• 1 1/4 ounces Pimm’s Gin No. 1 Cup
• 3 ounces lemonade
• 7UP
• Cucumber slice

Ingredients

2 rabbits, cut in fairly small pieces by the butcher
2 cups white wine
4 cloves of garlic, sliced thin
3 bay leaves, dried
1 tsp dried rosemary or fresh rosemary
1/4 cup extra virgin olive oil
2 tsp wine vinegar
1 dash salt, to taste

enjoy!

You can sign me up @bareboards2. If there were some broad agreement on terminology I would switch to gender neutral language instantly. Fucking sick of it.

Coincidentally I was thinking about this just this afternoon, because luckily I have nothing better to do at work than stand around contemplating gender politics; pleased and proud as I am of genderqueer crusaders trying to wrestle pronouns into shape, I've been generally unwilling to join them. For fuck's sake, I spend enough time every day arguing about the excess syllable in the number sev, I can't afford to multiply that by every sentence with a person in it.

Singularising plural pronouns is offensive to me on a practical and aesthetic level, Spivak's no damn good, you've got your zes and your hirs and your hens, it's a pain in the ass but as soon as we get some consensus and momentum it's going to be cool.

Can't see that feminism really has anything to do with all this, well, I have trouble seeing that feminism has anything to do with anything. Not to go all Trancecoach here with male world problems but they're similarly told that to be professional they have to knot a piece of cloth around their neck for no reason or slice the hair off their face every day for no fucking reason. The situation is that we have a bullshit tribal culture with endless absurd customs and arbitrary rituals which is perpetuated by morons.

So we should always be rationalising - language, culture, behaviour, expectations.

Gender neutrality is obviously the way to go. If you get shoved in a box you don't become the champion of the box and work to make your box the best box it can be; you break out and start beating your captors over the head with box fragments.

I don't give a fuck about women's problems; I don't give a fuck about women, but I'm glad to consider anyone who stops wearing makeup a part of my team because I don't wear makeup for the same reason I don't shave my stupid face.

Anyway that was my choggie impression for the day. Too much caffeine, not enough sleep, not enough time spent bathing in the blood of my enemies.

More like a "what to buy" video than a "how to".

1. Cook potato and put it onto a stick.
2. Slice potato up using proprietary machine.
3. Deep fry.

k, I know how to do this now but considering I won't be buying this machine, this is useless.

DUde how can you crave that stuff?? It's so salty and Nasty....
Now Vienna Sausages (made with pork, beef, chicken-the 3-M's) slathered in mustard? MMMmm, mm.... Ok, that's nasty, too.

Spam is tolerable while camping, sliced super thin and thrown on the griddle to wiggle an shrink-

Man...I miss Shakey's pizza-They had this uber-thin crispy-cracker crust and the ingredients in the late 70's (last time I saw Shakey's pizza open) were of a definably (through-taste-bud-memory), much higher quality. But maybe I've simply killed my taste buds from abuse...

I agree with whoever said essentially though, if you start with good pizza ingredients, you can't go too far south.

I too, dislike a ginormous amount of dough with a bite of pizza...thin-as-hell crust rocks-Stayed in Chicago for 2 months, never hadda slice of pizza-But I DID slam all-manner of Polish and German fare in small restaurants in the part of town I was staying in. Fresh bakeries of varied ethnicity is what I remember most-The BOMB is, fresh baked!

I do a deep-type dish pizza whenever I make a batch of dough and split it into two balls instead of three...But mines' not all runny and watery an shit like some glopstrosoties I've had...it's all in the water(vegetables) on the top-

Yeah, and fuck a buncha pineapple on pizza....maybe onna vacation camping-out as a have-to-I'm-famished boost...

Only thing that bothers me about Chicago deep-dish is how "fashionable" it has become (I'm looking at your SF) when really, it is no-where near as good as a thin, crisp slice of super greasy New York cheese. In SF there are tons of these places masquerading as fine-dining when the corner "New York" pizza shop down the block, playing metal to their pet cockroaches whilst stoned out of their minds make better pie for less.

One "slice" of Chicago deep-dish and I feel like I'm going to fall asleep from a heart-attack.

Actually I have an even better suggestion heard from a friend today ~ Start your own debt collection agency, (easily done actually) Buy the debts from the credit collection agencies (subsidized by crowdfunding and philanthropy) and then discharge the debt altogether. I have heard this is already happening and people are breaking down in tears when they are being called on the phone and told their debt has been absolved.
Bill Bartmann may be a good guy but his company is still collecting money from people who are struggling whichever way you slice it.

I grew up on a farm, and like many/most such kids, went through the experience of having "pet" chickens, pigs, and even a cow or two that ended up on our plates. I think that the key is to explain verbally that such animals are being raised to be food, and then using your best judgement about when they are ready to see something small get slaughtered and butchered.

For me, it was when I was about 6. We had an old rooster (we mostly had chickens for eggs, this fella was a 1-off), and I was a few feet away when my dad held it down and hacked off its head with a hatchet. Got to watch it run around headless, etc. Then I had to help (a little) in the plucking and processing. If you don't regularly do those things, you don't know the little tricks and they take FOREVER. We put way more hours and dollars of toil and effort into plucking, skinning, and preparing that old chicken than it would have cost to buy 10 whole rotisseried chickens from KFC or something. And he was too old to really provide good meat. BUT - I learned something and appreciated the food more, which was the point.

Later in life I was involved with the raising of pigs and cows for meat. I helped feed them every day, and then would help get them into a trailer and deliver them to the meat locker when it was time for them to be slaughtered and butchered. I didn't witness that in person, but I was old enough to fill in the gaps between putting that animal in the trailer and then eating a steak or pork chops a few days later. I think that if my parents had wanted me to have the experience of actually seeing the slaughter, the locker would have easily obliged. Not sure if the same would be true today.


OK, I've been rambling but I'll throw one more thing out there. Now I'm living in Thailand, where a lot of food is purchased in small farmer's market kinds of places, and some is slaughtered and prepared right in front of your very eyes. I love eating fresh Tilapia fish here (the "farm"-raised and frozen fish back in the US always tasted like algae to me, but the fish here don't have that taste at all) and they are alive in tanks when you order one at a market in Thailand. Within 45 seconds, they will pull out a fish of your selection, smack it on the head with a blunt instrument to kill it, rasp off the scales, gut it, put some slices into the sides for even cooking, and hand it to you in a bag to be cooked at home. Sometimes they flop around in the bag a bit (not alive, just muscles unwinding/relaxing) like a headless chicken. I think that will be a similar growing experience for my daughter that she'd be able to witness at a much earlier age. Then maybe when she's 5-6 like I was we'll watch a chicken get the axe.

it's a bullshit situation regardless of how you slice it. If god is the absolute judge of "good/evil" and "right/wrong" then if you believe only because you fear the consequences of hell (which is pretty much every believer in a fear-based religion such as Christianity) then god is going to see right through that and send you to hell anyway,

Meanwhile if you stick to your principles and adhere to rationality and are a non-believer, then here you got the situation where God has to say "hey here's a guy who doesn't worship me, but hey, he's true to his beliefs and using the brain I gave him" If he sends him to hell anyway, then he's an immoral god, simple as that.

These are the core problems of any fear based religion where threat of hell is the primary motivator. It just leads to a bunch of assholes who think they're kissing their gods ass, but if there really was a god, he's send them straight to hell for doing it solely to avoid hell, not because of true belief. For a true believer, hell would be irrelevant, he'd do it because he wants to do it, not because of the consequences.

Which leads to the argument that in reality, every single person would be sent to hell, because every believer is doing it because of the consequences.

No matter how you look at it, it's an immoral system. Human morality surpassed biblical morality a long time ago. Just gotta remind people of that. The more people actually read the bible, the more that will happen.

@enoch, thanks for your comments. I thought it better to respond directly to your profile than on the video, about which we're no longer discussing directly. Sorry for the length of this reply, but for such a complex topic as this one, a thorough and plainly-stated response is needed.

You wrote: "the REAL question is "what is the purpose of a health care system"? NOT "which market system should we implement for health care"?"

The free market works best for any and all goods and services, regardless of their aim or purpose. Healthcare is no different from any other good or service in this respect.

(And besides, tell me why there's no money in preventative care? Do nutritionists, physical trainers/therapists, psychologists, herbalists, homeopaths, and any other manner of non-allopathic doctors not get paid and make profit in the marketplace? Would not a longer life not lead to a longer-term 'consumer' anyway? And would preventative medicine obliterate the need for all manner of medical treatment, or would there not still remain a need to diagnose, treat, and cure diseases, even in the presence of a robust preventative medical market?)

I realize that my argument is not the "popular" one (and there are certainly many reasons for this, up to and including a lot of disinformation about what constitutes a "free market" health care system). But the way to approach such things is not heuristically, but rationally, as one would approach any other economic issue.

You write "see where i am going with this? It's not so easy to answer and impose your model of the "free market" at the same time."

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. The purpose of the healthcare system is to provide the most advanced medical service and care possible in the most efficient and affordable way possible. Only a free competitive market can do this with the necessary economic calculations in place to support its progress. No matter how you slice it, a socialized approach to healthcare invariably distorts the market (with its IP fees, undue regulations, and a lack of any accurate metrics on both the supply-side and on the demand-side which helps to determine availability, efficacy, and cost).

"you cannot have "for-profit" and "health-care" work in conjunction with any REAL health care."

Sorry, but this is just absurd. What else can I say?

"but if we use your "free market" model against a more "socialized model".which model would better serve the public?"

The free market model.

"if we take your "free market" model,which would be under the auspices of capitalism."

Redundant: "free market under the auspices of free market."

"disease is where the money is at,THAT is where the profit lies,not in preventive medicine."

Only Krugman-style Keynesians would say that illness is more profitable than health (or war more profitable than peace, or that alien invasions and broken windows are good for the economy). They, like you, aren't taking into account the One Lesson in Economics: look at how it affects every group, not just one group; look at the long term effects, not just short term ones. You're just seeing that, in the short-run, health will be less profitable for medical practitioners (or some pharmaceuticals) that are currently working in the treatment of illness. But look at every group outside that small group and at the long run and you can see that health is more profitable than illness overall. The market that profits more from illness will have to adapt, in ways that only the market knows for sure.

Do you realize that the money you put into socialized medicine (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.) is money you deplete from prevention entrepreneurship?

(As an aside, I wonder, why do so many people assume that the socialized central planners have some kind of special knowledge or wisdom that entrepreneurs do not? And why is there the belief that unlike entrepreneurs, socialist central planners are not selfishly motivated but always act in the interest of the "common good?" Could this be part of the propagandized and indoctrinated fear that's implicit in living in a socialized environment? Why do serfs (and I'm sure that, at some level, people know that's what they are) love the socialist central planners more than they love themselves? Complex questions about self-esteem and captive minds.)

If fewer people get sick, the market will then demand more practitioners to move from treating illness into other areas like prevention, being a prevention doctor or whatever. You're actually making the argument for free market here, not against it. Socialized bureaucratically dictated medicine will not adapt to the changing needs as efficiently or rapidly as a free market can and would. If more people are getting sick, then we'll need more doctors to treat them. If fewer people are getting sick because preventive medicine takes off, then we'll have more of that type of service. If a socialized healthcare is mandated, then we will invariably have a glut of allopathic doctors, with little need for their services (and we then have the kinds of problems we see amongst doctors who are coerced -- by the threat of losing their license -- to take medicaid and then lie on their reports in order to recoup their costs, e.g., see the article linked here.)

Meanwhile, there has been and will remain huge profits to be made in prevention, as the vitamin, supplements, alternative medicine, naturopathy, exercise and many other industries attest to. What are you talking about, that there's no profit in preventing illness? (In a manner of speaking, that's actually my bread and butter!) If you have a way to prevent illness, you will have more than enough people buying from you, people who don't want to get sick. (And other services for the people who do.) Open a gym. Become a naturopath. Teach stress management, meditation, yoga, zumba, whatever! And there are always those who need treatment, who are sick, and the free market will then have an accurate measure of how to allocate the right resources and number of such practitioners. This is something that the central planners (under socialized services) simply cannot possibly do (except, of course, for the omniscient ones that socialists insist exist).

You wrote "cancer,anxiety,obesity,drug addiction.
all are huge profit generators and all could be dealt with so much more productively and successfully with preventive care,diet and exercise and early diagnosis."

But they won't as long as you have centrally planned (socialized) medicine. The free market forces practitioners to respond to the market's demands. Socialized medicine does not. Entrepreneurs will (as they already have) exploit openings for profit in prevention (without the advantage of regulations which distort the markets) and take the business away from treatment doctors. If anything, doctors prevent preventative medicine from getting more widespread by using government regulations to limit what the preventive practitioners do. In fact, preventive medicine is so profitable that it has many in the medical profession lobbying to curtail it. They are losing much business to alternative/preventive practitioners. They lobby to, for example, prevent herb providers from stating the medical/preventive benefits of their herbs. They even prevent strawberry farmers to tout the health benefits of strawberries! It is the state that is slowing down preventive medicine, not the free market! In Puerto Rico, for example, once the Medical Association lost a bit to prohibit naturopathy, they effectively outlawed acupuncture by successfully getting a law passed that requires all acupuncturists to be medical doctors. Insanity.

If you think there is no profit in preventative care or exercise, think GNC and Richard Simmons, and Pilates, and bodywork, and my own practice of psychotherapy. Many of the successful corporations (I'm thinking of Google and Pixar and SalesForce and Oracle, etc.) see the profit and value in preventative care, which is why they have these "stay healthy" programs for their employees. There's more money in health than illness. No doubt.

Or how about the health food/nutrition business? Or organic farming, or whole foods! The free market could maybe call for fewer oncologists and for more Whole Foods or even better natural food stores. Of course, we don't know the specifics, but that's actually the point. Only the free market knows (and the omniscient socialist central planners) what needs to happen and how.

Imagination! We need to get people to use it more.

You wrote: "but when we consider that the 4th and 5th largest lobbyists are the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry is it any wonder that america has the most fucked up,backwards health care system on the planet."

You're actually making my point here. In a free market, pharmaceutical companies cannot monopolize what "drugs" people can or cannot take, sell or not sell, and cannot prevent natural alternatives from being promoted. Only with state intervention (by way of IP regulations, and so forth) can they do so.

Free market is not corporatism. Free market is not crony capitalism. (More disinformation that needs to be lifted.)

So you're not countering my free market position, you're countering the crony capitalist position. This is a straw man argument, even if in this case you might not have understood my position in the first place. You, like so many others, equate "capitalism" with cronyism or corporatism. Many cannot conceive of a free market that is free from regulation. So folks then argue against their own interests, either for or against "fascist" vs. "socialist" medicine. The free market is, in fact, outside these two positions.

You wrote: "IF we made medicare available to ALL american citizens we would see a shift from latter stage care to a more aggressive preventive care and early diagnosis. the savings in money (and lives) would be staggering."

I won't go into medicare right now (It is a disaster, and so is the current non-free-market insurance industry. See the article linked in my comment above.)

You wrote "this would create a huge paradigm shift here in america and we would see results almost instantly but more so in the coming decades."

I don't want to be a naysayer but, socialism is nothing new. It has been tried (and failed) many times before. The USSR had socialized medicine. So does Cuba (but then you may believe the Michael Moore fairytale about medicine in Cuba). It's probably better to go see in person how Cubans live and how they have no access to the places that Moore visited.

You wrote: "i feel very strongly that health should be a communal effort.a civilized society should take care of each other."

Really, then why try to force me (or anyone) into your idea of "good" medicine? The free market is a communal effort. In fact, it is nothing else (and nothing else is as communal as the free market). Central planning, socialized, top-down decision-making, is not. Never has been. Never will be.

Voluntary interactions is "taking care of each other." Coercion is not. Socialism is coercion. It cannot "work" any other way. A free market is voluntary cooperation.

Economic calculation is necessary to avoid chaos, whatever the purpose of a service. This is economic law. Unless the purpose is to create chaos, you need real prices and efficiency that only the free market can provide.

I hope this helps to clarify (and not confuse) what I wrote on @eric3579's profile.

kinetic energy = mass x velocity squared

Bullets kill by punching holes in vital organs, fracturing bones into the blood and slicing veins and arteries - not by impact shock.
More like poking a thin metal rod into someones body than hitting them with a heavy object.

Only in hollywood do they throw people off their feet.

Sometimes they get it right:

http://youtu.be/f8j4GIRYbZw

In a nutshell, your sentiments alien_concept, are my only plea-

I will not plead in the court of contracts,and will settle for nothing less save you see me never again as a player should all my shit get' sliced as chingalera without full status reinstated with all previous achievements as CHOGGIE.

Again,fuck you and congrats blankfuck, eat a disk.