Received this from a friend and thought you might enjoy.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Dial 1 for Funny!!!
Once again I find myself with a much larger piece that I want to write and not much time to write it. And rather than abuse my latest Asianology 101 theme, I figured I would throw out a little more humor.
Received this from a friend and thought you might enjoy.
Received this from a friend and thought you might enjoy.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Asianology 101...
Well, as my dear friend Kevin continues to remind me, the first rule of blogging is to post often. I am very guilty of breaking that rule, I will spare you the excuses. So... in the spirit of Blogger's Rule #1, I have decided to combine 2 of my passions... blogging and my love of Asian women. Yes... I contracted the 'yellow fever' (I am sure this is no longer politically correct, but I don't care) many years ago. My level of fever extends to the point that I married a wonderful Chinese woman (not the woman below... sigh) nearly 2 years ago. We met online and a year later she immigrated to the US and became my wife, but back to my passion (just kidding sweetie...). I have always found the modeling photos of Asian women to be outstandingly beautiful. To the point I have amassed a large collection of such images. So... like my friend Kevin and his 'Moments of Zen'... I proudly introduce - Asianology 101. Enjoy!
Thursday, October 15, 2009
A Moment of Silence...
Even back in 1890, those that were paying attention were recognizing the Democratic Party’s ideals as something to fear. So much so that 2nd Liut. Col. N. Grigsby chose to get the final word in by having a statement to such inscribed upon his tombstone. He even made it a clause in his will that before any of his kin could inherit his estate that the inscription must be in place... naturally it was etched in stone immediately.
It also seems the New York Times picked up this story as well. However, rather than showing the photographs they chose to run a verbal "quote" of what had been etched in Liut. Co. Grigsby's tombstone. One small problem, they got it wrong! I thought a quote meant you gave the statement as you found it... not how you wanted it to be or how you felt it would least offend your readers... guess I was wrong about that too. Check out the NY Times version here. (Thanks Kevin for finding that for me.)
Friday, October 9, 2009
Tell me what you think...
My friend Kevin forwarded me a Quote of the Day that had been a comment left in regards to the article I am now commenting on. After having read the QOTD, I scrolled up and read the article it was in response to. Having done so, I now feel obliged to comment myself (aren’t blogs a wonderful thing?).
The article is in regard to an individual who, frankly put, is a major asshole. That being said… I also think he may be right in some aspects. It turns out the guy is self-made. Having worked for his father at a cafeteria, he put himself through law school and also served in the Marines. He now resides in a posh gated community with, as you would expect in a gated community, many other rich people.
It also turns out that he is not a fan of “poor people”, children and libraries. In all fairness, I would say he would just prefer them located where he doesn’t have to interact with them verses having them completely annihilated as a whole, but I dare not speak for the man else fall to his verbal wrath as well. In the end, I raise this question…
Is he wrong?
He has worked hard (presumably) to earn his fortune and chose a home in a location where those of equal status and mind can surround him. He has done what he can to stay away from those he prefers not to associate with, and has voiced his opinion publicly in the attempt to maintain the surrounding he has chosen. While we as a society frown on those not so tolerant, I ask again… is he wrong? Does working hard to achieve the American Dream… Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness… has he earned the right to be a prick?
The article is in regard to an individual who, frankly put, is a major asshole. That being said… I also think he may be right in some aspects. It turns out the guy is self-made. Having worked for his father at a cafeteria, he put himself through law school and also served in the Marines. He now resides in a posh gated community with, as you would expect in a gated community, many other rich people.
It also turns out that he is not a fan of “poor people”, children and libraries. In all fairness, I would say he would just prefer them located where he doesn’t have to interact with them verses having them completely annihilated as a whole, but I dare not speak for the man else fall to his verbal wrath as well. In the end, I raise this question…
Is he wrong?
He has worked hard (presumably) to earn his fortune and chose a home in a location where those of equal status and mind can surround him. He has done what he can to stay away from those he prefers not to associate with, and has voiced his opinion publicly in the attempt to maintain the surrounding he has chosen. While we as a society frown on those not so tolerant, I ask again… is he wrong? Does working hard to achieve the American Dream… Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness… has he earned the right to be a prick?
The One... and only...
It is a sad day in world history. I remember a time when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for great accomplishments. Today it is awarded to anyone with hope and a desire for change. I thought the ‘Peace’ Prize was something awarded for great efforts in the strive for… well… peace! And I thought it was to memorialize the achievement in obtaining peace, even if those efforts are still on going. But obviously those beliefs have long been shattered and are slowly being replaced with the possibility that I too might one day win a Nobel Peace Prize.
You see… it has been a long-standing dream of mine to free all living creatures of the planet earth from the ruthless and demoralizing enslavement this planet has persecuted upon them for so long. I shall free the fish from the sea, the birds from the air and the ground dwellers from… well… the ground. How will I accomplish such a marvelous gesture you ask? I shall destroy the planet earth so all will be free of it’s bonds upon us. We will be free to float throughout the cosmos with no more cares or concerns of a toxic atmosphere or contaminated waterways. There will be no more worries of what poisons have been placed into the soil or just how many trees still remain after the deforestation and wild fires. We the people of the former planet earth, as well as all living creatures on it, will be free for all time. Together we can achieve this dream. With hope for a free future we can make these changes a reality…
Anyone buying this yet?
If not, here are my top three quotes from “Instapundit” on the audacity of “The One” receiving the Nobel Peace Prize:
1) “It’s a peace prize, not a peace peace prize.”
2) “How do you say ‘jump the shark’ in Norwegian?”
and finally….
3) “Let’s be fair…. He did pull off the Beer Summit.”
You see… it has been a long-standing dream of mine to free all living creatures of the planet earth from the ruthless and demoralizing enslavement this planet has persecuted upon them for so long. I shall free the fish from the sea, the birds from the air and the ground dwellers from… well… the ground. How will I accomplish such a marvelous gesture you ask? I shall destroy the planet earth so all will be free of it’s bonds upon us. We will be free to float throughout the cosmos with no more cares or concerns of a toxic atmosphere or contaminated waterways. There will be no more worries of what poisons have been placed into the soil or just how many trees still remain after the deforestation and wild fires. We the people of the former planet earth, as well as all living creatures on it, will be free for all time. Together we can achieve this dream. With hope for a free future we can make these changes a reality…
Anyone buying this yet?
If not, here are my top three quotes from “Instapundit” on the audacity of “The One” receiving the Nobel Peace Prize:
1) “It’s a peace prize, not a peace peace prize.”
2) “How do you say ‘jump the shark’ in Norwegian?”
and finally….
3) “Let’s be fair…. He did pull off the Beer Summit.”
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Sweet Surrender...
Well, here it is... another week and I still haven't posted anything new and all the topics I am currently researching seem to be taking far longer than expected. it is hell to realize that at 35 you know so little about the world than what you thought you knew. But then, better late than never, right? Then again, ignorance was such sweet bliss.
Any who... since I don't have anything of major significance to report today, I figured I would at least provide a little eye candy. Between the post I did several weeks ago in response to a piece by Mostly Cajun and this post, some of you may think that I am all about the sexy pics... well, I am male. Need I say more?
As probably many of you are aware, China recently celebrated it's 60th Anniversary. While China has been around for thousands of years, the anniversary is marking their cultural revolution and the countries transformation into a modern and formal society. One of the many things the Chinese do to celebrate this anniversary is to have huge parades. The military, being one of the central components of the new China, often takes center stage of these parades. Here are some of the pictures I downloaded showing off the military at it's finest.
All I have to say is... if I was in a military unit and was suddenly face to face with a brigade of the gals in the pink... I would wave the white flag and beg to be interrogated by each and every one of them... personally! Talk about your POWs (ha).
Any who... since I don't have anything of major significance to report today, I figured I would at least provide a little eye candy. Between the post I did several weeks ago in response to a piece by Mostly Cajun and this post, some of you may think that I am all about the sexy pics... well, I am male. Need I say more?
As probably many of you are aware, China recently celebrated it's 60th Anniversary. While China has been around for thousands of years, the anniversary is marking their cultural revolution and the countries transformation into a modern and formal society. One of the many things the Chinese do to celebrate this anniversary is to have huge parades. The military, being one of the central components of the new China, often takes center stage of these parades. Here are some of the pictures I downloaded showing off the military at it's finest.
All I have to say is... if I was in a military unit and was suddenly face to face with a brigade of the gals in the pink... I would wave the white flag and beg to be interrogated by each and every one of them... personally! Talk about your POWs (ha).
Monday, September 28, 2009
If the glove doesn't fit...
OK... so there I was, checking out my daily Yahoo! News when I came upon an article that caught my attention.
"Attorney: Oklahoma City bomb tapes appear edited"
In the article, it discusses how a Salt Lake City attorney named Jesse Trentadue has been privately investigating the April 19th, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Apparently he just received security camera tapes from the FBI and feels there is a problem...
The tapes turned over by the FBI came from security cameras various companies had mounted outside office buildings near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. They are blank at points before 9:02 a.m., when a truck bomb carrying a 4,000 pound fertilizer-and-fuel-oil bomb detonated in front of the building, Trentadue said.
"Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said.
Apparently Jesse feels that the US Government is not being completely forth coming with the evidence it has, and has no problem shooting his mouth off about it...
He said government officials claim the security cameras did not record the minutes before the bombing because "they had run out of tape" or "the tape was being replaced."
"The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02," he said. "The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn't want anybody to see."
He's not done yet...
FBI agents did not report finding any security tapes from the federal building itself.
The FBI in the past refused to release the security camera recordings, leading Trentadue and others to contend the government was hiding evidence that others were involved in the attack.
"It's taken a lawsuit and years to get the tapes," Trentadue said.
He received the latest batch of tapes over the summer in response to an April request for video from security cameras in 11 different locations. Nothing on the tapes was unexpected.
"The more important thing they show is what they don't show," Trentadue said. "These cameras would have shown the various roads and approaches to the Murrah Building."
The more important thing they show is what they don't show??? OK... I have had my fill of layer double talk. I realize our judicial system is a joke, but I am just not sure I can take any more. When the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" were coined, it was meant to make sure a jury was sure they were convicting the right person. And that, if they weren't certain this was the guy, they didn't convict him wrongly.
Is it just me or have the attorneys of today decided the best defense is to create reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt was never meant to be 'created', it was simply meant to either be present or not. When did it go from, "As this man's defense attorney, I present you this evidence that my client is Innocent and could not have possibly been the man who committed the crime" to "As this man's defense attorney, here are 100 other possibilities that are meant to confuse and distract you from the fact my client committed the crime."
And now... we have this 'do gooder' lawyer in salt lake that is making the same argument about the Oklahoma City Bombing evidence. Essentially he is saying that, because I wasn't given the evidence, the evidence must be missing rather than non-existent. I will admit that he has two things going for him... 1) it is rather coincidental that 4 cameras did seem to mis-function at the worst possible moment that would have provided much needed evidence, and 2) our federal government seems to be less than forth coming with evidence to the public.
Which leads me to my second half of my rant (the first being about lawyers, the bums)... why is our government so secretive with it's own people? I understand they can not give out every detail, but all to often they seem to hide even the simplest of details. I will chose one of the most contested 'conspiracies' as my example.... JFK. Personally, I believe there was a cover-up. What all it covers, I am not certain. But from the evidence I have seen, it appears to me that there was more than a single shooter. But yet, our government emphatically denies any conspiracy and that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. Why? If they have fool proof evidence that he was, then why don't they release it? Instead they have classified documents, mis-placed evidence and (in my opinion) made a joke of themselves in how obvious information has been withheld... and all in the interest of public safety. Safety from what?
Why does our government repeatedly cover up things or hide information from us? Now, I am not suggesting they start sending out mailers with the nuclear codes on them... I realize some secrets are needed and most would pertain to military. But why couldn't it simply open to the public all evidence of the JFK assassination? Who would it hurt (besides those that covered anything up to begin with)? And think of what would be achieved politically by the president that did such an act. He/She would be a god!
Picture if you will... Obama sitting at his desk in the oval office giving a public address to the nation (OK nothing new there)... "My fellow Americans, tonight I sit before you humbled as your leader and must admit that our government has been part of a massive conspiracy against it's own people. For 40 years now secrets have been kept and hidden from you the people, secrets that should have been available for all to see. As of this moment the secrecy ends. (President hold up a black binder with the presidential seal on it) This is a presidential decree in which I am lifting any withholding of information in regards to the assassination of our former president John F. Kennedy. For all those that have wanted access to the evidence, you shall now have it. (Opens binder and signs the document). I have appointed a Czar (couldn't help myself) to oversee all other 'classified' documents that should also be released to the public. By this I mean all documentation regarding Roswell NM, Big Foot, the chupacabra, etc. Provided there is no information contained within that would otherwise compromise our military or law enforcement agencies, you shall have full transparency into what your government has previously hid from you. You are the people of the United States, and you deserve to know the truth. Thank you, and God bless the United States."
If this ever happened, the man would be untouchable and go down in history of one of the greatest presidents ever! He could completely botch Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Korea, etc. The people would applaud his forth coming and honesty above any other failure. So why doesn't the government step up to the plate? Why can it not be honest... even with itself? I mean of course... why other than the fact that government and honesty are complete polar opposites. I guess my question is.... why does government feel it must be dishonest with the citizens that elected it? And why, as the citizen, do we tolerate it?
I have a theory... I think it is because uncertainty is more powerful than truth. If the government gave us truth, we the citizens probably wouldn't know what to do. Obviously those that agreed would go along, and those that disagreed would abstain. But, by keeping all of us confused and uncertain, we all just 'go along' since we don't have hard evidence one way or the other. Our suspicions are just that, suspicions. If we know a politician is lying to us, we wont vote for him. Likewise, if we think he is telling the truth... we will. But if none of us are sure what he is saying is true or not... we might assume he is lying as all politicians do, but still vote for him since we are unsure.
So... to come full circle, is it any wonder that our government it now ran by lawyers? The same people that like to confuse a jury with 'reasonable doubt' are the same people that would like to keep us in the dark and confused as citizens. We are more controllable that way. And thus why we keep electing them, and they keep hiding the truth from us.
"Attorney: Oklahoma City bomb tapes appear edited"
In the article, it discusses how a Salt Lake City attorney named Jesse Trentadue has been privately investigating the April 19th, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Apparently he just received security camera tapes from the FBI and feels there is a problem...
The tapes turned over by the FBI came from security cameras various companies had mounted outside office buildings near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. They are blank at points before 9:02 a.m., when a truck bomb carrying a 4,000 pound fertilizer-and-fuel-oil bomb detonated in front of the building, Trentadue said.
"Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said.
Apparently Jesse feels that the US Government is not being completely forth coming with the evidence it has, and has no problem shooting his mouth off about it...
He said government officials claim the security cameras did not record the minutes before the bombing because "they had run out of tape" or "the tape was being replaced."
"The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02," he said. "The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn't want anybody to see."
He's not done yet...
FBI agents did not report finding any security tapes from the federal building itself.
The FBI in the past refused to release the security camera recordings, leading Trentadue and others to contend the government was hiding evidence that others were involved in the attack.
"It's taken a lawsuit and years to get the tapes," Trentadue said.
He received the latest batch of tapes over the summer in response to an April request for video from security cameras in 11 different locations. Nothing on the tapes was unexpected.
"The more important thing they show is what they don't show," Trentadue said. "These cameras would have shown the various roads and approaches to the Murrah Building."
The more important thing they show is what they don't show??? OK... I have had my fill of layer double talk. I realize our judicial system is a joke, but I am just not sure I can take any more. When the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" were coined, it was meant to make sure a jury was sure they were convicting the right person. And that, if they weren't certain this was the guy, they didn't convict him wrongly.
Is it just me or have the attorneys of today decided the best defense is to create reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt was never meant to be 'created', it was simply meant to either be present or not. When did it go from, "As this man's defense attorney, I present you this evidence that my client is Innocent and could not have possibly been the man who committed the crime" to "As this man's defense attorney, here are 100 other possibilities that are meant to confuse and distract you from the fact my client committed the crime."
And now... we have this 'do gooder' lawyer in salt lake that is making the same argument about the Oklahoma City Bombing evidence. Essentially he is saying that, because I wasn't given the evidence, the evidence must be missing rather than non-existent. I will admit that he has two things going for him... 1) it is rather coincidental that 4 cameras did seem to mis-function at the worst possible moment that would have provided much needed evidence, and 2) our federal government seems to be less than forth coming with evidence to the public.
Which leads me to my second half of my rant (the first being about lawyers, the bums)... why is our government so secretive with it's own people? I understand they can not give out every detail, but all to often they seem to hide even the simplest of details. I will chose one of the most contested 'conspiracies' as my example.... JFK. Personally, I believe there was a cover-up. What all it covers, I am not certain. But from the evidence I have seen, it appears to me that there was more than a single shooter. But yet, our government emphatically denies any conspiracy and that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. Why? If they have fool proof evidence that he was, then why don't they release it? Instead they have classified documents, mis-placed evidence and (in my opinion) made a joke of themselves in how obvious information has been withheld... and all in the interest of public safety. Safety from what?
Why does our government repeatedly cover up things or hide information from us? Now, I am not suggesting they start sending out mailers with the nuclear codes on them... I realize some secrets are needed and most would pertain to military. But why couldn't it simply open to the public all evidence of the JFK assassination? Who would it hurt (besides those that covered anything up to begin with)? And think of what would be achieved politically by the president that did such an act. He/She would be a god!
Picture if you will... Obama sitting at his desk in the oval office giving a public address to the nation (OK nothing new there)... "My fellow Americans, tonight I sit before you humbled as your leader and must admit that our government has been part of a massive conspiracy against it's own people. For 40 years now secrets have been kept and hidden from you the people, secrets that should have been available for all to see. As of this moment the secrecy ends. (President hold up a black binder with the presidential seal on it) This is a presidential decree in which I am lifting any withholding of information in regards to the assassination of our former president John F. Kennedy. For all those that have wanted access to the evidence, you shall now have it. (Opens binder and signs the document). I have appointed a Czar (couldn't help myself) to oversee all other 'classified' documents that should also be released to the public. By this I mean all documentation regarding Roswell NM, Big Foot, the chupacabra, etc. Provided there is no information contained within that would otherwise compromise our military or law enforcement agencies, you shall have full transparency into what your government has previously hid from you. You are the people of the United States, and you deserve to know the truth. Thank you, and God bless the United States."
If this ever happened, the man would be untouchable and go down in history of one of the greatest presidents ever! He could completely botch Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Korea, etc. The people would applaud his forth coming and honesty above any other failure. So why doesn't the government step up to the plate? Why can it not be honest... even with itself? I mean of course... why other than the fact that government and honesty are complete polar opposites. I guess my question is.... why does government feel it must be dishonest with the citizens that elected it? And why, as the citizen, do we tolerate it?
I have a theory... I think it is because uncertainty is more powerful than truth. If the government gave us truth, we the citizens probably wouldn't know what to do. Obviously those that agreed would go along, and those that disagreed would abstain. But, by keeping all of us confused and uncertain, we all just 'go along' since we don't have hard evidence one way or the other. Our suspicions are just that, suspicions. If we know a politician is lying to us, we wont vote for him. Likewise, if we think he is telling the truth... we will. But if none of us are sure what he is saying is true or not... we might assume he is lying as all politicians do, but still vote for him since we are unsure.
So... to come full circle, is it any wonder that our government it now ran by lawyers? The same people that like to confuse a jury with 'reasonable doubt' are the same people that would like to keep us in the dark and confused as citizens. We are more controllable that way. And thus why we keep electing them, and they keep hiding the truth from us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)