The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

I've always been guilty of thinking badly of charities with large overheads. Learn something new every day.

Them damn puritans!

Wow, $350,000,000 for breast cancer research? That's great. Did they cure breast cancer? No. They didn't. They won't cure it with $3 billion. They won't cure it with $3 trillion. or $300 quadrillion. Their mistake is in the perception of the problem, and the idea that "global poverty" or "cancer worldwide" is a "problem" which they can "solve". Cancer can be cured for $0. There are hundreds of lifestyle changes that cost nothing (or even save or make more money for the individual) that reduce cancer cells. Cancer isn't the problem, it's the cure, which points the individual to the real problem: lifestyle habits. Same goes for homelessness, hunger, etc. Those things (should) indicate to the individual that there is something wrong with the way they've lived their life up to that point. Or if you prefer a positive outlook, "there is a better way of living their life than the way they've been doing it up to that point." Stop trying to eliminate the things which motivate people to change their habits: Cancer, hunger, poverty, AIDS, etc. These are all symptoms. Symptoms teach us what the real problem is.

How's that for "real social innovation"?

Fred Phelps? Is that you?

Moving this video to littledragon_79's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

I bookmarked this for later viewing a couple of days ago, and after finally getting around to it I can say it's a damn shame this didn't get sifted.

*promote

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by shveddy because shveddy is not privileged - sorry.

Aarrgggg!!!

*beg ?

Ok ok ok, after reading the FAQ, I think this one'll work:

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by shveddy.

I got you *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by eric3579.

Victim-blaming for cancer? Really? I'm staggered. I've heard it all now.

I'm inclined to fall in the middle here.
Smoked a pack a day for 20 years and got lung cancer? That's a victim that took a risk and lost. BUT...
It's impossible to eliminate cancer risk entirely. Cancer is semi-random with an off-on trigger. Risk is cumulative, and while incidence can be correlated with risk across populations, incidence is not directly correlated with risk for a given individual. Some people will tan for years and never experience the specific set of mutations and biologic failsafe failures that results in melanoma, while others will trigger that specific set of conditions rapidly, even when the starting biologic conditions\predispositions are the same.
So, yes, I believe some people "get credit" for their cancer (or other illnesses) because of their behaviors, but others are just unlucky.
Even setting aside the randomness of incidence, we're constantly bombarded with a significant cancer risk factor in the form of ionizing radiation, and not just from avoidable sources like deciding to live in a brick house or eating bananas.
I also disagree with the idea that more money wouldn't help eliminate (contrast with "cure") cancer, because many organizations funding cancer research are looking at identifying risk factors, which leads to opportunities for educating populations about avoiding those risk factors. Cervical cancer can be caused by HPV? Get your kids vaccinated, don't have unprotected sex, etc. Lung cancer can be caused by smoking? Stop smoking! It isn't just about finding a magic medication to reverse cellular mutations or target mutated cells, although that would be fantastic.