Calling this EIA is a bit incorrect. These are different species and any inter-specific breeding that may have happened after the video cut out would not lead to viable offspring. Also, two males, so again no viable offspring. Also a cautionary tale about trying to take a dump in the donkey pasture.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'pasture, horses, chicken, agree' to 'pasture, horses, chicken, agree, agreeable' - edited by Fusionaut

I do have to admit, even though I do agree with him, I am sick of these night shows injecting politics into their shows.

In their defense though, doesn't matter if it's left or right, the whole political system is absurd and absurdity does fall into the realm of comedy. If politicians acted like adults, comedians would move on to greener pastures.

And Letterman? Independents DO have a dog in this hunt. Just because both parties are shit, doesn't mean they're equally shitty. One is clearly more shitty than the other. Being Independent doesn't mean I have no opinion.

Why are they removing them? I understand, what with the bees all dying and everything, removing normal bee nests to greener pastures, but it seems to me that the killer bees may as well get the nerve gas.

Well, I expected it to be complete rubbish, and ofc following China was always going to be a tough ask. Still, I was pleasantly surprised. I really liked the Industrial revolution bit, the music was great. Great Ormond/NHS dragged on a bit and fuck me I wish they'd put Paul Mccartney out to pasture already. Another tired rendition of Hey Jude? I'd rather they'd given the mic back to Dizzy Rascal tbh.

So yah, some good, some bad.

Oh, and NBC didn't air the class Abide With Me bit because they didn't realise it was about the bombings? herp-derp.

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^kceaton1:
Utah, used to be the old number one, for insight. BTW, we are also a VERY heavily abstinence leaning state--outside of Salt Lake City, Park City, and Ogden. Some adults I know personally didn't truly know what sex was--fully and all its implications until they were 25 years old, almost seniors in COLLEGE...
Utah. Utah is almost all low to high middle income Caucasian urbanites... It's incredibly homogeneous. But, you could say due to the LDS church's influence this is a special scenario. Yet, in other states religion tends to be one of the highest reasons this subject comes up.
Luckily, my parents taught me early and I had Sex Ed in my health class and knew by 14 the full implications. Utah (our idiotic political carpetbaggers that have carved the state up so they can get these things into the pasture and passed easily due to the higher numbers of their types in office; that are all affiliated with the Tea Party strangely enough--and like Glenn beck...), this year, tried to BAN Sex Ed in its legislature. But the governor was forced to veto the bill due to public outrage (strangely enough, it pissed off a lot of people here). Basically they passed a bill that would have forced abstinence ONLY education even though (I believe) we are number two behind Mississippi.

I'm dubious about that. In fact, here's the first data I came across with a google search. Check out page 15. Utah is way below average and among the lowest in the country for every year they have data, going back to the 80s. In 2005 we were number 45 out of 50 in teen pregnancies.
But then again we're not an abstinence only state. If republicans manage to change that, as they nearly did, I guess we'll have a good case study.


Strange I'll have to check that out. Of course, I'm COMPLETELY basing everything I'm saying off of what a KSL report said pre-veto (of the 2012 Utah legislature's "Abstinence Only" Bill). Perhaps they had their data misconstrued and presented it the wrong way. I'll post the KSL story if I can find it in their history; then look at our information and statistics and then see what they may have possible misread and thought it was us, for some reason--they specifically said the previous cycle year to this study; so I'm confused to.

Thanks for catching that for me @entr0py, I appreciate that sort of thing.

So I admit I may be wrong, sorry if I am! I'll release another, "I'm sorry", later when I have better detail of why I got bad reporting.

>> ^kceaton1:

Utah, used to be the old number one, for insight. BTW, we are also a VERY heavily abstinence leaning state--outside of Salt Lake City, Park City, and Ogden. Some adults I know personally didn't truly know what sex was--fully and all its implications until they were 25 years old, almost seniors in COLLEGE...
Utah. Utah is almost all low to high middle income Caucasian urbanites... It's incredibly homogeneous. But, you could say due to the LDS church's influence this is a special scenario. Yet, in other states religion tends to be one of the highest reasons this subject comes up.
Luckily, my parents taught me early and I had Sex Ed in my health class and knew by 14 the full implications. Utah (our idiotic political carpetbaggers that have carved the state up so they can get these things into the pasture and passed easily due to the higher numbers of their types in office; that are all affiliated with the Tea Party strangely enough--and like Glenn beck...), this year, tried to BAN Sex Ed in its legislature. But the governor was forced to veto the bill due to public outrage (strangely enough, it pissed off a lot of people here). Basically they passed a bill that would have forced abstinence ONLY education even though (I believe) we are number two behind Mississippi.


I'm dubious about that. In fact, here's the first data I came across with a google search. Check out page 15. Utah is way below average and among the lowest in the country for every year they have data, going back to the 80s. In 2005 we were number 45 out of 50 in teen pregnancies.

But then again we're not an abstinence only state. If republicans manage to change that, as they nearly did, I guess we'll have a good case study.

>> ^dag:

I'm all for sex ed, but correlation is not causation - as is quickly skimmed over by Cenk, ethnicity, income etc would play a much larger role than just a few crppy high school health classes.



Utah, used to be the old number one, for insight. BTW, we are also a VERY heavily abstinence leaning state--outside of Salt Lake City, Park City, and Ogden. Some adults I know personally didn't truly know what sex was--fully and all its implications until they were 25 years old, almost seniors in COLLEGE...

Utah. Utah is almost all low to high middle income Caucasian urbanites... It's incredibly homogeneous. But, you could say due to the LDS church's influence this is a special scenario. Yet, in other states religion tends to be one of the highest reasons this subject comes up.

Luckily, my parents taught me early and I had Sex Ed in my health class and knew by 14 the full implications. Utah (our idiotic political carpetbaggers that have carved the state up so they can get these things into the pasture and passed easily due to the higher numbers of their types in office; that are all affiliated with the Tea Party strangely enough--and like Glenn beck...), this year, tried to BAN Sex Ed in its legislature. But the governor was forced to veto the bill due to *public* outrage (strangely enough, it pissed off a lot of people here). Basically they passed a bill that would have forced abstinence ONLY education even though (I believe) we are number two behind Mississippi.

Below is a copy of the email I sent to Vic Toews, the sponsor of this terrible legislation. I again suggest that all thoughtful Canadians contact their Member of Parliament to voice their concerns.

MP's email addresses and other contact information can be found here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

Dear Mr. Toews;

Thanks for taking the time to send an automated response to the automated email I had previously sent to you. In contrast to our previous correspondenced, this email represents my considered position and thoughts as a citizen of Canada, and not those of a robo-responder, nor of a political staff.

In response to the "Myths and Facts" listed below your correspondence, I respectfully submit that I don't buy a word of it. There's a common expression used to describe information which is not representative of the truth, which I'm sure that, coming as you do from an agricultural area like Provencher, you are quite familiar with. It's commonly used to fertilize pasture-land.

Bill C-30 is a poorly written, overly broad and dangerous piece of legislation. One thing which has been demonstrated over and over again is that when delegated powers that intrude on privacy, those in authority inevitably will abuse them. I have no doubt that the power resulting from C-30 will likewise be abused, and that it will, contrary to your statements, be used for non-criminal purposes. This legislation is fatally flawed and should be abandoned forthwith.

I'd also like to point out that though I vehemently oppose this legislation, I am certainly not "...with the child pornographers". I find your characterization of myself and other thoughtful Canadians to be offensive in the extreme. You remain unrepentant for this despicable comment, instead denying making it though one finds it readilly available in video and in Hansard. I would hope that at some time you might offer an apology to myself and those Canadians who might not agree with you. I suggest to you that it is un-Canadian to use such extremist rhetoric.


Paul Blank
Vancouver, Canada


From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
To: xxxx
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:47:02 -0400
Subject: RE: Stop Online Spying

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.

We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.

Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.

What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.

For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.

Sincerely,



Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher

Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.
Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.

Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.
Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.
Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.



Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.
Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.

Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.
Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.
Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.

@chilaxe Honestly, I don't think california has ever had many high contributors as you are defining it. This group has always been a highly visible minority in the state. And this is probably shrinking as people move to greener pastures and better opportunities overseas. Frankly, I see more opportunity in Asia and Africa than in Silicon Valley, which is rather cliquish. More and more of my foriegn born Chinese and Indian colleagues agree, and there are more and more high skilled people avoiding the glass ceiling and cliques by going back.

I have visited Belgium and picnic'd near a wood fenced idyliic pasture, filled with the Belgian steroid cows. I was attacked but managed to capture a momentary photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/internationalmaskfestival/959897401/

You seem to keep insisting that there are only two types of people involved in a debate? When, in the history of debate, has it been about trying to sway proponents of either side of an argument? A debate is about attempting to sway an audience. I don't care if it's about religion, gay marriage, climate change, going to war, health care, eating fast food, or whether you should or shouldn't wear white after Labor Day! You are absolutely right, Ray is probably never going to be swayed from his position, and neither will anyone entrenched in either side, but there is a host of people listening who may be somewhere in the grey middle. That is who debate is really for, and unless you want them to go to the other insane, but incredibly vocal, and well organized, side of the fence, then you better be prepared to make a strong case for your greener pastures. Complacency solves nothing.>> ^VoodooV:

Since the idea of a god as we currently know it is a product of our imagination, someone is always going to come up with some imaginative "explanation" that supposedly trumps science's current understanding of the universe.
God uses lightning to show that he is angry with you...
God exists because the stars revolve around us...
God exists because a banana fits in your hand nicely...
All someone has to do is say "God made evolution" and we're back to square one again. It's like a comic book. Every so often they revise the origin stories. Iron Man's origin story originally took place in Vietnam. Now it's Afghanistan.
Debating Creationists is a waste of time. It lowers you, it elevates them and nothing worthwhile happens.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Jinx:
I don't really care that they made fun of Mexicans, and I have Mexican family. Its what they've always done, and I always thought it was pretty tongue in cheek. I think the real crime here is that it just isn't funny. That and the rest of Top Gear. I used to love that programme, but maybe I've grown up a little bit, or more likely its just got increasingly infantile. Its painful to watch at times such is their desperation to be edgy. The whole show is painfully scripted in what I can only imagine is an attempt to top the last seasons craziness, but its all become a bit too pantomime.
I honestly wouldn't mind if it was put out to pasture.

350 Million people would like you to Shut The Fuck Up!


Obviously only about 349,999,993 want that.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Jinx:
I don't really care that they made fun of Mexicans, and I have Mexican family. Its what they've always done, and I always thought it was pretty tongue in cheek. I think the real crime here is that it just isn't funny. That and the rest of Top Gear. I used to love that programme, but maybe I've grown up a little bit, or more likely its just got increasingly infantile. Its painful to watch at times such is their desperation to be edgy. The whole show is painfully scripted in what I can only imagine is an attempt to top the last seasons craziness, but its all become a bit too pantomime.
I honestly wouldn't mind if it was put out to pasture.

350 Million people would like you to Shut The Fuck Up!


http://videosift.com/video/Steve-Hughes-Political-Correctness-and-Offence