I would say this is pretty much on the button, though. This way clearly isn't working, but the people who have money and power have convinced the majority that nothing can change and even if we could we would be worse off.

I don't think i'm being melodramatic or conspiracy theorising either. Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers tell people what to think and they think it. Democracy has been subverted by money in most western countries with corporate lobbyists willing to spend billions to get a politician on-side, "anti-lobbying" legislation that actually attacks grassroots and activists from broadcasting the truth at election time (and leaves lobbying untouched), and unfair campaign spending/fund-raising that leaves the rich with all the advantage.

The media in Britain have consistently presented a skewed and incorrect representation of the left-wing party leader. It is clearly a campaign by vested interests to stop a man who would bring their reign to an end. The language that they use and the metric by which they judge "their" guy is COMPLETELY different to how they judge the "other" guy.

What's worse is, fairness and balance in the media has deteriorated to such a point that it is now absolutely fine for all this to happen.

As Lawdeedaw said, we are already a long way up shit creek and we didn't even pack the paddle. Some people are getting very rich and are very comfortable, they have immense power and they will say anything to convince you that it's best that it stays that way. Including lying and using manipulative language and statistics in their national publications and television stations. And all you as an individual really has to do is vote someone into power that cannot be corrupted. You've got Bernie, we've got Jeremy.

"Too rich to be corrupted" is farcical though - let's only trust rich people then. Not only does this suggest that rich people are more trustworthy just by dint of having lots of money, but that poor people are less trustworthy because the greedy little paupers can't restrain themselves from 'upping their station'? I would rather judge someone on who i perceive their character to be than based on what is in their bank account, but i guess i'm fucked up like that.

I'm confused - people are saying that Trump gets coverage so that the media group in question make more money (through bigger audiences). But what makes more money in the long run than a useful ally in a position of power?

A little bit naive to think that personal politics (of the owner, who chooses the editor, etc.) plays no part in media coverage. They don't call Rupert Murdoch a king maker for nothing, and it isn't like the Murdoch family has a list as long as my arm of shady dealings, bribery, corruption, etc.

The turkeys don't vote for christmas, and Murdoch isn't going to advertise for someone who believes in workers rights, equality and making sure huge multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

Exchange Murdoch for any billionaire media mogul you like - the Barclay brothers for example, also not very interested in equality and paying a fair share of tax. Yes it's sensationalism, but it's also powerful men using their influence to protect their interests. As the man in the video himself says.

Anyway, it worked for us over here - we got Jeremy Corbyn in despite the best efforts of every prominent news outlet. I'm not sure if America is ready for a bit socialism just yet, but the tide is changing in worldwide public opinion, i hope.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/jeremy-corbyn-wins-labour-party-leadership-election

59.5%...

The suffragettes weren't feminists. If you want to honour the beginnings of the modern push for sex equality, then you owe your allegiance to such thinkers as John Locke, Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill - none of whom was a feminist. The entire first wave of feminism is a revisionist fiction.

This is on a par with the hideous christian impulse to annex and purloin all good behaviour into itself - "christian driver", "do the christian thing", "christian decency". So too, feminism appropriates every historical social advance in order to declare that, axiomatically, all female freedom ultimately derives from its doctrine, without which women would be slaves of the constantly threatening patriarchy.

In reality feminism is a phenomenon of the sixties - that's the nineteen sixties - with roots stretching back no more than a decade or two; which did a substantial amount of useful work in spite of its many aesthetic and ideological flaws, and which has now essentially petered out to be supplanted by, god help us, the advent of the filthy third wave and its hordes of ranting SJWs.

Corbyn was referenced in quite a few articles by Monbiot, Jones and Milne over at the Guardian, but that's about all I read about him. Never really looked into his positions.

However, Frankie dropped this line about him in his column yesterday:

"I honestly don’t think that Corbyn would make a good leader but only because he would quickly take his own life in a highly unconvincing manner on a long country walk, an inquiry taking 15 years to report that he had kicked himself to death."

That sparked my interest. The comment section provided this gem:

"Corbyn is measured, articulate, doesn't take crap from interviewers, and doesn't look morally constipated through having consumed a surfeit of focus group tripe, unlike the other three."

Again, interesting.

Then you brought him up, and Jacobin runs a piece on him. So I suppose I'll be taking a look at him now.

Have you seen anything about the rise of Jeremy Corbyn (a long standing Labour party backbench rebel) in the UK party leadership election? There's quite an internet "buzz" around it. Almost a kind of British Syriza moment.

I've been saying for a long time that people could just be primed for an honest politician, with the modern social media apps/tech allowing for some real grass roots action.

Fantastic and right - the Labour party abandoned the people; they were so out of touch that they couldn't even persuade some 16 million people to keep out the nasty party. That's why Jeremy Corbyn is doing so well.

For only 3 quid a Labour supporter can vote for Corbyn in the leadership contest. Take the Labour party back from the career politicians and weathercocks.

Your video, jeremy scahill lecture-war crimes and drone wars, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You are very welcome sir. I am on a mission to expose this awesome lecture. I have always liked Jeremy, but I was really impressed with him in that vid.

that is some serious promoting going on my jeremy scahill lecture,and i thank you my friend..it is a fantastic talk.
but its the weekend and that lecture causes ...whats the word..thinking.

Bill's only crime here was really only that it wasn't a very funny bit.

As for the "PC Police", most of the time, I think "PC gone mad" is just said by the likes of Jeremy Clarkson who are just upset that they're not allowed call people darkies or poofs anymore* but in this case it's just lazy journalists looking to drum up faux outrage.

* because that's what they are right? I mean, it's not racist or homophobic, that's just facts. Why are you all looking at me like that?

Let's see: during the incident in question, he called the produced a "lazy irish cunt" (and as much as everyone thinks it's fucking hilarious, racism against the Irish is still racism)

Then there was the "slope on a bridge" incident.

Not to mention the "catch a nigger" quote, or the mexican incident or the Indian special, during which Clarkson built a toilet into the back of a Jaguar, claiming it would be "perfect" for tourists because "everyone" who visits the country suffers diarrhoea, sparked a complaint from the Indian High Commission.

Nah.. no evidence at all.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Biophysicist-Jeremy-England-claims-lifes-all-about-energy

"What is life?", public lecture by prof. Jeremy England, MIT has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.