People should wake up to the fact that population growth has to be controlled. Of course it is very controversial because of religious views of many. But even among the religious ones I think those welcoming and trying to speed up the rupture are in minority. Most of people should be quite open to the idea to improve (or preserve) quality of life for their offspring and henceforth. How about trying to limit maximum number of children to four? That would work actually. Such a pity that religious types will be rioting about limiting their right to consume the planet and about (oh horror!) contraception. Is there a light in the end of this tunnel? Maybe UN could step in and tie in more help to poorest countries if they subscribe to contraception campaign? It is basically a win win situation, with poverty, maternal deaths and population growth going down. Too bad no one has balls and opportunity to do that.

Someone here has said the following:

"There are too many interest groups that are thriving in the present US health care system for any major changes to occur soon. I have friends who are doctors who have told me that if it were not for the chronically ill they would not be in business. They also told me that almost all of the chronically ill are or were smokers and/or drinkers or obese or all all of these. Most of these chronically ill use a multitude of prescription drugs, enriching both the drug companies and the docs who prescribe them. That's a pretty powerful bunch, who donate lots of money to politicians."

While there is some reason to that, the doctors will be most likely not really worse off than now, because at the present the bulk of money goes to insurance companies, not to the doctors. Now those insurance companies are sure not to go down easily. It is their lobby we should worry about. The doctors will actually have more work, since presently uninsured will make a bit more visits when they able to do so. And cronically ill will not go away completely anytime soon.

First of all, calling reasonable arguing people whiners was uncalled for. Second, it is your statements that are misguided.

"Foie gras = fat liver. Bad enough that geese are force-fed, but humans eating fatty liver will have all kinds of problems. I'll take my pate without the extra fat, thank you.

Baby steps = Doing one small thing, or a few, that will eventually have an impact."

No one eats foie gras on a daily basis, therefore there will be no more worse impact than when eating junk food. Actually, a lot less. Also, people are free to choose their food, you choose mcnuggets, I choose foie gras. Once in a while.

Second, I wonder what banning duck farming will achieve. Some farmers and chefs will go out of business. Mostly local businesses will suffer. Local people will have to buy all the other products produced by these farms and chefs at the chains. Long live corporate greed. What good it has achieved?

It has been repeated here, but you probably do not get it, there is LOTS more animal suffering involved in industrial farming than is foie gras business. It is just scapegoating, and not doing any good.

Anyone who thinks this was offensive does not have either sense of humor or much brains.

Besides, it was much less satire on celebrity adoptions than it was a clever spoof of stupud programs about celebrities.

Samantha Bee rules!