@bcglorf

think we are talking about two separate issues,with a only a subtle overlap.

i totally agree that when it comes to russian politics,and/or state sanctioned military operations,RT tends to lean in favor of the russian state.

but in my opinion this does not detract from the works of hedges,or hartman or even abbey martin.who used to have a show "breaking the set" and "empire files".

we can view american corporate media through the same lens.

FOX=republican message of the day
MSNBC=democrat message of the day
CNN=the american state message of the day.

taken in aggregate,these corporate media outlets are all propaganda/misinformation machines.

but..taken singularly...

shep smith on FOX does some good work.
while personalities such as o'reilly,cavuto and carlson are simply demagogues.

or rachel maddow on MSNBC.
who does an excellent job of disseminating the politics behind a lot of republican shenanigans.sadly her show is incredibly biased and partisan.so while i LOVE her analysis..i realize that it is a tad bit biased and slanted.

i do not watch CNN.except when i want to know what bullshit excuse the american government may be focused on.

so i get where you are coming from,and i agree for the most part.
i simply refuse to outright ignore someone like hedges,with his credentials,because of the venue he has been relegated to in order to express his criticism.

is/does RT sometimes promote russian propaganda?
yes..of course.
does this equate to chris hedges being a russian propagandist?
no..it does not.

and i am also not necessarily disregarding your discernment and discrimination towards hedges.
we all have a metric we use when discriminating.
yours is simply different than mine.
this does not equate a moral right nor wrong,just different.

but you and i may disagree on some things,but i would like to think we have both earned each others respect.

so when you post a comment.i read it with that respect dictating the lens with which i view your words.i know that you consider your words carefully,and i think it polite to give those words the same consideration that you gave them when writing.

we can disagree,and have,but i always walk away with at least understanding WHY you may feel a certain way.

I'm anxious to see the Faux Left coming out of the woods again during the reign of the Orange One. All the shit they opposed when the Bush administration did it only to shut up when the Obama administration continued, or even expanded it, are they going to oppose it again? Can we at least get opposition against the targetted killing of US citizens without due process (al-Awlaki)?

What of all the Dem sycophants in the liberal wing of the media (Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Operative K, Rachel Maddow, etc) who went on a pro-HRC binge over the last months in particular, will they return to reality?

And what is Alex Jones going to? Having raged against government in general only to have his guy now be in charge of the government... is he going to sell beauty products now?

Edit: Thomas Frank, again, to the rescue:

Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

Although the smell, due to the additives, which were noticed way back (oct-nov) by the communities near by. http://ktla.com/2015/10/30/concerned-porter-ranch-residents-protest-after-gas-facility-leak-causes-odor/

The company has been relocating families since it seems.

Another video that shows the leak about three weeks ago
https://youtu.be/IAKiqy82GIQ

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC did a story about a month ago.
https://youtu.be/OaY6-8MRwBE

To address your points:

>> Bush: Disaster. Remember, remember the Patriot Act?
GW is not up for re-election and to the best of my knowledge Jeb had nothing to do with writing the Patriot Act. He supports it, but almost all the candidates do. I'm not a huge fan of Jeb, but he actually seems like the smart one in his family. Would still prefer him not to be president.

>> Clinton: Lying, manipulative, currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department. Really?
@newtboy already addressed the so-called "email-gate" or whatever. As for "lying, manipulative"? You're kidding, right? She's a politician. They're all lying and manipulative. Ultimately, I think Hillary will probably get the democratic nomination and while I'm not a huge fan, she's an order of magnitude better than any of the republicans.

>> Bernie Sanders: Self-purported Socialist. Lovely.
So what? "Socialist" is not a bad word. Many of the highest ranked countries for citizen health and happiness are socialist. America needs to grow the fuck up and get over it's childish clinging to McCarthyism. A bit of socialism would do it the world of good.

>> Ben Carson: I have no particular qualms, by all means intelligent, however, doesn't say anything beyond the bloated party line.
Ben Carson, "intelligent"? Are you fucking kidding me? The guy's borderline insane. How he ever got to be a surgeon baffles me.
This is a guy who thinks that "Joseph built the pyramids to store grain", that doesn't understand fucking magnets, er, gravity and believes evolution was ‘encouraged by’ Satan. He's a fucking moron.

>> That brings us full circle back to Trump... He has a real, tangible plan...
to fuck everything up? Seriously, Trump is an idiot and would be the worst thing to happen to the USA (and by extension the world) in decades. His ignorance is matched only by his ineptitude.

>> As for Obama, and I include him because many seem to think he is great for some reason..
a) I don't think he's great, he's been a huge disappointment and
b) he's irrelevant to this debate
but anyway...

>> His healthcare plan failed(look it up)
I did and it hasn't.

>> America is now over $18 Trillion in debt.
I wonder if the previous president starting two wars has anything to do with that?

>> And he insists on throwing pebbles at ISIS while the EU does all the fighting
Way too big a topic to address here. Post on another video if you want to discuss it further.

>> I am not necessarily saying that Trump is a good person, or would make a good President, but he would me loads better than the other shrimps for candidates...
He's not, he wouldn't and better than an invertebrate with a brain only barely recognisable as such is not a sufficient bar for the presidency.

So apparently there's a great Al Jazeera documentary out there about abortion rights! Rachel Maddow likes it! Boy, I sure would like to see that!

...

Oh, yeah, here it is... http://videosift.com/video/The-Abortion-War

Hmm....is it, government by a certain sort of people in line with some linear, self-indulgent, sociopathological-narcissistic principles?? This fits well with ANY 'ocracy' in the long list historically.

Rachel Maddow and Al Jazeera: Like cold-coffee stirred with a soggy cigarette

Thanks for your help with the Rachel Maddow video ... I don't understand why so many "official" videos released through the network YT channels are going dead so often lately. It's perplexed and frustrating

Throwing up a graphic (1:00) with Rachel Maddow sandwiched between Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reily creates a false equivalency.

There were no "good old days". We never were "All" in it together. It may be comforting to look back on the past with nostalgia but that's all it is.

Hi,

Can you please allow msnbc as a "known" host?

I'm trying to fix my dead video here:

http://videosift.com/video/Rachel-Maddow-Hammers-Home-Why-Fox-News-Is-Bulls

with this embed:

<embed name="msnbc8bba9" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="640" height="280" FlashVars="launch=51283068&amp;width=640&amp;height=280" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>

but siftbot tells me:

"Sorry, that video host is not supported, and you are not yet privileged to submit from unknown hosts. :-("

Thanks!

She tries a little too hard to be Rachel Maddow and/or Jon Stewart and doesn't have the charisma to carry it.

I think Andersen Cooper and Rachel Maddow are the same person. Their delivery is identical.

In feminist theory there are many branches. There are two main branches that have sub-branches.

Liberal feminism - the idea that we are all equal through our capacity for rationality. Equality will come about through the practice and recognition of this equal capacity for rationality and as institutions change so too will women's capacity to demonstrate this. The reason that this currently can't be exhibited is because of a patriarchal system that views women as weak and soft minded. This leads lib fems to try to be "man-like" of mind so as to assert their equal status; girly but strong minded, ie. Thatcher(extreme example), Clinton, Rachel Maddow.

Radical feminism - Men are the oppressive class and women are the oppressed. (Try to deny it seriously. If not within the West then within the rest of the world) As a result women must form a opposition to this oppression by mens of taking sides. Women can still be equal of any attribute such as reason etc but none the less by virtue of their biological sex they are relegated to 2nd place based on that alone. The response is to form an equally if not more powerful class to overthrow the patriarchal system. Now this is where the original video things its anti men. It is anti patriarchy, anti a system millennia old that places political capital on birth right/biology. To argue against this risks committing a naturalistic fallacy whereby what IS is what is RIGHT. Through time we can cite all sorts of examples where that is not the case - slavery, pederasty, segregation. One way of addressing this patriarchy oppression is by banding together and attacking overt examples of gender/sex discrinination and oppression as is put forward in the video as reverse oppression (whatever). The other more radical feminism asks that women forgo their own proclivities and become political lesbians. This requires that they become a lesbian not only in solidarity with their sexed brethren but also actively reject men as a necessary part of a flourishing life.

So much of the discourse, on both sides, confuses the aims of which ever brand of feminism they prescribe (sometimes a mix of both) with instances of activism/oppression. Anecdotal evidence can only do so much in a systematic and ingrained norm such as gender roles.

The original video is laughably inane and self-agrandising in its selective use of anecdotes and conflation of one idea with another. It is as worse than radical-radical feminist arguments insofar as it cherry picks examples to highlight that which is unsystematic whereas rad fems point out things that are systematic but their ends are not understandable, or acceptable if understood, by most. That doesn't mean they are wrong.

TLDR; Lib fem, go with the flow and ask for gradual change. Rad fem, form a opposition of power and overthrow current system then restructure from what is divorced from historically contingient oppressive gender description.

"If They Melded" - Justin Bieber + Rachel Maddow Edition has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

"If They Melded" - Justin Bieber + Rachel Maddow Edition has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Your video, Rachel Maddow Hammers Home Why Fox News Is Bulls#@!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.