That's cool, but I think that's one of those "just because you could doesn't mean you should" deals. A big reason why battered and fried things are so tasty is the contrast between the crispy exterior and the tender/soft interior. Crispy and chewy isn't quite as appealing of a contrast.

I agree, back then this song creeped us out as it was a big downer in contrast to all the upbeat top 40 songs we liked to sing along to.

That's a pretty stark contrast to Trump's private" charitable" foundation that he's been legally barred from shutting down (like he tried to do) until the multiple investigations into his personal abuses and legal violations are completed.
Too bad they can't rate it, because it's private so he doesn't have to release proof of philanthropy, but the few donations it has made were to 1 star rated charities (oh, and apparently to Trump personally)....while the Clinton foundation itself is >4 star.

Great comparison-
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/23/politifact-sheet-comparing-clinton-and-trump-found/

tldr: The decisions made in creating and rearing offspring are subject to a different set of moral criteria than all others because those decisions affect everyone.

Here's the problem with that thought. You didn't just make a decision that affected your life. Or even one that affected the lives of yourself and others you know. You intentionally created another sentient being. Because of human nature, that sentient being is now not just your responsibility, but everyone else's as well. Your decision quite literally affected the entire species. Or should I say infected.

There is no other decision anyone can make that has such an extent of repercussions (with the possible exception of murder). Whether you further choose to be responsible for your offspring is, from a decision making point of view, completely separate from the decision to create that offspring. And likewise, the decisions you make regarding the care of that offspring are entirely separate from the decision to create it. Those decisions are, whether you like it or not, subject to critique. You may not like it, and you may in fact see the entire process (conception, birth, weaning, rearing, etc...) as a single act. Either way, the entirety of the species is now constrained by your initial act of creation. The question is not whether you are a “good parent”. The question is how much of a burden upon or boon to the species will you be.

Just to make this contrast clear…. if I, as thinking adult, decide to consume alcohol in such excess that it causes my liver to fail, I can ask the species to help me to the point of giving me a new liver - which may or may not be granted based on my own words and actions. If you ask a similar favor on behalf your offspring, however, it’s an entirely different moral calculus.

The speed of it is insane. And how it goes from rock music, to people screaming in just 1 minute is a terrifying contrast

He was pointing out how the digital cameras they are using tended to show everything in that flat low contrast manner, but that you could fix it in editing, but that would also mean more time and money. The newer cameras are able to film scenes with brighter colors and higher contrasts right out of the box and eliminates the need for extra editing, if that is the reason they went in that direction in the first place.

It makes me wonder if they went with the muted tones to give the films a more serious feel to them, possibly making the non nerd segment of movie going America more comfortable with them.

Looking back on Pie's take on the Brexit vote may be helpful in light of Trump's. There's good discussion there on how the working class has been getting fucked over by years of trickle-down Reaganomics, corporatism, and austerity have played into the UK's vote on Brexit.

The same groups in the US have chosen Trump over Clinton's faux-left elitism.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jonathan-Pie-on-Brexit

By contrast, Keith Oberman lists reasons to be outraged by Trump,

http://videosift.com/video/176-Shocking-Things-Donald-Trump-Has-Done-This-Election

which plays well into CGP Grey's theory on memes and anger:

http://videosift.com/video/This-Video-Will-Make-You-Angry-CGP-Grey

@eoe

As ironic as it may be to say this, I think that the Republican Congress will be a strong bulwark against Trump's more nationalistic impulses if it turns out he actually wants to act on them and they weren't just part of demagogic campaigning.

If for no other reason that they know demographics are against them in the longer term. They may have won the election on the electoral college but lost the popular vote - even with all the attempts at voter suppression. In the longer term, winning with their party base becomes harder and harder.

They know if Trump enacts genuine deportation measures against Latinos then the frankly astounding 1/3 of voting Latinos that supported Trump will turn sharply against the Republican party. That group represents the fastest growing demographic in America and they can't afford to lose them for a generation.

In contrast, they will be also act a constraint against any of his ideas on infrastructure spending, congressional term limits or curbing trade. Since it's already clear he's filling his cabinet with establishment Republicans and he has little knowledge of policy, he will likely acquiesce to their suggestions for lack of any other policy advice.

Cenk Uygur can become tiresome, but he was pretty good last night in their coverage and kept my attention well, i was actually quite impressed. I really don't care for the rest of the lineup though. The guy on the right is the epitome of impotent rage, stumbling over his words, making complicated points poorly, a fretting, nervous, often very pink man in an ill fitting suit. At times reminded me of the main character from Limitless at his drug-binge/mental breakdown apex, with tight claustrophobia inducing collars riding up around his neck, the crispness of which contrasting and highlighting the beads of sweat, speaking too quickly and spitting. The guy on the left thinks he's 10 times cooler than he is, which is all the more annoying because he is actually a little bit cool - if he didn't think he was so cool, he'd be pretty cool! I could handle Sarkeezian's imperious hauteur - hell i'd find it very attractive - if it wasn't so obviously an act. She found herself compelled to leave the studio for a stiff drink at some point, presumably to bask in the moment when she theatrically interrupted the depleted panel and announced her actions proudly, claiming she was now in a feisty mood before ranting at types of people she blamed. I even think she used some kind of tv-friendly profanity; if you have the wherewithal to soft-censor your 'uncontrolled' outburst, you're faking it. Whatever kind of Don Draper scene she'd staged to pad her portfolio of career highlights, her disappointing final rant meandered down well trodden paths.

OK, assuming what you say is correct (I'm not taking the time now to check) you have a point, but the stats, even if only 1/2 as bad as it seems, still show there's absolutely no equivalence.

Well, if you ate like that, no wonder you think meat is deadly. Eating like that, it is. Eaten in moderation, meaning <50g of CURED meats, and probably less than 1/3 lb of non cured lean red meats, the conclusion I came to is reasonable....that it's in no way comparable to smoking in it's danger. it's not even comparable if you eat 5 times the studied portion of cured meats, although it is clearly not healthy to do so. I eat < 1/2 lb of steak, on the rare occasions I eat it. I eat 1/2 a chicken breast on a normal day, baked. Because I eat good meat, properly prepared, in moderation, there's little to no statistical increase in danger to my health over eating pure vegetarian.

No sir, your stats are wrong....here's direct from the WHO.....
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
12. How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?

According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.
Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.
These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

So, it's 34000 cancer deaths for cured meats (and IF the correlative results with red meat are in fact causative, another 50000 worldwide for red meat) VS 1000000 cancer tobacco deaths. So no, it's not 2/3 there, it's at best, IF red meat is the cause of cancers at the highest level possible (not at all proven) it's 1/12 of the way there....around 8.4%. Agreed, that's not good, but no where near what you (and he) claims.

Cholesterol and saturated fat only MAY cause heart disease and diabetes, not 'do without a doubt', and then usually only in high levels (in normal people). They raise the risk factor for those diseases, but do not automatically cause heart disease and/or diabetes, even in people with incredibly high levels.

Research indicates that you missed the mark with the 644000 number, it's more like 34000 (and maybe another 50000, unproven) according to the WHO, I'll take the stats of the organization whose study is being discussed.

So if you look at the real numbers, it's still not comparable at all. Cancer, and death rates are orders of magnitude different, far more than 10 times higher for smoking with every possible benefit of a doubt given to meats toxicity/effects, so not at all easily matched. Sorry.

(and you also appear to be 100% wrong about cancer survivability)
http://www.Cancer.org -Colon cancer-For stage IIB cancer, the survival rate is about 63%. The 5-year relative survival rate for stage IIIA colon cancers is about 89%. For stage IIIB cancers the survival rate is about 69%, and for stage IIIC cancers the survival rate is about 53%.
http://www.lung.org - Lung cancer-The five-year survival rate for lung cancer is 54 percent for cases detected when the disease is still localized (within the lungs). However, only 15 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an early stage. For distant tumors (spread to other organs) the five-year survival rate is only 4 percent.

So, to summarize, colon cancer 53%-89% survivability (depending largely on when it's caught) VS lung cancer 4% (for 85% of cases, and 54% for the 15% of lucky few with early detections)

Where did I say any of those things?

Where did I say Mosul is representative of Islam as a whole? I didn't. I said Dubai is not representative of Islam as a whole and offered Mosul as a contrast. Did you not watch the video?

Where did I say Christian fundamentalism isn't a problem today? I didn't. I said Christianity used to have more power and I am correct.

Where did I say Christians don't have political power or that the power they do have doesn't cause problems? I didn't. I said Christianity used to have more power. Ancient myths applied dogmatically nearly always cause problems.

You can't show where I said anything like your accusations . Learn to read. You seem to be splitting. Not everything is black or white. Not much of anything is black or white. Mostly there is grey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_%28psychology%29

The muslim world? Is that like a less wacky Disneyland? Do you have any idea how many different types of muslim there are in the world?

The notion that they collectively have one agreed view on the west is a pretty big indicator that someone hasn't a fecking clue about the subject. For example, do you think every Catholic has the same views as the pope? Why should muslims be any different?

Do you expect the 'head' muslim to call a press conference?

"Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for attending. As you know I have been appointed spokesperson for all 1.6 billion muslims. I had a chat with all of them this morning and here's what we all think."

And for Peter's sake, if you're going to criticise the example for being unrepresentative of the average muslim meeting a rich celebrity, don't choose fucking Mosul as your counter balance. Occupied as it is by the most fringe religious extremists in the world who think nothing of killing people who agree with them. The overwhelming majority of people in Saudi on the other hand are normal, every day folk going about their lives in pretty much the same way you or i do. Like the overwhelming majority of Americans do.

It's like contrasting someone who believes in social justice with an ultra left wing terrorist. One is an average person with an average person's reactions to, say, meeting celebrities. The other is a lunatic who might do anything to make some obscure point that only makes sense to them. Bullshit argument.

I am sure the father read the constitution, but then the religious books he follows are in contrast with it, so he must view it as pagan doctrine and sinful...

The contrast in sincerity is shocking, you can tell Michelle actually believes/understand what she's saying.

Interesting to see the differences in coverage. Let's play spot the contrast:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/melania-trump-speech.html?_r=0

vs

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/07/19/phony-controversy-melania-trump-accused-plagiarizing-michelle-obamas-2008-remarks