I wouldn't disagree with her factual assertions, but I would suggest that;

1) Folks who contract AIDS are not pampered with no consequences. It's a terminal illness.
2) The numbers @Quantummushroom offered are interesting, but indicative of very little. $2.9 billion for a National Cancer Institute is less than the amount of money spent on AIDS, however we should consider the TOTAL amount of money spent on Cancer, not just the amount spent by a single Institution. $30 says it's far, far more than AIDS spending.
3) If so many people who had (or were at risk for) heart disease lost weight, exercised, and quit smoking as she claims, why are so many people still dieing of it every year? Could it be possible that morality and good common sense are not the only things that contribute to or mitigate Heart Disease? Cancer? Why is AIDS different? The only discernible difference I see is that it's sexual in nature.

It's almost as if O'Donnell doesn't want people to have sex....

*comedy
*promote
*alcohol

I see what you mean. However, this community (Inukjuak) does have an official police presence. The cops were called. As they should have been.>> ^notarobot:

If he was doing something criminal, the municipal officer probably would have pursued him with a little more effort. I assume he was just concerned that Mr. Faceplant was probably too drunk to drive and should walk (the ten feet) to his house. In a community that size, that SUV probably was the local detachment.
I was chuckling at the drunken shenanigans until I saw that he had left parts of his face by his snowmobile.
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Throbbin said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/t/Throbbin-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">I assume he was running because he saw the police coming. That SUV in the video was a municipal vehicle, and would have called the local detachment.</div></div></div>
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: right; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> notarobot said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: right; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/n/notarobot-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-top: 1px; right: 52px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">►</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-right: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">It was funny until I saw him run for the house! Damn!
</div></div></div>

*quality

Yes, it's all a neolib fantasy.

Time to get rid of the highways. And anti-child-porn-legislation. And any of these other newfangled neo-liberal shackles.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.
O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.
Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.
It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.
Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

Thanks Dag. I'll now encourage the non-Canadians reading this to begin (or continue) casting aspersions on that guy mentioned in the story. Please.

If he learned it on the journey, why does the movie make it seem like he learns the language over the course of a single campfire and bout of drinking?

If he learned it on the way to the homeland of the Norse, why does he not understand what they are saying at the campfire? I have seen the movie, and it either very poorly portrays the elapsed time (a month or whatever) - or it wants to make the viewer think he learns it in a single night at a campfire.

It would be nice if @dag could weigh in.

Thats too bad that they don't agree. The Cree in northern Manitoba confirm that they call us Eskimo based on "eaters of raw-meat", but hey, what do they know?

Qallunaq (also pronounced kabloonak) comes from kabluk (eyebrows), and naak (stomach). The story goes that Scottish whalers who came over in the 1700's had big bushy eyebrows and big stomachs - and the name stuck.

You can call me a snow-chink if you want. I won't feed that troll.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Throbbin:
it's actually a Cree word that the French adopted
Very few linguists, apparently, agree with that etymology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo#Origin_of_the_name_Eskimo
What's 'Qallunaq' translate to?
How about we call you guys 'snow-chinks'?

Aw crap. *isdupe

Yeah, I had clicked submit, then noticed my grammatical bumbling, hit modify while it was still loading, and then this occurred.

*kill

That's one great tune.

*promote

While I'm not crazy about the word 'Eskimo' (it's actually a Cree word that the French adopted), we do use it amongst ourselves.

As for others using it - a friend of mine once asked an Inuk Elder what he thought about the word. The Elder responded that we never asked white people what they wanted to be called (we call them Qallunaq), so why should we get upset about what people call us?

I assume he was running because he saw the police coming. That SUV in the video was a municipal vehicle, and would have called the local detachment.>> ^notarobot:

It was funny until I saw him run for the house! Damn!