Skip the beef, and save the reef :-)
Choose the bean pattie instead.

"Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.


Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009

Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009

Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015. (New)"

*promote

https://videosift.com/video/Thomas-Paine-Christopher-Hitchens-Lecture-Full
https://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-On-NPR-discussing-Thomas-Paine-2007

I'm really only regurgetating what people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have said in their books and podcasts. So I'll direct you there, as they articulate it way better than me.
There is also http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/muslims-and-islam/ which the statistics are quite alarming, and the left choose to ignore many of these. They assume that everyone in the world is a good person, and that they would do good if they had the same opportunities. It's simply not the case.
All religions are not equal either (and I'm a staunch atheist), and neither are all cultures.

We might not have a perfect world, but it's dishonest to try to claim that everything and everyone is the same. It's dishonest to ignore that the majority of the world has decided to stop stoning gays, crucifying human rights protesters, and treating women worse than dogs. Just to name a few things.

Your video, If Christopher Walken had done the voice for Darth Vader, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

That's my kind of party!
I also didn't see it in theaters. We probably also saw it on hbo and fell in love, I don't really recall. I know I taped it back then, and may still have the vhs copy in the garage, but I bought the directors cut DVD for my wife when it came out.

The Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken scene is one of the best scenes in modern cinema imo.

EDIT: btw, I'm still confused....what exactly is a Drexel?

@newtboy
true romance is in my top 10 as well,and i didn't even see in the theaters.the trailers didn't grab me and the marketing was utter shit.

i saw it when i lived in miami at the time,and my roommate and i were having a party and i just happened to have HBO on at the time,and i remember seeing the opening credits:chrisitan slater,val kilmer,christopher walken,dennis hopper

and i was like...how the fuck did i not hear about this movie?
look at all these awesome actors!

so i started watching,and even as people started showing up..i couldn't stop watching.in fact half the party ended up in my living room watching true romance with me,while rest stayed out in the patio and got drunk.

yep..i know how to throw a shindig.
ya'all come over and we watch tv.

I can't name any organisation anymore that seems to hit it consistently. Frontline is still pretty consistently good. The few print papers like NYTimes are more likely to host real journalists in amongst everything else needed to keep sales going.

Largely it's individuals, and they are running short. Some of the best access to news is stuff like Charlie Rose, and the Daily Show in Stewart's day when they would have on knowledgeable or important guests on air. Neither Charlie Rose, Jon Stewart or their guests counting strictly as journalists, but they provided great access to individuals with good or unique perspectives. Neil McDonald on CBC seems good at staying balanced, one of the few names I can throw out as having a real journalistic credibility.

For the most part though, news paper journalism seems dead. The best sources of information on subjects seems to have become relegated to authors of old fashion books. There you can still find guys like Peter Galbraith writing good insightful and informed stuff.

And of course, the late Christopher Hitchens, now you've gone and made me sad...

Here's 45 minutes of Paul Stanley's stage banter: https://soundcloud.com/christopher-armes/45-minutes-of-paul-stanley

Never heard of him before now, but even in Chinese history records of his voyages were scattered or omitted, due in part possibly because his voyages went against the wishes of a previous ruler. He made seven voyages between 1405 and 1433, the Wikipedia article mentions nothing about colonization efforts so that's probably why East Africa doesn't speak Chinese.
On the other side we have Christopher Columbus who was in all the history books here in America and was regularly celebrated. Until we got more honest with our history, now it's Indigenous People's Day in many places (That Italian Asshole Day just doesn't look as good on a calendar I guess).
If the Chinese had taken over the world then maybe we would be reading about someone else discovering the Americas (and probably called something else too) but as it stands Europeans did and that's who winds up in the history books.

So European culture is to blame for all this? You 'll have to be more specific, what have the Europeans done that nobody else have managed to do?

As far Johansson's role in the movie goes, I can take her or leave her really, they could have cast an Asian action star and I would have been fine with that. But the choice of Johansson was less about nerds like me and more about getting everyone else into the theater. Oh, and I think Idris Elba would make an awesome James Bond, just sayin.

Are you familiar with Zheng He? He led expeditions to east Africa in the early 1400s. Nobody in east Africa speaks chinese.
Of course you know Christopher Columbus. All of south America speaks spanish now. With the exception of Brazil, they speak portuguese thanks to some Pope, if I remember correctly.
That's what I'm talking about.
It's not the genes, it's not even the corruptive nature of power, it is culture. European culture. The only way we started to begin to understand the error of our ways was to wage two catastrophic wars against each other that destroyed our continent to an unseen extent. Sadly, we exported that toxic element of our culture to another continent. Just look at recent elections.

And in regards to the whitewashing of this IP, well, Hollywood doesn't trust its audience to embrace a more colorful world. It's gotten better but it's still a long way to go. At least we're going there. I just wish we'd hurry up a bit. I'm still baffeled about that Airbender movie and how they fucked up casting that so badly.
I like Johansson but she makes as much sense in that role as a black James Bond. It one of the things that make me hope the movie is good despite of it.

Makes me think of the Christopher Walken Fatboy Slim video.

Hey Mr. Jonze?

-Yes Kenzo Management?

We liked what you did with Christopher Walken in the Weapon of Choice video. We have a new scent and we want to make an ad using exactly that idea... only use a hot chick this time.

-Nah man, that'd be derivative.

We'll pay you a shit ton of money?

-Oh, OK then.

And what Pograms are the church conducting? What inquisitions are the church conducting? What political leaders are the churches jailing? What scientists are the church burning? What bible translators are the church burning? What wars are the church waging? What crusades? What adultresses? What witches?

"Let me just tell you something -- for hundreds and thousands of years, this kind of discussion would have been impossible to have, or those like us would have been having it at the risk of our lives. Religion now comes to us in this smiley-face, ingratiating way-- because it had to give so much ground and because we know so much more. But you've no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had god on its side."

--Christopher Hitchens

You can't possibly be serious.

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837