducted in Canada, the U.S., and three other countries found dissatisfaction with both the U.S. and Canadian systems. For example, 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery. However, U.S. administrators were the most negative about their country's health care system. Hospital executives in all five countries expressed concerns about staffing shortages and emergency department waiting times and quality.[55][56]

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, the President and CEO of University Health Network, Toronto, said that Michael Moore's film Sicko "exaggerated the performance of the Canadian health system — there is no doubt that too many patients still stay in our emergency departments waiting for admission to scarce hospital beds." However, "Canadians spend about 55% of what Americans spend on health care and have longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates. Many Americans have access to quality health care. All Canadians have access to similar care at a considerably lower cost." There is "no question" that the lower cost has come at the cost of "restriction of supply with sub-optimal access to services," said Bell. A new approach is targeting waiting times, which are reported on public websites

What kind of civil disobedience did you have in mind, pinky?


There are plenty of things you can do within the law:

-Run for office - if you don't think our elected officials are effective, then consider running yourself. A good starting point is the local school board or city council. Even these small races can be competitive and give you a taste of what elections are all about. Warning: You will spend most of your time fundraising.

-Volunteer/contribute to a campaign that you believe in.

-Volunteer/contribute to a political activist group/think tank that shares your values. (If you give the Mormon church a percentage of your income, then you are already doing this.)

-Letters to the editor - Let your opinions be heard by the masses through your local paper. To amplify your voice, send your letter to many papers. You can also recruit ideological allies and focus a large number of letters on a single (or multiple) target.

Protest - In recent years, the media has given short shrift and minimal coverage to protests, which undoubtedly reduces their effectiveness, but if you can zero in on a weak and/or vulnerable target, you might be able to bring local community pressure to a particular individual, business or group.

-Lobbying - Become a billionaire and then manipulate politicians with your fortune through lobbying.

-Start an organization/think tank to further your own political ideology.

-Slacktivism - I do think arguing online, and posting videos has a small effect, which is better than nothing. I've certainly learned things on VS that have informed my world view. I'm sure political conversions are very rare around here, but arming yourself and others with information and philosophy is important non the less.

-Create - Write a song, book or essay. Make a youtube video. Put up some posters. etc....


Outside the law:

-The most common type of CD I know of is where protesters will assemble illegally, knowing full well they will be arrested. These are often coordinated with the police ahead of time, and are usually polite affairs, where the officers treat you with respect and release you very quickly after arrest. I don't see much point to this honestly, outside of the symbolism.

-Tax resistance is something that is being spoken about a lot these days, but I don't see it as an effective way to accomplish anything. At best, the government won't notice, at worst you (like Thoureau) go to jail until your taxes are paid. I suppose it could be effective if you could get a large number of people to do it, but the risks are much higher than the potential for political gain, so I don't see very many jumping on the band wagon. Plus, our taxes aren't all that high relative to the rest of the developed world. It's generally only corporations and the super wealthy that would benefit from reduced taxes.

-Armed Revolution/Coup - There is no support for either of these options, outside of the Hollywood fantasies of some militia groups.

Other options:

-Go off the grid. Like Thoreau at Walden Pond, you could move outside of society and live off the land. Live modestly without a lot of material possessions, because the things you own end up owning you. There are various communes you could join, or you could just build a cabin in the woods and have your solitude.

Coleman is a slimeball from beginning to end.

Makes me question the mental fortitude of Minnesota if they could think that voting for this guy would be a good thing for the people, or our country, or the world for that matter.

He's half the man of his predecessor, and that's being generous.

And he's a liar to boot. The right-wing blogs and "think tanks" receive much more money than anybody on the left does.

And he loves Reagan! Oh, fuck yeah, we really needs us some more Reagan again.

Supply-side economics, more corporate control of our government, and escalated military spending.

Sure! Works every time!

is it my turn to toss in?
good.
lets take mr walters point by point.
1.he is from the hudson institute-(neo-con think tank)deduct 50 points right there.
2.taxable income questionable?ok,i agree here.there is no actual data as of yet.
3.weed is the number ONE reason for drug treatment.
what?where is the former drug czar getting his numbers?
the number ONE abused and treated addictive drug is legal prescription painkillers.even if we used illegal drugs, pot is fourth.(data from A.M.A)
4.weed is responsible for violence and deaths among dealers.
no..its creating a black market that leads to violence and deaths.
its not like a drug dealer can go to the authorities and bitch about another dealer creeping into his turf.this is just bad logic.you can apply the same sentence and just add:coke dealers,pimps,gambling,fights...
when you create a black market,the only way those who RUN that black market can protect their investment is usually through violence,which may lead to deaths,sometimes innocent.
5.mr walters keeps using the term "drugs".
while not wrong,its not entirely accurate."drugs" is an umbrella term which includes ALL drugs i.e :coke,meth,x,heroin etc.
to conflate these very dissimilar narcotics is dishonest and misleading.
6.again mr walters conflates "drugs" with violent behavior.
"many of the arrests found weed on the person"
and?using circular logic to make a point is still circular logic.
so if i got arrested with a playboy in my possesion that would mean im a sexual deviant?thats just weak.
6.marijuana dependency?
first off,doesnt exist.at least not in the way mr walters is portraying it.
THC is fat soluble,which means it takes at LEAST 3 weeks for HALF the THC to leave your body.you have to smoke a tremendous amount,consistently for a very long time to feel any adverse affects if you stop smoking.even then the effects are mild.
7.0.3% is the population percentage in jail for possesion of weed..
thats an outright lie.
that figure is way higher,some as low as 20% and as high as 65%(couldnt get a solid number)but considering that private jails are now the number 9th largest lobby,and are the biggest funders of keeping weed illegal.
well..you tell me what that looks like.
8.more conflation about number of people who use "drugs".
the fact is,a certain amount of the population will use drugs.
its predictable and steady.this number coincides with weed smokers.
i believe the number is 23%,but im not sure and forgot the studies name.
but its around there.

one final note.
some have mentioned it here already,and i totally agree.
if you do something in your own home,harm noone,not even yourself.
how can it be deemed illegal?
even the constitution backs up the dissilution of this ill-thought,inane,archaic and totally useless law.
the man who demonized weed was a man named henry anslinger.
who used the "demon weed" for political purposes,and he did a damn fine job of it.
that was in the late 30's and early 40's.
time to huck this piece of irrelevant legislation out the door.
thank you..and good night.