White Wine In The Sun an Atheist Xmas Song by Tim Minchin has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

Tim Minchin - White Wine in the Sun (2012) has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

Tim Minchin, "White Wine in the Sun" (Studio 360 Live) has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

Tim Minchin - White Wine In The Sun has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

@bobknight33
you realize chaos is from new zealand right?
so while the democratic party may be a disgrace,unless the party is GLOBAL,it certainly is not HIS party.

i truly do not understand your (or anybodies for that matter) continued loyalty to this broken,dysfunctional and utterly corrupt two party dictatorship.

i have no issue with you pointing out the rot that has been bleeding out the democratic parties metaphorical ass.during this election cycle the DNC was caught with their hand in the cookie jar.they were exposed as the rotten and corrupt institution we all had suspected,but couldn't prove,rigging the primaries,changing the rules of application to keep people off the primary ballot (laurence lessig),and crushing one of the most promising,and politically energized campaigns by bernie sanders.(who,just like ron paul,raised his war chest on small donations).

hell,even the recent jill stein voter recount exposed even MORE DNC voter manipulations and fraud!

but are you SERIOUSLY going to sit there,and with a straight face,attempt to make the case the republicans are better?

that they are NOT just as vile,rapacious and corrupt as the democrats?

you think the democrats are the ONLY half of this two party duopoly that engages in voter fraud?
see:crosscheck
or crushes any politician that does not tow the party line?
see:ron paul

can you REALLY,without any sense of irony or sarcasm,tell me that the republican party represents YOU?

the one thing that has given me hope during this past presidential election is that my fellow americans seem to finally be getting it,finally understanding that neither the democratic party nor the republican party represent "we the people".

they represent:wall street,big banks,the military industrial complex and multi-national corporations.

and of course....their own continued power and political domination.

binary politics does not work anymore.
this false left/right dichotomy does not work anymore.
this "lesser of two evils" is no longer acceptable..any...more.

but i gather it still works for you bob.
what a waste..
you seem a decent sort,but to continue to identify with a party that has thrown you overboard decades ago....is just sad.

and i guess you will be just like those obama voters who became disturbingly silent while obama:expanded executive powers,NDAA of 2012,zero indictments to the criminals on wall street,prosecuting more whistleblowers than any other president combined,obamacare(the biggest gimme to the health insurance industry and big pharma),assasination programs,kill lists,expanding military operations into 6 other sovereign countries,regime change in libya...

those little pussies became good little apologists,and it appears YOU ...
bob..
will become a good little pussy and do your partisan duty,and turn into a dutiful little apologist for trump and the inevitable atrocities that are most certainly heading our way.

you know,i do not always agree with chaos,but at least he has BALLS.he stands for something.
you are just rooting for a certain team,might as well be rooting for the packers.
it is just so tired and WEAK...

eh..maybe you are just messing with chaos,but if that is the case,could you bring a little more flair and energy?
your technique is a tad..stale.

so step it up BOB!
your putting the audience to sleep.

Kind of a parallel to some wanting a Texas secession after Obama got elected in 2012.

@MilkmanDan

I don't like the notion of free super delegates but they didn't swing the primary. If they were taken out of the equation, Hilary still had a majority. Party favouritism and a media sense of inevitability probably did though.

The main conclusion I drew from the result is that in dire economic times, people will hold their nose and vote their perceived economic interests above anything else. I mean Clinton got 65% of Latinos vs. Obama's 71% in 2012 - Trump got a larger share than Romney. In most of the battleground states Clinton only won 50-55% of women.

Tack onto this the insider vs. outsider narrative, and the desire for a 'change' from government policy associated with Obama / Democrats, and you have a the holy trifecta. In hindsight it's easy to see going after Trump's character was a distraction.

FFS, I'm not trying to make an argument. As for watching the video, that wasn't a waste of my time, it was entertaining and informative unlike the article which was desperately trying to excuse an awful situation.

But fine, you want an argument? Let's do this.

"If one doesn't want the very small set of restrictions that go with some (not all) religiously affiliated hospitals, don't go there. One does have a choice."

You have that backwards. If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital.

How would you feel if there was a Jehovahs Witness hospital that didn't do blood transfusions? Or a Christian Science hospital that refused to do medical treatment?
Both of those are real world examples where people died.

There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling". In a local area, there might be several smaller medical facilities, but finding two major care centres across the road from each other is pretty rare.

And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc.

As for the article:

"First, Bee ignores the fact that Catholic teaching on human life and reproduction is a fundamental, longstanding tradition of the Church, passed down from one generation to the next for centuries. "

Irrelevant. Next...

"But Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals don’t give “reproductive advice”; they articulate the truth about human life and reproductive ethics in accord with Catholic teaching."

Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.

"the claim that women will be without care if they are refused service at a Catholic hospital."
Er, even the article acknowledges that Bee understands this point and makes the point that in an emergency situation, you go to the nearest available centre that can treat you.

"This is another straw man. In most cases, when women want a particular reproductive service, they have ample time to locate and attend a non-Catholic hospital. "

Yes, and in most cases, people do. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT.

"Even in the few emergency situations — which Bee presents as if they are the vast majority of cases"

No, she really doesn't.

"Though it sometimes might be inconvenient for a woman to travel to a non-Catholic hospital, the inconvenience surely does not outweigh the importance of conscience rights, which demand that Catholic hospitals not be forced to provide procedures that Catholicism deems morally wrong."

Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?

"In reality, a direct abortion (in which a doctor intentionally kills a child) is never medically necessary to save a mother’s life. If a woman is having a miscarriage, having her child killed in an abortion will do nothing to improve her health or save her life."

And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.

The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot.

But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")

As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".

I never really got into Spawn and Rob Liefeld... well, google Rob Liefeld and the first result is The 40 Worst Rob Liefeld Drawings.

It's also kind of ironic that despite Image's entire raison d'etre being "creator's rights", they ended up in a legal battle with Neil Gaiman over a character Gaiman created for McFarlane.

That said, Image are putting out some amazing work these days. If you like comics or sci-fi and you're not reading Saga or Black Science, you're missing out. Seriously, go read them now.

Side note: I know purists probably hate digital comics, and as someone who owns 5 volumes of Ultimate Sandman, I do like a real book, but digital comics are goddamn awesome.

I'll address your linked report first because I have a problem with the statistics on there. It's a little misleading because the bit you mentioned only considers cancer deaths attributable with processed meats.

But then goes to includes all diseases attributable with smoking, not just cancer.
So it's not comparing cancer to cancer rates. The report is comparing processed meat cancer with ALL smoking diseases.

And this makes smoking look a lot worse. For a fair comparison we'd need to compare only smoking caused cancers to processed meat cancers.
Or we'd need to compare diseases from processed meat, to all diseases from smoking.

Further the report, states that it's an 18% risk for only 50g of processed meat.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I ate the stuff, it wasn't just 50g. That's like 3 chicken nuggets. I'd eat 9 at least in one sitting for lunch(150g). Maybe I had 2 rashers of bacon for breakfast, another 50g, and then I might have a few slices of salami for dinner, another 50g.

So in a day I might have eaten 250g of processed meat. So it might only be 18% chance to get cancer, but that's 5 times I've rolled the dice(250 divded by 50g = 5). So even low odds get pretty dangerous if you roll the dice often enough.


Right after that paragraph, it goes on to say that the total number of attributable deaths to processed meat is 644,000.

So now we're finally comparing apples with apples. 644,000 processed meat deaths vs. 1 million tobacco deaths.

Still smoking is the clear winner here, but it's 2/3 the way there. So to me Dr. Greger's statement is starting to ring true.

Of course Dr. Greger isn't only talking about processed meat, he's talking about all meat, including poultry and fish too. Because just like processed meat, they have cholesterol and saturated fat which causes heart disease and diabetes without a doubt.
The heart disease statistics are (google says:) "An estimated 17.5 million people died from CVDs in 2012, representing 31% of all global deaths"
Now granted not all of these cardiovascular diseases will be diet related. But we only need to another 366,000 out of that 17.5 million to be caused by diet, and now we're comparing 1 million meat related deaths to 1 million tobacco related deaths.

So it's totally comparable in my eyes. And in the end, regardless of which has higher chances of cancer. The death rates are easily matched.

(not to mention colorectal cancer is kills more people, even though more people get lung cancer. Because lung cancer is more survivable).

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, November 17th, 2012 3:54pm PST - doublepromote requested by eric3579.

OK, so cured meats cured with nitrates are now classified carcinogenic, but non cured meats, and meats cured without nitrates, salt, or smoke only "may" be slightly carcinogenic...or may not. So still, not all deli turkey, not all chicken nuggets (I make them at home from whole chicken with no preservatives) or bacon (I had some uncured bacon a few years back...it sucked, but it does exist)....so not ALL processed meats are in that category, and certainly not all nuggets, sliced turkey, or bacon...so exaggeration, even if you wish to say it's only exaggeration by omission of detail.

Because he strongly implies it's because they are meats, says "The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens" without explanation, and extrapolates to imply that all meats are as carcinogenic as habitually smoking processed tobacco cigarettes.

In terms of disease, overall danger to a person's health, and morality, it's completely inaccurate, and grossly misleading. A processed plant diet (the norm) can be FAR worse for you and the environment than a sustainably raised, non processed meat based diet (which is not the norm). It's not cut and dry, details matter.
"The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) used clearly defined guidelines to identify hazards (qualitative evaluation), i.e. whether an agent can cause cancer, but IARC does not assess level or the magnitude of risk.
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke."
source- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
So, smoking =2000% greater risk, eating meat daily-18% greater risk....so not honestly equivalent by any stretch.

I would agree that switching from a processed meat based diet to a non processed plant based (not even necessarily pure vegetarian) diet, in general, might be equivalent to quitting smoking (but smoking how much, and smoking what, depends on MANY variable factors, and it appears it's generally equivalent to smoking <2 cigarettes per week, while breathing air in most cities is equivalent to smoking a pack a day).

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 2:46pm PDT - promote requested by blacklotus90.

Anne Bancroft, Mel's wife (Mrs. Robinson), was only 73 when she died of cancer. :=(

This picture makes me happy and sad: Mel and Anne

Look at this incredible picture: Mel, Alfred, and Anne

More awesome but sad pics: John and Gilda

The icing on the cake is an interview with Gene wilder on Merv Griffith where he talks about how he dealt with his mother being close to death, how he would try to make her happy by making her literally pee her pants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IATnW4A_r8U

It's crazy, I binge watched hours and hours of Gene Wilder interviews sometime last year and this video is what stands out to me the most.

And this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B3v7OKNvp4

Gene Wilder was such a unique actor!

Also, I just gotta say, everyone has got to heil hitler at least once in public to have truly TRULY lived! It's a nervous tick, mein fuhrer!

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, June 25th, 2012 6:43pm PDT - promote requested by Mekanikal.

Know who else was brilliant on the IT Crowd? Noel Fielding!

Considering the Kickstarter only began in Oct 2012, and the initial plan was for it to be delivered in Nov 2014, you might need to work a tad on your maths before engaging your meh.

I agree with 99% of the examples, but there is one glaring error. Katinka Hosszu was the swimmer from Hungary and the commentary was quite valid. She swam in the 2012 Olympics and did very poorly. She asked her boyfriend at the time to replace the swimming coach she had been with since college. After he took over as her coach and changed her regimen, she destroyed her competition in the World Cup and her dominance carried over to this Olympics.

He is now her husband, but seriously he deserves credit for turning her into a better swimmer in competition. Other than that, I fully agree that the video is quite accurate.