>> ^bcglorf:

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.
You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.
So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.
Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...
I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.
And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).
In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.
Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.
Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives
Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.
Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.


I'm picturing an infomercial right about now. Buy our world class American installed dictator right now and you'll receive many happy decades of watching your wife get raped, your lawn regularly razed, and your children going without food or education. But wait! There's more! In thirty of forty years (basically whenever we feel like it) we'll send in an army and take your lawn for ourselves so you don't have to worry about the dictator razing it any more!!!! Special discounts apply if you order before Libya.

1. America put Saddam in power, his atrocities are in large part America's fault
2. America has enabled many other dictators around the world, it's what they do when a leader doesn't follow their wishes
3. Knowing full well what outcomes these dictatorships have had (as intended) in the past, how do you know we wont get similar results this time?

We're talking about a country here, it has people that want different things, of course some Libyans are going to be happy that Gaddafi is removed, many will have wanted other outcomes, neither of us can speak for them, we are not Libyan. You say a few people dieing/getting bombed is ok to save a possible genocide. Would you kill your family to save your village? The people dieing in Libya are someones family, they are real, just because you aren't Libyan doesn't mean you can't feel empathy for them. Wake up man, you and your country are not the center of the world, you can't force your will on others unfairly without at least some repercussions. Your day is coming, and it's coming faster than you might think.

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.

You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.

So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...

I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.

And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives

Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.

Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.

>> ^bcglorf:

You do realize you just admitted that if a country's people need a "less worse life", then America and a few of its allies should move in the planes and bomb them to 'improve' things.
Because bombing Gaddafi's forces as part of a UN mandate, and thus stopping their genocide of the rebels, was indistinguishable from deliberately dropping bombs on civilians. You don't seem capable of understanding the difference between the two. You shouldn't get so vested in things you can't seem to comprehend.
You're also making the assumption that Libya is going to be better off.
Gaddafi promised to commit genocide against Libya's people, that has been stopped. It is not an assumption that they are better off, it is a fact. If that will translate into a long term gain is an open question. I don't see how suffering a genocide under Gaddafi, and his further consolidating his power would improve Libyan's long term prospects. Can you explain how there is any ambiguity at all on this?
Is Iraq better off than before America invaded?
Yes. You seem to be among the ignorant majority that know enough about post-war Iraq to see how horrific it is, but know nothing about Saddam era Iraq to compare it to. It's hard to grasp, particularly given how hard it seems for you to grasp the previously mentioned simple concepts, but it is possible to be worse off than Iraqi's are today.
Iraq's Kurdish people(about 20% of Iraqi's) no longer fear extermination. Iraq's Shia(about 55%) no longer fear for their lifes as well. The remainder of Iraqis may now print pamphlets and voice political ideas without facing the death penalty. Saddam spent decades dividing the nation, sowing discord and letting everything in it fall apart or rot so long as his secret police and iron rule remained in tact. The country's infrastructure was in ruins and it's people were fractured and divided against one another from decades of Saddam's depravations. Iraq isn't a mess today because of the American invasion, it's a mess from decades of abuse and devastation under a tyrannical dictator. America's sin is not removing Saddam, but taking so cursedly long to finally go in and do it.


Look I admire the fact you're giving this a go and putting on your thinking cap, I really do; but let's look at each of your points.

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.
http://www.epic-usa.org/node/5620

Overall - the economy is worse, it has next to no industry or farming, health outcomes/life expectancy are worse, while education has improved. So even with this brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, the country was doing better in many areas than it is now, and this is not even looking at the subjective elements such as the hundred thousand dead civilians at the hands of US soldiers and assorted explosive devices. However even though things were perhaps marginally better with Saddam in power, I do agree that his dictatorship was brutal, and things were pretty horrific for many in Iraq. But guess what? Saddam's Ba'ath Party was put in power by the CIA - this is a well documented fact, feel free to look it up. America objected to the fact the previous ruler wanted to nationalize it's own oil reserves. So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives (subvert Gaddafi's genocide) you're being extremely naive. There are far better ways of saving lives than invading a country with bombs, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

@Lawdeedaw, I'm glad I could be of some help, you're welcome.

People tend to get upset when you generalize about an entire group of people, especially if the defining characteristic of the group is something that wasn't a matter of choice (e.g. race, gender, height, sexual orientation, eye color, etc.).

I say talking about public policy is a whole other category of conversation. Personally I think the theory that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle is pretty much bogus. Even if you make the reasonable assumption that both sides are telling lies to amplify their position, it's a mistake to assume those lies are always equal.

Taking your health care example, the most extreme lefties were saying some rather radical things about single payer health care (Medicare for everyone). They'd say it'd improve overall care, reduce costs, and make health care accessible to all.

The other side says it'll mean the government "comes between you and your doctor", it'll mean death panels, it'll lead to genocide, and the end of freedom itself. Not only that, it won't even cut costs, it'll just mean more taxes, and worse care.

I don't think it's reasonable to look at those things and say "the truth is in the middle." For example, is Canada a genocidal totalitarian socialist state that's executing its elderly? Is France?

How about the slightly less crazy-sounding stuff. Are they spending a higher share of their GDP on health care than we are? How do medical professionals rate the quality of care there? How are health outcomes generally (e.g. life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.)? Do they offer that health care to everyone, regardless of ability to pay?

>> ^offsetSammy:

You are correct that each bomb diffusion is an independent event and always has the same probability of success, but it is also correct to say that the chances of successfully diffusing 4 bombs IN A ROW is 40%, 10 bombs IN A ROW is 10%, etc. In this case each event is dependent, but you have to work out the probabilities at the start, before any bombs are diffused.
It's kind of like flipping a coin (which has a 50% chance of landing heads or tails every time). Every time I flip it, I have a 50% chance of landing on heads, but my chances of getting say 5 heads in a row is only 3%. (0.5^5) Imagine that flipping tails results in death. Now you can start to see the peril these guys were in!
So if the 80% bomb diffusion success rate was correct, it would be valid to say, BEFORE the person does it, that if they are tasked with diffusing 10 bombs, their chances of survival are only 10%. Note that, every time they successfully diffuse a bomb, their overall odds of survival improve a little bit (because now they only have to diffuse 9 in a row, 8 in a row, etc).
p.s. I think you'll find that the chance of the sun rising every day is quite a bit higher than 99%.
>> ^Friesian:
My maths is pretty rusty, but I'm not sure you can do the probabilities in that manner because they're unrelated events: your success in defusing one bomb has no bearing (statistically at least) on your ability to defuse the next one. Otherwise you could say things like:
Let's imagine there's a 99% chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Assuming the sun rises each and every day for the next two months, the "probability" it would rise on the 61st day as well is near 50/50. Take this even further, and count back to when the sun first came into existence, and it's essentially impossible that the sun would still rise tomorrow.
Don't get me wrong, bomb defusing is one hell of a risky job—hell, average life expectancy was only 10 weeks according to the video—but I don't think your probabilities hold up.>> ^offsetSammy:
Scary stuff. If you do the math, let's say you had an 80% chance of successfully diffusing any given bomb. If your career consisted of diffusing only 4 bombs, and assuming an unsuccessful diffusion results in death, your chances of survival are only 40%. 6 bombs, 26%. 10 bombs, 10%. Yikes.
Note: I have no idea how accurate the 80% figure is. It would be interesting to hear the real statistic.



Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines, but there's something about it which makes me sit back and question it.


Interestingly, 3% seems really really low for getting 5 heads in a row (oh, I know it's correct, but it just appears low). There are 2 to the power 5 different combinations of heads/tails from 5 coin flips (32). As you've got to have at least one combination, 100%/32 (as they're all just as likely) = 3.125%, which is the same as 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. I know I'm just reiterating what you said, but this helps me get it through my skull and into my brain.

Perhaps I'm overthinking this, or maybe ever since I heard about the Monty Hall problem I've never trusted myself to be able to accurately figure out probabilities.

You are correct that each bomb diffusion is an independent event and always has the same probability of success, but it is also correct to say that the chances of successfully diffusing 4 bombs IN A ROW is 40%, 10 bombs IN A ROW is 10%, etc. In this case each event is dependent, but you have to work out the probabilities at the start, before any bombs are diffused.

It's kind of like flipping a coin (which has a 50% chance of landing heads or tails every time). Every time I flip it, I have a 50% chance of landing on heads, but my chances of getting say 5 heads in a row is only 3%. (0.5^5) Imagine that flipping tails results in death. Now you can start to see the peril these guys were in!

So if the 80% bomb diffusion success rate was correct, it would be valid to say, BEFORE the person does it, that if they are tasked with diffusing 10 bombs, their chances of survival are only 10%. Note that, every time they successfully diffuse a bomb, their overall odds of survival improve a little bit (because now they only have to diffuse 9 in a row, 8 in a row, etc).

p.s. I think you'll find that the chance of the sun rising every day is quite a bit higher than 99%.

>> ^Friesian:

My maths is pretty rusty, but I'm not sure you can do the probabilities in that manner because they're unrelated events: your success in defusing one bomb has no bearing (statistically at least) on your ability to defuse the next one. Otherwise you could say things like:
Let's imagine there's a 99% chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Assuming the sun rises each and every day for the next two months, the "probability" it would rise on the 61st day as well is near 50/50. Take this even further, and count back to when the sun first came into existence, and it's essentially impossible that the sun would still rise tomorrow.
Don't get me wrong, bomb defusing is one hell of a risky job—hell, average life expectancy was only 10 weeks according to the video—but I don't think your probabilities hold up.>> ^offsetSammy:
Scary stuff. If you do the math, let's say you had an 80% chance of successfully diffusing any given bomb. If your career consisted of diffusing only 4 bombs, and assuming an unsuccessful diffusion results in death, your chances of survival are only 40%. 6 bombs, 26%. 10 bombs, 10%. Yikes.
Note: I have no idea how accurate the 80% figure is. It would be interesting to hear the real statistic.

My maths is pretty rusty, but I'm not sure you can do the probabilities in that manner because they're unrelated events: your success in defusing one bomb has no bearing (statistically at least) on your ability to defuse the next one. Otherwise you could say things like:

Let's imagine there's a 99% chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Assuming the sun rises each and every day for the next two months, the "probability" it would rise on the 61st day as well is near 50/50. Take this even further, and count back to when the sun first came into existence, and it's essentially impossible that the sun would still rise tomorrow.

Don't get me wrong, bomb defusing is one hell of a risky job—hell, average life expectancy was only 10 weeks according to the video—but I don't think your probabilities hold up.>> ^offsetSammy:

Scary stuff. If you do the math, let's say you had an 80% chance of successfully diffusing any given bomb. If your career consisted of diffusing only 4 bombs, and assuming an unsuccessful diffusion results in death, your chances of survival are only 40%. 6 bombs, 26%. 10 bombs, 10%. Yikes.
Note: I have no idea how accurate the 80% figure is. It would be interesting to hear the real statistic.

Re making it more Swedish, kymbos made a relevant comment with a link to an article comparing the welfare systems of various countries, which will probably interest you, as might this BBC article asking why the U.S. has a lower life expectancy than Britain - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14070090

As for our constitutional monarchy... it's quite cost effective, and generally works quite well. I think we'd be mad to change it, particularly since the last proposed change was to let our current politicians choose one of their mates to be "President".... right... what a great idea... NOT. I think people realised it was just going to be a huge waste of money, and risked wrecking a perfectly good (if unfashionable) system.

Someone suggested, apparently seriously, that if the U.K. becomes a republic we should import the royal family!
In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
Yes, quite possible. I'd love to make it more sweden-y, but i don't know enough. And what I was missing were options to increase spending for education, for example.

What's your opinion about Australia's remnants of monarchy?

I wanted to post something about medical history and life expectancy but it`ll probably lead to nothing *shaking head

Even if he dies tomorrow, he'll have easily exceeded the normal life expectancy of people that cut their hedges with a chainsaw on a rope.

Funny that you should tell KnivesOut to educate himself and refer him to a link to wikipedia when in a previous comment you said "quoting from the liberally biased wikipedia doesn't help your case.". So are you suggesting that a liberal bias only helps your case and not anybody else's? It's also funny that you should be telling people to educate themselves about NLP when in your comment on your video you call NLP " the mind control technique of NLP, which is nero logistical programming". Seriously, NERO LOGISTICAL???? I give up, for me that pretty much somes up your intellectual investment in this thread.

PS: To quote wikipedia "NLP has been largely ignored by conventional social science in part due to a lack of professional credibility and insufficient empirical evidence to substantiate its effectiveness,[14][15] and is characterized by its critics, mainly psychologists, as a fringe psychotherapy or as having pseudoscientific characteristics, disputing its title, concepts, and terminology".>> ^shinyblurry:

medicare is unconstitutional, humanists have conspired to replace creation with evolution (i have 100 quotes from secular humanists proving this), this world will end climate change or not, and all sin leads to death
in any case, NLP isnt something the AAPS came up with..why dont you read a little bit about it and educate yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
a lot of famous "magicians" use it in their acts..for example, when they go up to someone and say a bunch of nonsense words and phrases in rapid succession and the subject collapses like a switch was flipped..thats NLP
>> ^KnivesOut:
Some of the other lies published by the Association of American Physicians:

• that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional


• that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution


• that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern


• that HIV does not cause AIDS


• that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.

medicare is unconstitutional, humanists have conspired to replace creation with evolution (i have 100 quotes from secular humanists proving this), this world will end climate change or not, and all sin leads to death

in any case, NLP isnt something the AAPS came up with..why dont you read a little bit about it and educate yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

a lot of famous "magicians" use it in their acts..for example, when they go up to someone and say a bunch of nonsense words and phrases in rapid succession and the subject collapses like a switch was flipped..thats NLP
>> ^KnivesOut:
Some of the other lies published by the Association of American Physicians:

• that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional



• that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution



• that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern



• that HIV does not cause AIDS



• that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.

Some of the other *lies published by the Association of American Physicians:

• that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional


• that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution


• that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern


• that HIV does not cause AIDS


• that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.

transcript:

Dear Benny, hi, how are ya? Love the hat by the way.

You may not have noticed but I've been absent for awhile,
I wanted to tell you why and how I've been finding my own style.
A new way of looking at the world beyond the errors of the past.
You see I've read all of your teachings and cant see how they'll last.
Where angels feared to tread has now become the beaten track
but for every step that we took forward, the church took two steps back.

It took you four hundred years just to pardon Galileo,
while the murderer of Hypatia still enjoys his saintly halo.
It was these hypocrisies of the church, that drove me from the flock
though I still clung to the ideas and kept some belief in stock
that Jesus really loved me and god was close at hand
and the day was fast approaching when we'd find the promised land.

When people could stand together and colour wouldn't mean a thing
but i slowly began to realise, thats not the message that god brings.
He constantly plays favourites setting nations against each other
tearing apart families, pitting brother against brother.
The jew and the gentile, the muslim and infidel,
the terrorist gaining heaven while their victims go to hell.

This god isn't worth my worship or the thanks that he demands,
and things have gotten so much better now the powers in our own hands.
Life expectancy has tripled, smallpox has been made extinct.
Our eyes pierced the veil of heaven and what was hazy is now distinct.
A cacophony of symphonies all composed in mathematics,
a ballet of matter and energy performing cosmic acrobatics.

Why didn't your book tell me I was born of a supernova.
Instead demanding belief in what an ancient madman told ya.
Houses can't catch leprosy, epilepsy's not possession
and when it comes to sex what the fucks with your obsession
with what grown men and women do in the privacy of their own home.
Why do you care where they put it? You've got problems of your own.

You let suffer the little children while the paedophiles protected,
the people wanted a shepard but its a wolf that was elected.
You spread disease and misery with every denial of tested science
so people remain upon their knees out of terror and compliance
so please excuse my harshness after breaking religions spell,
and if by chance your god is real, I'll save you a seat in hell.

I never realized that Half Life was in reference to the life expectancy of Valve employees.