@newtboy
can you show me where hedges promoted russian propaganda?
i ask this sincerely,because i have not seen any evidence of what you are accusing him of.

i get that we disagree,but hedges has earned my respect for his journalistic veracity.

you have earned my respect for being a decent human being,who i happen to agree with more often than not,but in this case i will not simply disregard hedges stellar work because you accuse him of being a propagandist.

i have read his books.
watched his lectures.
and sifted through his sources.

you have openly admitted you have done none of these things,yet..you have formed an opinion on his work by the venue he has chosen.you have even gone as far as to presume his intent on WHY he is on that venue.

now..you are free to speculate all you wish in regards to hedges motivations,and even be skeptical of his work due to him being on RT atm (he was also on Telesur,and al jazeera english).


i do not find this skepticism unwarranted nor unreasonable.i understand why you may feel this way.

but i am the captain of my own ship.
i do consider hedges respectable and worthy of consideration,because i have considered his words,read his books and watched his lectures.

i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

does this equate to everything that they postulate the unerring word of GOD?

of course not.
i can disagree with someone and still respect them for their views.

example:@bcglorf

i really do not see an issue here.
i also do not understand why i am being put in a position to defend why i may respect a reporter/journalist for the good works they have produced.

i am sure there are authors/journalists/academics that you admire and trust their work,because they have earned that trust by being consistent with their methodology.

so i do not see a rub at all.
i see you making conflations and comparisons based loosely on associations,and not tangible and concrete evidence.

if you have evidence,and i am simply being biased and residing in my own bubble.then by all means..pop that bubble...i am human after all,and just as prone to confirmation bias as the next person.

the washington post got a full-on kick to the balls by matt taibbi from rolling stone magazine:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-disgusting-w452543

and washpo comes back with a doubling down and STILL no sources!
washpo is down!
washpo is down!

washpo is trying to get back up and recover some credibility by a condescending and defensive editors note!
from washpo:"Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list."

oooh no folks...washpo's facile excuses simply cannot muster any belief in their integrity!
they have been exposed as the muppets they are....those poor real journalists!

To bad they decided to forget this moral outrage this cycle, or we would have a different Democratic nominee and it would be no contest. Instead they decided that this time, ignoring and changing the rules would be the preferred methodology, the only method possible to make their friend 'win' the primary, leaving us with a 50/50 chance of president Trump, and a 100% chance of another 4 years of partisan deadlock and further division. The Republicans are already saying that if she wins, they'll be fine with only 8 justices for 4 years and won't even hold hearings on nominees.
If not for the likely alternative this cycle, I would say the Democrats deserve to lose and absolutely should not be rewarded for the underhanded bullshit they pulled. Lucky for them, the Republicans have countered her with the only person they could find that's almost certainly worse in every way, and a bunch of congressmen/women that support him. The dems have certainly lost my support until they clean house and figure out some reparation...maybe a pre-emptive backing of Sanders for president in 2020?
Before someone tries to spout some b.s. to try to shame me, a no vote for Clinton is NOT a vote for Trump.

"Years earlier, they had amassed...", before building the model.

The model came later as a result of the failed projects, realizing that a symptomatic approach was flawed. The model was to take a more holistic methodology to addressing the flooding along the Mississippi.

The timeline is as follows:
the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927:
Flood Control act of 1928-
Army Corps of Engineers gets to work
Sec. of Commerce H.Hoover directs Flood Relief
towns & cities which had flooded get levees
The Great Flood of 1937:
towns downstream of newly protected communities get flooded.
ACE begins with simple models in dirt
1943 gets funding to build largest scale model for study:
1"=1000' horizontal, 1"=100' vertical
German POWs used for initial labor.

sorry that wasn't clear enough before. There was no model before.

Science "works" when scientists bother to actually try to replicate claims, no matter how bizarre they may be. And as this video and my comment shows, that's not happening in a number of scientific fields. Which is really, really bad for human knowledge and society in general, as billions of dollars and countless work-hours get wasted since researchers base future research on what turn out to be unreliable past claims.

The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" flies in the face of everything the scientific method espouses. Evidence is evidence. It is not supposed to matter who finds the evidence. Someone who is famous in the field should not be given more benefit of the doubt than someone who is not, yet that is exactly what happened in Shectman's case. He was removed from his lab and an actual expert in the field, Linus Pauling, verbally abused him for literally decades.

That's not how science is supposed to work at all. If someone finds evidence of something that contradicts current theory, you're supposed to look at their methodology for flaws. If you can't find any flaws, then the scientific method demands you attempt to replicate the experiment to validate it. You're not supposed to dismiss evidence out of hand because the person who found it isn't a leading expert in the field. In Shectman's case, other labs replicated his results and the "experts" still wouldn't budge... to this day in fact Pauling refuses to admit he was wrong.

Conversely, there are too many papers out there now with shoddy methodology that shouldn't even be published, yet because the author is a name in the field they somehow make it into top-tier journals and get cited constantly despite the dubious nature of the research. Again, that's not how science is supposed to work.

"Spurious bullshit," as you called it, is not being weeded out. Rather it is being foisted on others as "fact" because Dr. XYZ who is renowned in the field did the experiment and no one looked closely enough at it or bothered to try to replicate it. The spurious bullshit should be getting weeded out by actual scientific testing (like the studies in the video that were found to be unreliable) and not by mob mentality.

Theoretically, science works great. However, as has already been noted, in the real world in certain fields, the pressure to publish something "substantial" combined with the inability to get grants for certain experiments because they aren't "trendy" right now causes scientists to self-limit the kinds of research they undertake, which is not at all great for increasing human knowledge.

Another problem is the "expert opinion" problem--when someone with little reputation in the field finds something that directly contradicts the "experts" in the field, they often face ridicule. The most famous recent case of this was 2011 Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman, who discovered a new type of crystal structure that was theoretically impossible in 1982 and was roundly criticized and ridiculed for it until a separate group of researchers many years later actually replicated his experiment and realized he had been right all along. This web page lists several more examples of scientists whose breakthrough research was ignored because it didn't match the "expert consensus" of the period.

Finally, in the humanities at least, one of the biggest problems in research that uses a quantitative approach (i.e. statistics) is that researchers apply a statistical method to their data, such a as a t-test, without actually demonstrating that whatever being studied follows a normal distribution (i.e bell curve). Many statistical tests are only accurate if what is being studied is normally distributed, yet I've seen a fair share of papers published in respected journals that apply these tests to objects of study that are quite unlikely to be normally distributed, which makes their claims of being "statistically significant" quite suspect.

There are other statistical methods (non-parametric) that you can use on data that is not normally distributed but generally speaking a test of significance on data taken from a normally distributed pool is going to be more reliable. As is noted in this video, the reason these kinds of mistakes slip through into the peer-reviewed journals is that sometimes the reviewers are not nearly as well-trained in statistical analysis as they are in other methodologies.

Twice what my family eats...but yes, a small subsistence farm could also be called a garden, just as my orchard of 30+ apple trees could be called a back yard. That doesn't make it produce any less.

Not true. Some, (very few) still grow grain using old school methods, some even using old school grains (thank goodness, we will have them to thank for still having grains when/if the Monsanto grains fail). It's not even 99%, but it is 'most'.

Industrial farming describes a methodology, not a size, not an incorporation. The fact that a single person or two might farm thousands of acres means they are using the same industrial methods, because non industrial farming takes more people.

Clearly, natural farming takes more effort, and costs the consumer more, but does not require major ecological mitigation, so if you count ALL costs involved, it's not that much more expensive. You act like it's impossible, but it's how ALL farms operated prior to the mid century. If it wouldn't scale, please explain how it worked for thousands of years before industrial agriculture started, or how it continues to work in other countries.

It may not work for WEAK shallow root grain crops that can't compete for water and nutrients, like the one's Monsanto sells. It worked fine for thousands of years with more natural, long root crops that also held the soil together.

I didn't hear that in the video, but fine. Don't just repeat known BS and lies then. Roundup is only a pesticide in that it allows GMO crops that have modified genes to be pesticides themselves to grow without competition....and that doesn't count, and I think you know it.

No, I'm not trying to say the video is perfectly honest, it's clearly highly biased...I didn't say that. They do HINT that Monsanto's actions are "evil", but extrapolating and exaggerating from their already somewhat overboard, clearly biased but careful statements to make them insanely more overboard and biased is not helpful to anyone.

You mean this characterization..."You know, on account of them being evil and wanting to see millions of people dead because it gives their corporate heads joy. Just like it wanted to invent pesticides as a means of convincing the public to poison each other for giggles, and getting the state department to experiment on people."
Um...yeah....that's completely insane. I already explained why it's wrong in so many ways, and defy you to show where they said anything resembling that. You have to listen with quite a biased ear to hear that in between the lines of what they actually said, and one must be incredibly, clinically paranoid to believe any public company does things just to be evil rather than purely for profit. The evil they do is an accepted result of their business methods, not the intent of their business, and I think the video was fairly clear about that.

You may stand by that, as I stand by my summation of your comment...that it's insane and exaggerated hyperbole that ridicules an extreme paranoid stance no one actually took.

Laughable. First you quote from a site that anyone would recognize as 100% pushing it's own agenda, then you fail to see that the site you are referencing is happy to toss terms like apex predator around. The very definition of Apex Predator is a predator at the top of a food chain.

If you bothered to learn anything other than regurgitate information that is basically dogma that they want you to spread, you could have easily clicked on one of the links at the bottom of the paper you reference, links that blow gaping holes into the 'science' that supports yours viewpoint.

Here is one: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/E796.long

The scientist used the same methodology and proved that in a REEF environment, Humans ARE apex predators. Why doesn't your dogmatic site list competitive theories? Does it not bother you that they are giving you information designed to influence others into following your beliefs without bothering to suggest counter-theories?

Personally, I consider both studies to be flawed, as we developed into an apex predator through use of tools. We trump other apex predators by either outsmarting them, using tools to defeat them (weapons,traps), or by changing their environment to suit ours (domestication, eradication).

For someone who is telling others to think outside the box, you have buried yourself IN the box on this issue. That's perfectly fine if you like it, but don't expect to not be called to task for it.

As far as morality goes, I know at least one of the two vegans here absolutely supports the development of new technological terrors (heh) that are designed to kill other humans. Since we are designing weapons to kill other humans, doesn't that go directly against the vegan outlook of do no harm to other sentient species for our own benefit? Eh, @transmorpher?

Actually, he's said clearly and repeatedly that wages are too HIGH in the US and should go down, so any inkling that he thinks we should raise them in any way is a 180 switch. It's also a total cop out that he could use for any topic....'I'll just leave it all to the states....so I don't have to do a damn thing as president and nothing I say makes any difference.'
It should be no surprise to anyone. He's written about how he operates, and not keeping your word and changing your position by the moment while insisting everyone else follows along with his 'new deals' is a large part of that methodology....as is lying about facts and threatening anyone that contradicts him with lawsuits or just 'taking his ball and going home' (which doesn't work when you are in business or government) etc.
The whole 'self funding' thing was a fraud from the beginning....and a clear one. He LOANED his campaign money, he didn't spend his own money. He ALWAYS planned to pay himself back with private donations, and you can be sure he's paying himself an enormous interest and massive 'fees' on those 'loans', which means he's actually MAKING money on the campaign, not spending a dime of his own. You can be certain he'll get every dime back and then some....no question.

Also....you should note, this is not a news program (not that they're better) so should not be subject to the requirements of fact, honesty, and clarity we SHOULD (but don't) insist on with 'news' organizations.

First, since this is your SOLE focus, and so you inappropriately insert it into every conversation you participate in, you are preaching about it. No one likes to be preached at, and that methodology always ends with the preached at becoming opposition to the preachers. That means that the way you go about trying to convince people of your point is working against your goal and is creating adversaries rather than cohorts.
Second, most people strongly disagree with your base premise, that all life is equal. Have you ever taken medicine or other steps to get rid of a disease? Ever slapped a mosquito? If so, you are an uncaring, hypocritical, torturous and murdering bastard! You killed billions of living micro organisms, and likely thousands of macro organisms. If all life is equal and it's cruelty to kill, period, then all life is evil because it's impossible to live without killing.

That some people can't see that their pet cause is not the most important issue facing the planet and/or that their viewpoint on a particular topic might not be rational is the root of all that's wrong with the world.

So how about rail against factory farms and stop assuming all meat is the same, is mistreated the same, is executed the same, and is full of the same unnatural additives, and stop railing against people who eat meat.
As I've told your cohort, you would do FAR better to try to convince people to eat humanely raised and executed meats than you ever will convincing them to not eat meats, especially when your main methodology is to try to shame them into your position. That rarely works, even if you're a Jewish mother, the queens of guilt.

Nutritionfacts.org does NOT meet the requirements I put forth. It's a private pro-vegan propaganda site, not scientific. Here's what's said about it by scientists...."Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits and for cherry-picking research even though the vegan diet can be a healthy one"

In one on one conversations, he's right.
In public conversations/debates, it's important to clearly show how wrong the other person's position is, and why, so those listening can be informed. You don't have to be dickish about it, but his non-contradictory methodology doesn't work at all in public conversations meant to convince an audience.

OK, since again you are going to continue to comment to and about me after asking me to ignore you (so I can't read your lies to reply to them), I logged out, read them, and now I'll comment back.

BULLSHIT! You had a shit fit for days when I downvoted a video you posted and it went to the bottom of 'new and upcoming videos', and you cried censorship over and over and claimed it had been removed because you couldn't find your own video. You complained to dag and lucky repeatedly, and tried to have me banned for erasing your video (which never happened, you were just too lazy or incapable to look for it, and continued complaining for days after multiple people pointed out you were 100% wrong and showed you where your video was).

No single political opinion is solicited here, so even the suggestion that those matching yours might be sought out by the admins to make it 'fair and balanced' for you shows a clear lack of understanding of the site and the world in general. At least you understand it won't happen.

As to your specious claim (based on a fox new poll or nothing at all?) that there are more conservatives than liberals in America, it's ridiculous, and easily contradicted with actual facts....for instance, the 2015 Gallup poll said "PRINCETON, N.J. -- Thirty-one percent of Americans describe their views on social issues as generally liberal, matching the percentage who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999."...so even SELF identified liberals match self identified conservatives, if you go by actual political leanings on issues, there's no contest, 'liberals' outweigh 'conservatives' 3-1 (+-).
"Liberals" as you and the rest of the far right define them are clearly the majority view in America. Actual statistics follow:
Those in favor of reproductive choice >50%, anti choice<44%. 78% of Americans want Citizens United overturned. 70% of Americans don't want Social Security cut, 65% want it expanded. The same goes for wanting more financial regulations on banks and wall street, taxing the extremely rich at higher rates, adopting true single payer health care, doing public projects and works, having a standing army (yes, that's a liberal idea...as the army is a socialist program), etc. Those consistently holding "conservative" viewpoints across the board are an extremely small minority, contrary to how many people self identify.
"Conservatives" may hold a majority there in the Fox bubble, but in the real world they are a minority, consistently ridiculed for their total lack of knowledge about the things they complain about and for basing their backwards stances on 'truthiness' rather than fact, especially by those in other countries.

Now, once again, for the umpteenth time, I'll ask you kindly to "ignore" me just like you asked me to ignore you. It's pretty infantile to ask someone to ignore you so you can continue to publicly talk crap about and contradict them without fear that they'll respond...and I find that methodology typical of 'conservatives' that refuse to live by the rules they angrily insist everyone else must live by.
You really don't want me focusing on you in anger, which will happen if I'm forced to un-ignore you and re-engage because you can't quit me. Just stop and quit it, or no complaints when I re-engage with vigor and vitriol.

I can't fathom why this issue alone doesn't destroy the Republican party.
Even those who disagree with the practice of abortion on moral or ethical grounds should support other people's rights to decide their morality and ethics for themselves, and to do something that's undeniably legal. The methodology they use to deny people family planning services, and as a byproduct deny women's health services to millions, is antithetical to their stated main goal, which is freedom from government intervention in legal business, especially 'regulations' designed solely to hinder or destroy the legal practices they 'regulate'. Somehow that mandate is completely forgotten when they use those tactics for their own goals and/or to regulate legal things they dislike, then picked back up the instant the subject changes.

Once again, they take the worst case scenarios and pretend that's how ALL milk is made, and all cattle are treated. It's a lie.
I'm getting pretty tired of that methodology, no matter who uses it.
Yep, lady, vegans are crazy....and liars, exaggerators, and attempted guilt purveyors....at least in your case.
Try honesty if you think you have a point to make....otherwise I'll see exaggeration and think 'Oh, I guess they DON'T have a real point to make, that's why they just lied to make their point'.
Yes, all these things happen, but not in all cases BY FAR. It may be a good reason to stop buying milk from factory farms that use these methods, but not a reason to stop altogether anymore than my wife's stated reason...she says that's it's just white cow pee. That's just about as honest as this video is.

Also, side note, when an organization that wants to reach people who care about animals do it by showing videos of animals being tortured, I'm turned off on the organization every time. It's why the SPCA won't ever get a dime from me. I don't reward attempted guilt trips. EDIT : This video is akin to the SPCA commercials of abused dogs ending with a statement about how this is why no one should be allowed to keep dogs.