That Jonathan Wells guy has a PhD in biology and he doesn't think this is evidence for Darwin's theory? I can see the massive hole in his argument and all I'm going on is 10th grade biology. Life forms have had BILLIONS OF YEARS to evolve. BILLIONS! Its no surprise if we don't find new species emerging over a mere 150 years. In comparison to the time that life has been evolving, 150 years is like half a nanosecond. However the fact that we can clearly see great changes within one species over a small amount of time IS evidence for Darwin's theory, because it doesn't take much effort to imagine how such changes could accumulate over BILLIONS of years and cause massive changes, resulting in entirely new species. There is no boundary one species has to go across to become a new species. When it becomes different enough we call it a new species.

I think its a bit more complicated than the video suggests - there is both pro-Israel and pro-palestinian bias in the U.S. media (probably more pro-israel though). The pro-israel bias may partly come from corporate and political elite interests, but I think its mostly telling Americans what they want to hear. Israel is white, relatively rich, and the victim of Arab terrorism. Kind of like us, right? Americans tend to identify with Israel, and this is strengthened by the fact that they partly share the same God with Christians, and it is a holy land for Christians.

So if you're a media organization looking to make some $, what do you do : portray Israel as a good guy or bad guy? Good guy obviously - since Americans identify with them, its like saying Americans are the good guys. Conversely, portraying Israel as the bad guys is interpreted by Americans as saying Americans are bad guys. That doesn't attract American viewers, meaning less $ for the media organizations.

Its not 100% pro-israel bias though - nothing is ever that simple. Taking the palestianians' side sometimes is also a viable strategy for making $. While Americans tend to identify with Israel because they are attacked by Arab terrorists, there is also an inherent human tendency to identify with the underdog. And its pretty obvious that palestianians, dressed in rags, are the underdogs compared to Israel with their tanks and fighter jets. The kind of David-versus goliath stuff sells well also. Doing a little of both pro-israel and pro-palestinian bias enhances the drama, which also attracts viewers.

We should keep in mind that the media is not one giant unified entity, but a bunch of different entities with their own agendas. Even within a single media entity there are different personalities and factions. What they all share though is a love for cash. Nothing is ever reported for the sake of "informing" people - it is SOLD for its entertainment value. If the palestian-israeli conflict were not entertaining to people, it would not be reported on.

Yeah who the hell would want to be richer than 99% of the world with a $200,000 salary?

Economic conservatives have always hated unions - either because unions interfere with the god-like operation of the free market, or because they cut into the bottom line. Of course they're going to try to put the blame on the unions.

However, I think the union-haters may be partly right. While unions are great for protecting worker's interests, unfortunately they also create a great deal of rigidity. The fact is that the money to pay these workers doesn't rain down like manna from heaven. It comes from consumers. When you have a bunch of workers and give them good wages during the economic good times, when there is a lot of consumer demand for your product, everything works well enough. But when consumer demand goes slack, you have to cut your costs. Profits in the car industry weren't so great that they could take the cut instead. And while the figure of $70/hour may have been misleading, it does tell you something important : basically for every productive worker the company pays, it has to pay the same amount to a non-productive worker. That's like tieing anchors around both your feet. The auto industry cannot cut it costs, when it desperately needs to.

Sure, the management of these companies is not free from blame. They probably could have prepared for this crisis better. But they could not be expected to predict the current economic crisis and the credit crunch, which prevents them from just borrowing to tide them over bad times. So yes, a significant portion of the blame should fall on the unions. They're pretty much the reason why the auto companies had to go to the government to beg for help, and why taxpayers will probably end up footing the bill. Essentially, all of us have to pay for the privilege of a few to keep their jobs.

To sum up, while unions do good things to protect workers and help make decent jobs possible, they need to recognize that the capitalist system is dynamic, and the ability to fire workers or cut their pay if necessary is a requirement for the smooth running of that system. Liberals are right to question the motives of conservatives whose first response is to blame the unions. However, they should not unthinkingly react with the opposite conclusion, that unions are innocent. Lets consider the facts, okay?

BansheeX : What makes you think I'm a Keynesian? I think all the economic theories leave much to be desired. Certainly, the statistics economists use aren't that good. But looking at those gives you a better idea of whats going on than reading the unscientific rantings of Austrian economists like Ludwig von Mises or Murray Rothbard. It doesn't matter if their theory of the Great Depression sounds convincing or not. It was not arrived at scientifically, but rather from armchair musings. The economy is far too complicated to understand that way.

Austrian economics has about as much credibility as scientology. They don't even believe in empirical evidence, for crissakes. Mainstream economics does't have a much better theory - essentially its an extended and mathematized version of Austrian economics. But at least mainstream economists know what the data says and use statistical techniques to analyze it. You know, like real scientists. And regarding the Austrian "theory" of the Great Depression - they pretty much pulled it out of their asses. Its just an attempt to blame the whole thing on the government, and exempt the free market. Austrian economics is a religion - the free market is God and government is the Devil.

Another example of Fox News' uncompromising pursuit of objective journalism. Too bad that retarded monkeys could do it better. Not that he so-called "liberal media" is much better. It's all corporate media - and they're all in the business of providing entertainment and making money, not investigating the real issues and providing a forum for serious intellectual discussion. Turn off the "news" and watch PBS.

And as for this pointless bickering about whether Obama's policies are "socialist" : ha. The whole thing should be dismissed out of hand. Don't even dignify these right wing hacks with a response. Tell them to come back when they grow a brain.

I tried having "the talk" as well, to no avail. Well, at least my parents now understand I have thought-out reasons for why I like Obama. But as for convincing them to change their vote, fat chance.

When you've harbored negative emotions towards one party for decades, no rational argument can get rid of them. Politics is about emotions, not logic - read the book the "The Political Brain" by Drew Westen. For my parents, negative emotions are attached to Democrats. They feel that Democrats embody different values from the ones they were raised with. And that's true. Progressive values are a new and scary thing to many people, who have grown used to a certain way of thinking. For example, progressives are much less nationalistic, and conservatives just don't understand why anyone would be less than 100% behind America. They start from different factual premises. So they see Democrats trying to act patriotic, and they think Democrats are being insincere. That's true to some extent. So they falsely conclude that Democrats secretly hate America.

When you think one way for a very long time, it becomes almost impossible to see things differently. So that's why "the talk" is usually useless. But by no means should you hide your support for Obama.

"A Muslim Republican is even more confused than a Gay Republican."

Maybe they fantasize about being Saudi oil barons.

Is Limbaugh missing a brain? Perhaps he had it replaced with a second digestive system, which exudes excrement out his mouth.

If Obama loses, it'll be because of people exactly like this. There's millions of them. And she's saying what they're all thinking. Obama isn't "one of us," because he's too "uppity" and "elitist" and doesn't share the worldview of the regular joe six-pack who thinks America is the God-blessed greatest country on earth that can do no wrong. And he's a black man, possibly Muslim or atheist! When you don't know anything about the issues, your only reason to vote one way or the other is prejudice.

That was great - there's some stirring rhetoric! I don't think I've ever heard Obama speak with so much passion. In fact, most of the time he's a little too aloof and calm.

jrbedford - McCain attacked his character (though only in the US is being called a socialist an insult). This was the perfect response to that. You don't go off on an academic discussion about the precise definition of socialism when someone attacks your character.

Economists assuming everyone is a selfish utility maximizer, as usual. Not everything is a commodity.

eh, the robot chicken one with link and zelda was a lot funnier.