It's in Wikipedia now:

In September 2009, the Photoshop Disasters blog posted an advertisement from Polo Ralph Lauren that contained a heavily manipulated image of a female model. The post was subsequently reprinted by BoingBoing[21]. Ralph Lauren issued DMCA takedown notices to BoingBoing's ISP and Blogspot, which hosts Photoshop Disasters, claiming their use of the image infringed copyright. Blogspot complied, but BoingBoing's ISP consulted with BoingBoing and agreed that the image was fair use. As a result, BoingBoing issued a mocking rebuttal[22], using the same image again and posting the takedown notice. The rebuttal was widely reported, including on frequently viewed websites such as The Huffington Post[23] and ABC News.[24]

>> ^Sagemind:

ABC NEws: "A government report released Tuesday raises new questions about the safety of the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil. The vaccine has been linked to 32 unconfirmed deaths and shows higher incidences of fainting and blood clots than other vaccines." - http://i.abcne
ws.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/gardasil-hpv-vaccine-faces-safety-questions/Story?id=8356717&page=1

From that article: "But while some physicians expressed concern over the findings, other doctors viewed the report as reassuring, showing that the vaccine was not associated with any more unusual and serious side effects as other vaccines."

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP/Attornets At Law: "Most disturbing among the Gardasil side effect reports are those that involve the deaths of young women. Three young women in the US died shortly after receiving Gardasil, while two other women in Europe also died after the vaccine was administered."
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/gardasil_side_effects

You think a lawyer is a reliable, unbiased source on the medical effects of a drug? "Our Gardasil side effect lawyers are offering free consultations to anyone who suffered serious complications from Gardasil or their families. The Gardasil side effect lawyers at our firm will work hard to make sure Gardasil victims receive the compensation they deserve." Who really stands to benefit from this?


CNN 8.11.8: http://videosift.com/video/Gardasil-WARNING-CNN-Report

This confirms exactly what I have been saying: the side-effects are in line with the side-effects of most other vaccines. Deaths related to Gardasil (yet still not proven to be directly because of it) amount to about 0.1 out of 100,000 doses which is tiny. For comparison, in the US 0.1 of 100,000 children 5-14 die of accidental falls, 22 times as many, 2.2 per 100,000, children in the US die of maltreatment.

32 suspected deaths associated with Gardasil is unfortunate, but does not make Gardasil the scary bogeyman certain people would have you believe.

Don't buy into Big Pharma Care just because the ones standing up are small.

There are other voices out there!

ABC NEws: "A government report released Tuesday raises new questions about the safety of the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil. The vaccine has been linked to 32 unconfirmed deaths and shows higher incidences of fainting and blood clots than other vaccines." - http://i.abcnews.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/gardasil-hpv-vaccine-faces-safety-questions/Story?id=8356717&page=1

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP/Attornets At Law: "Most disturbing among the Gardasil side effect reports are those that involve the deaths of young women. Three young women in the US died shortly after receiving Gardasil, while two other women in Europe also died after the vaccine was administered."
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/gardasil_side_effects

CNN 8.11.8: http://videosift.com/video/Gardasil-WARNING-CNN-Report

I'm not going to list them all but there are some serious concerns here - Look it up!

Again WP saves his argument by quoting *Fox News*

Nice try. Maybe you could READ the article instead of just having a mental spasm when you see 'foxnews' in the link. Perhaps if you had, you'd have realized that the poll they cite was conducted by the Kaiser Foundation, ABC News, and USA Today. Spend a little more time reading, thinking, and actually pondering this issue instead of just being an emotional reactionary and perhaps you can become something a little more than a neolib zombie.

America spends more per capita on healthcare than pretty much any other industrialized nation

I've already addressed this point. The our spending total on health care is a factor of American macro-economics - nothing more. It is not sinister. We spend more on soap. We spend more on drywall. We spend more on light bulbs. We spend more on toilets. Of course we're going to spend more on health care than anyone else, because our market is the biggest freaking economic market on the planet. The relative cost of our health care has nothing to do with it being public or private. It's just how it is. You could make it public tomorrow and that dynamic would not change. This point is dead and buried.

ninth ammendment

The 9th is not interpreted as meaning "government has the right to take over anything it wants if government thinks it would be a good idea". It is a generic comment that does nothing more except to tell the government that just because a right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does not imply that the Federal government has power to infringe on those rights. So in reality, this ammendment in NO WAY implies that government 'should' be involved in health care. If anything, it is a catch-all telling government that it SHOULDN'T mess around with our health care rights. You neolibs really need to take a few classes in reading comprehension. The 9th is not a neolib wet-dream ammendment that gives government the right to usurp power over our freedoms for whatever it interprets as the public good.

Simply put, just because you get sick does NOT mean that the 9th ammendment should be interpreted to mean that the federal government should take over the health care industry. :eyeroll:

The majority of posters on videosift seem to regard Fox News as non-journalistic and non-professional (including myself). This video is nothing new. What is new, is they are admitting the sort of individuals who email. The ones that are very hateful, vengeful, and psychopathic. The ones who could make Oklahoma City Bombing a cherry bomb in comparison. Fox News, has been goading on this sort of individuals since before GWB was president.

And do you hold the same opinion of CNN? MSNBC? ABC News? CBS? The AP? Newswire? Newsweek? TIME? The point I'm making is that FOX is not alone here. Every "news" agency today is overflowing with the exact same level of hate, vitriol, slime, bias, and lack of professionality. Why are you cheering a vid that wants FOX to tone it down, while at the exact same time you guys cheer at the EXACT same stuff when it comes from Olberman, or Maddow, or all the other guys that are 'stoking' hatred?

All during the Bush presidency the same stuff was coming from the neolibs and the other liberal news sites. It was angry, it was bitter, it was hateful, it was vile, it was coarse, it was despicable. And yet, that stuff gets top votes on the Sift. Why is that? The only possible explanation is that you guys are bunch of flaming hypocrites. In one breat you want to shut down Fox news for being jersk. In the other you are giving a BJ to other news channels for doing the same thing.

Pathetic. Typical, and pathetic.

ALEXA DANNER, ABC News: It's an idea that most of us would rather not face — that within the next century, life as we know it could come to an end. Our civilization could crumble, leaving only traces of modern human existence behind.

It seems outlandish, extreme — even impossible. But according to cutting edge scientific research, it is a very real possibility. And unless we make drastic changes now, it could very well happen.

Experts have a stark warning: that unless we change course, the "perfect storm" of population growth, dwindling resources and climate change has the potential to converge in the next century with catastrophic results.

In order to plan for the worst, we must anticipate it. In that spirit, guided by some of the world's experts, ABC News' "Earth 2100," hosted by Bob Woodruff, will journey through the next century and explore what might be our worst-case scenario.

But no one can predict the future, so how do we address the possibilities that lie ahead? Our solution is Lucy, a fictional character devised by the producers at ABC to guide us through the twists and turns of what the next 100 years could look like. It is through her eyes and experiences that we can truly imagine the experts' worst-case scenario — and be inspired to make changes for the better.

ABC news story here: http://www.videosift.com/video/Duckling-Rescue-and-Parade

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=5585 ABC news Primetime Live faked poor meat handling prices at food lion.

Dateline NBC General Motors investigation: GM placed incendiary devices in GM pickup truck to ensure gas tanks would explode.

And then, there's always the news show who put a non functioning revolver in a toy box in a pre school to see what the kids would do when they found it.

I don't seen any pattern of credibility in these types of reports but they don't get paid to be right. Oh well.

I don't remember which order, but these were my top submissions. So, I guess just vote for whichever was your favorite (or all of them!

http://www.videosift.com/video/ABC-News-Investigates-Sarah-Palins-Book-Censorship
http://www.videosift.com/video/Burning-Methane-From-Frozen-Lake
http://www.videosift.com/video/Superbowl-Porn-Accident
http://www.videosift.com/video/CNN-Fact-Slaps-McCainPalin
http://www.videosift.com/video/ABC-News-Investigates-Sarah-Palins-Book-Censorship

Invocations (dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/bush-interview-abc-news-shoe-insult-iraq-al-qaeda) cannot be called by gwiz665 because gwiz665 is not privileged - sorry.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Bush-Interview-ABC-News-Shoe-insult-Iraq-Al-Qaeda

Since you seem to be so interested in making my video to be a dupe in the sifttalk now..

I submitted this first: http://www.videosift.com/video/Bush-Interview-ABC-News-Shoe-insult-Iraq-Al-Qaeda

However, why isn't this, submitted later by Grimm: http://www.videosift.com/video/Bush-On-Al-Qaeda-Not-In-Iraq-Before-Invasion-So-What
considered a dupe also? It is the exact same interview, but a shorter clip.

I KNOW mine was first, because I yelled NetRunner tons for voting Grimm's video after he published his, and his got sifter before mine, and got to top15.

Just asking.

full interview here: http://www.videosift.com/video/Bush-Interview-ABC-News-Shoe-insult-Iraq-Al-Qaeda

It's totally bogus that Halloween is about giving corn syrup wrapped in plastic. Meh. Home cookin' is always better.

By the way--
Who Spoiled Halloween?

In the 1960s and 1970s, the tradition of Halloween trick-or-treating came under attack. Rumors circulated about Halloween sadists who put razor blades in apples and booby-trapped pieces of candy. The rumors affected the Halloween tradition nationwide. Parents carefully examined their children's candy bags. Schools opened their doors at night so that kids could trick-or-treat in a safe environment. Hospitals volunteered to X-ray candy bags.

In 1985, an ABC News poll showed that 60 percent of parents worried that their children might be victimized. To this day, many parents warn their children not to eat any snacks that aren't prepackaged. This is a sad story: a family holiday sullied by bad people who, inexplicably, wish to harm children. But in 1985 the story took a strange twist. Researchers discovered something shocking about the candy-tampering epidemic: It was a myth.

The researchers, sociologists Joel Best and Gerald Horiuchi, studied every reported Halloween incident since 1958. They found no instances where strangers caused children life-threatening harm on Halloween by tampering with their candy.

Two children did die on Halloween, but their deaths weren't caused by strangers. A five-year-old boy found his uncle's heroin stash and overdosed. His relatives initially tried to cover their tracks by sprinkling heroin on his candy. In another case, a father, hoping to collect on an insurance settlement, caused the death of his own son by contaminating his candy with cyanide.

In other words, the best social science evidence reveals that taking candy from strangers is perfectly okay. It's your family you should worry about.

The candy-tampering story has changed the behavior of millions of parents over the past thirty years. Sadly, it has made neighbors suspicious of neighbors. It has even changed the laws of this country: Both California and New Jersey passed laws that carry special penalties for candy-tamperers. Why was this idea so successful?

http://www.madetostick.com/excerpts/

That's true, but I have to admit I first saw this on local NY ABC news.