“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

- Pastor Dave Barnhart at Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama

Definition of sanctimonious
1: hypocritically pious or devout

other considerations;
https://www.vasectomy.com/article/vasectomy/procedure/no-needle-vasectomy or even https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/vasalgel/

https://youtu.be/25JyC5Whhvc

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-americans-really-think-about-abortion/

remember the cute "my body my choice" covid 19 zinger?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7047e1.htm#:~:text=Pregnant%20women%20are%20at%20increased,1%E2%80%933)

folks like yourself weren't against late, late term abortions. i.e. grandma/pa

also a DYK https://dirtysexyhistory.com/2016/07/28/ancient-birth-control-silphium-and-the-origin-of-the-heart-shape/

Stop being mean! Can't you see they're just having fun?
Uncomplicated villainous murder-fun!

Pretty typical, if the cops want to search your premises, they will. In this case, it was that wall and gate that caused suspicions. Then "anonymous informant" steppes in to the picture, you got all the ticks checked, go ahead in full swat gear, detain everyone, see if there something that you can justify the action.

The bad thing is, often they are right. Suspicious places often are suspicious. So it gets fed back in the system "this method works, we get only x% of wrongful blaa blaa". They do the same here, busting chili growers for marijuana... Then they try to justify it, play it down or simply threaten to keep quiet. Bad thing here is, if you obtain evidence during wrongful seizure or search, it's still valid. So the act of obtaining evidence is is illegal but evidence is not. This sounds right if the reprimand for breaking the law fro obtaining evidence is treated as a crime but it never is in any western society that i know of. Usually things go to internal investigation that results at most a non-paid leave, a paid leave, a verbal notice and most often, absolutely nothing.

It's "end justify the means" policy and we did our best to get rid of that by inventing all these complicated laws protecting us that are now turned on against us. W can do with uncomplicated laws too, the society would stay lawful, peaceful. The injustice that comes should be enough reason to not go back few centuries.

So this situation is completely uncomplicated to you, we've done nothing wrong it's all their fault and they either need to renounce their countrymen or die. You see the world in black and white, I can't change that but maybe do more research before just making proclamations about how people who you know nothing about should conduct their lives.

>> with all kinds of drama and tests, and poking and prodding.

In the western world, infant and maternal mortality has plummeted thanks to improved hygiene and good medical care, but these days there is a big emphasis on offering choice to the woman. In the UK If the pregnancy is deemed low risk then midwife only hospital delivery is offered as a basic right and the women can choose often choose pool birth, or home birth if they wish.
The latest NICE guidelines even go so far as to say that a woman should be able to ask for a c-section even if not medically indicated.
If the woman opts for something like opiate pain relief or an epideural then of course it becomes more medicalised but again it's a choice.

When you are on your second or third child, it often just pops out with little fuss where as the first baby is much more of an unknown. I'd be a lot less worried about a lady like this who has had 3 normal deliveries which i assume were uncomplicated.

The only think i'd say here is that babies get cold very quickly and so should be dried quickly rather than doused in brook water.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Superman?
A boring character with almost no vulnerabilities and no interesting character traits.
Zack Synder?
Technically competent but artistically bankrupt. Don't believe me? See what he comes up with when he doesn't have two of the biggest names in comics writing for him. Derivative, immature and vaguely creepy (and not in a good way).
Will have to do a lot better after the Avengers (solid action, genuinely funny script) and the Dark Knight Rises (visually stunning with real emotive weight).

I loved The Avengers. Bright, colourful, uncomplicated superheroes having fun. The story was very simple but that was needed to allow room for all the characters to breath and interact. As you say a nice script and some good lines.
It's much more my cup of tea than the foreboding, depressing Dark Knight films.


I loved every minute of both The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises.

Also, have to disagree with wtih @ChaosEngine about Zack Synder. He simply can't write, but he can sure as shit direct and has such a fantastic eye for visuals. Not every director should be able to write, as long as they can take good material and make something excellent from it, which he has done, multiple times.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Deano:
I loved The Avengers. Bright, colourful, uncomplicated superheroes having fun. The story was very simple but that was needed to allow room for all the characters to breath and interact. As you say a nice script and some good lines.
It's much more my cup of tea than the foreboding, depressing Dark Knight films.

Agreed, but I feel there's room for both.


True, I'm just not rushing to see the Batman film. After I saw the last one it just made me reread The Dark Knight Returns and appreciate how well it's dystopian vision worked on paper. Seeing bits of it used here and there in the films felt wrong. Leaving Miller's work alone might have made the film better.

>> ^Deano:

I loved The Avengers. Bright, colourful, uncomplicated superheroes having fun. The story was very simple but that was needed to allow room for all the characters to breath and interact. As you say a nice script and some good lines.
It's much more my cup of tea than the foreboding, depressing Dark Knight films.


Agreed, but I feel there's room for both.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Superman?
A boring character with almost no vulnerabilities and no interesting character traits.
Zack Synder?
Technically competent but artistically bankrupt. Don't believe me? See what he comes up with when he doesn't have two of the biggest names in comics writing for him. Derivative, immature and vaguely creepy (and not in a good way).
Will have to do a lot better after the Avengers (solid action, genuinely funny script) and the Dark Knight Rises (visually stunning with real emotive weight).


I loved The Avengers. Bright, colourful, uncomplicated superheroes having fun. The story was very simple but that was needed to allow room for all the characters to breath and interact. As you say a nice script and some good lines.

It's much more my cup of tea than the foreboding, depressing Dark Knight films.

I would oppose the US intervening in foreign affairs. If the US had a clean track record, didn't lie to take us into war, didn't lie about occupation and wasn't hated vehemently in those pockets of the world, then this would be a different conversation. But we don't live in that world.

So, yes, I oppose military force to do anything outside of national defense as long as the US government stands and is stealing my money to pay for defense spending.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Maybe on FB? I don't remember. So, you would oppose using military force to stop genocide?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I wish my viewpoint was uncomplicated so I could take a fair weather non-stance. But you know us liberal peaceniks; we don't see aggression and death with rose colored glasses.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I see merit on both sides.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He disagrees with this Libyan interventionism. You agree with it. How do you reconcile your two systems of belief?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

Maybe on FB? I don't remember. So, you would oppose using military force to stop genocide?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I wish my viewpoint was uncomplicated so I could take a fair weather non-stance. But you know us liberal peaceniks; we don't see aggression and death with rose colored glasses.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I see merit on both sides.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He disagrees with this Libyan interventionism. You agree with it. How do you reconcile your two systems of belief?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

I remember you saying that you do support intervention in some circumstances. Have you changed your thinking on this?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I wish my viewpoint was uncomplicated so I could take a fair weather non-stance. But you know us liberal peaceniks; we don't see aggression and death with rose colored glasses.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I see merit on both sides.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He disagrees with this Libyan interventionism. You agree with it. How do you reconcile your two systems of belief?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Chomsky's concerns are all valid. I agree with him too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe Chomsky is right about this one. What are the odds that there'd be a topic and I'd side with Chomsky and you wouldn't?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't really expect Libya to come to our aid. That was a joke.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Bah. You're side stepping.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Return the favor? You mean another government would liberate us somehow? Or a militarized action on our soil? I know it sounds nice to say that, but this isn't necessarily a "We Are the World" moment.

I bet either the US will remain involved in Libya as support to NATO for the coming years (to aid in nation-building), or they'll send troops to the ground and possibly an occupation begins (to nation-build in favor of the US). Either one will be bad. And then what happens if we go into Iran?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
We are helping people to rise up against an oppressive government. Maybe they'll return the favor.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The evidence that it probably won't be limited to a no-fly zone was answered in your comment: "we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2"

Though why is the no-fly zone okay? It's still a militarized act of aggression in a place that already hates us. This is the kind of thing that lead to the blowback we saw on 9/11.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
So long as it is limited to a No-Fly Zone, I'm OK with it. I know I'm probably wrong to trust that this is legit, since we have not seen a legit US military campaign since ww2, but I've yet to see evidence that it is not.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, just wondering if you're pro-military interventionism or against it. I see Chomsky didn't change your mind.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Is there some new development?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Has your stance on Libya changed yet?

Halt! Ich bin ein Offizier des Gesetzes! Alle von euch, Papiere bitte.

The Godwin is so easy, but its exactly why we have a constitution that allows for citizens the right to be free.

This law does exactly what I feared. Stop and Identify, no you are not free to go. You must first Identify.

The problem with this law, is that it will enable racial profiling, to be legal, when at the federal level it is not legal.

So just because I look Slavic, Irish, or Russian means that I have to identify? Perhaps if the majority where a darker pigmentation then the whites would have to stop and identify? Its so uncomplicated from a place of relative comfort. I weep for the state of Arizona's civil rights, where it is not so civil to be right.

See the link below for the Federal Stance on Racial Profiling, section 1 I. GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL OFFICIALS ENGAGED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/documents/guidance_on_race.php

>> ^vaporlock:
Remember those days back in 1984 when everything made sense...


"Remember the good ol' 1980s, when things were so uncomplicated?"

Sorry, did you mean something else?

I'm late but I am playing!

Favourites

1) Season--Fall
2) Place in the world--Museum of modern art where I could touch stuff, smoke, drink coffee and bring my kid
3) Children's book--the pokey little puppy
4) TV Series--six feet under
5) Word--douche
6) Film--this is a hard one.. maybe Reservoir Dogs? Boondock Saints?
7) Curse--Fuck!!
Creature--one that doesnt hurt/kill me
9) Past time--talking all night
10)Person--my kid

Which one?

11) Dog or cat--dog
12) Sweet or savoury--sweet
13) Cereal or Toast--cereal!!
14) Tan or pale--pale
15) Shoes or barefoot--barefoot
16) Desktop or laptop--laptop
17) Drive or walk--walk
18) Drama or comedy--comedy
19) Sex or food--sex sex sex
20) Futurama or Simpsons--simpsons

The Sift

21) Your fave personal submission--http://www.videosift.com/video/Beulah-Don-t-Forget-to-Breathe#comment-845060
22) A great comment on one of your vids--Call me crazy, Inflatablevagina, but I think you have "Penis Envy!"
23) Most off the wall member--yoghurt.. i like almost everything he/she does and I have never spoken to them
24) Favourite user name--mine
25) Your most used channel--rocknroll
26) Personal dumbass moment--everyday... cant pin point to just one thing...
27) Best avatar--schmawy
28) Partner in crime--bea
29) Do people offline know of your sift problem--some of them.. mostly no.
30) Idea for the site--my idea is to give me gold so I can promote

About you

31) Where do you live-Texas
32) Smoker/non-smoker--sometimes smoker
33) Left or right handed--right
34) Hair colour--blonde
35) Relationship status--married
36) How tall-- 6 foot...seriously
37) Children--1
38) Ever had an operation--no
39) Best feature--my eyes
40) Use four words to describe yourself-- uncomplicated,sincere,loyal,charming

If you could...what, who, when etc

41) Bring a famous person back from the dead--Silvia Plath
42) Give 50 grand to any charity--something for mentally challenged kids
43) Send someone on a one way ticket to the moon--i dont want to do that
44) Relive a moment in your life--when my kid was born
45) Have a superpower--see peoples insecurities and then fix them
46) Find out one thing you've always wanted to know--i dont know..
47) Have the opposite gender deal with something you have to--being groped.
48) Be president for one hour-eww...no.fucking.way
49) Delete a period in history-nah it all makes this time what it is
50) Achieve one thing--raise a sane happy loving child