Before I post the article, let me speak freely on this subject. I personally believe the law of supply and demand hasn't been in effect over the petroleum fat cats in sometime. The folks, CEOs if you will, have reached a level of greed that's undeniable. The fact that we're in a RECESSION and the supply is DOWN should solidify a cheaper price. And while Ill be the first to admit the prices are way down from last year, if the current trend continues, and it will, gas will be about $3.50 by the summer. I'm calling it now. Today is May 24, 2009. By July, 2009 gas will be at a National average of $3.50. We'll call this my Howard Beale Revelation, although it's mere memory that leads me to such a conclusion. Check out this link and scroll down to the summer months and watch how the price ALWAYS increases:
http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm
I'm not spouting conspiracy theories, those are the facts. Some say it's because they're blending the gas to make better mileage types for the summer travel, or that the old supply-demand formula was being implemented. The only evidence I can find for the price hikes is the "speculative" narrative from "insiders". Lot of sense that makes eh? Somebody's OPINION determines the rise and fall of crude oil? Say it aint so... ok I'm done ranting. Read the article.
s
T
s
Found the following on the SF Gate. It's written by David R. Baker.
Recessions usually bring cheap oil and gasoline.
But not now. And that has analysts worried that another fuel-price spike could be on the way.
Crude oil, the lifeblood of the global economy, costs $61.67, even as the world struggles through the worst recession since World War II. And prices are rising, climbing 26 percent in the last month.
Gas prices have jumped as a result, rising 12 cents in California last week to reach an average of $2.62 for a gallon of regular.
Compared with last year's record oil price of $145.29 per barrel, for oil sold on the New York Mercantile Exchange, $61 may not sound like much. But it's twice the historic average for petroleum, which used to trade from $20 to $30. Prices briefly fell below $34 in December and February, but they've rebounded with a vengeance.
The economy hasn't. But oil traders are betting that the recession is at or near its worst, meaning a recovery could start later this year and drive up global demand for oil again. They're trading on the possibility of a recovery, rather than a recovery itself.
To many analysts, the current high price is a bad sign.
The worldwide oil market is awash in petroleum, because countries stuck in recession don't need as much to fuel their cars, factories and power plants. So if oil costs this much now, when demand is low and supplies are high, what happens when the economy improves?
Another record-setting price spike? Gasoline rising back above $4 a gallon?
"The fact it's going up now on nada is proof that speculators are still in control," said Judy Dugan, research director with the nonprofit group Consumer Watchdog. "Unless there are curbs in place, it obviously could shoot through the roof again."
Changing the rules
That fear is fueling efforts in Washington to change the rules of the oil market. A global warming bill wending its way through Congress includes provisions designed to limit the role of speculative oil investors, whom many politicians blame for last year's runaway bull market.
"We need to look no further than today's oil prices, which have doubled since December, to see the effect speculators have on energy prices," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who wrote those provisions. "We are in the middle of a recession, supply is at a 20-year-high, demand is at a 10-year low, yet oil prices are up 70 percent since the beginning of the year. This cannot be explained by simple supply and demand."
However, even if the legislation doesn't pass, another major price spike is hardly certain.
Due to the recession, the world has a glut of oil in storage, with supplies in the United States at their highest level in 19 years. An estimated 100 million barrels worldwide are sitting in tanker ships, which companies have been using as floating storage bins. As the price rises, more of that petroleum will pour onto the market.
"That's definitely going to be a headwind against the price of oil as it moves up," said Allen Good, an analyst with the Morningstar market research firm.
In addition, Saudi Arabia and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries may try to keep oil supplies high enough to prevent a price spike, said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy research fellow at Rice University's Baker Institute. The worldwide recession cut demand for their oil, they want the recession to end and high prices could hinder a recovery.
'Speculative bubble'
"I liked $45 (per barrel), and I think the Saudis have the ability to bring it back down to there if they want to," Jaffe said. "To me, we're having a little speculative bubble right now, and it's going to fizzle out."
The last time oil rose above $60, in March 2007, America's economy was growing, China's was soaring, Chrysler was still solvent and few people outside the financial world had ever heard of mortgage-backed securities.
Back then, $60 was considered frighteningly high, a price capable of causing serious economic harm. The decade's rising oil prices were already having a clear effect on drivers, who were buying less gasoline. Gas sales in California have dropped for the last three years in a row.
Even after last summer's economic meltdown ended the bull market for oil and sent gas prices tumbling, drivers kept buying less. Americans used 2.7 percent less gasoline in the last four weeks than they did during the same period last year, according to the Energy Information Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Such weak sales should be keeping oil prices low. But traders have been gambling that the recession has finally bottomed out, with a recovery perhaps starting later this year. That would increase worldwide demand for petroleum.
In addition, China's thirst for oil may be picking up again. After falling through the winter and spring, China's oil consumption rose about 4 percent in April compared with the same month of 2008, according to the Platts energy information service. China's increasing need for oil was one of the main reasons - some would say, excuses - for last year's price spike.
Some politicians argue that the country remains far too vulnerable to a repeat performance.
Limiting trades
The climate change bill includes provisions that would ban some types of oil trades and regulate others that don't take place on a formal market. Limits on the number of oil contracts a speculator can hold would be extended to cover those trades as well as trading on electronic exchanges and overseas markets.
"I think there's no question that supply-demand fundamentals are not reflected in the current (oil) price," said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the Public Citizen watchdog group, which supports cracking down on oil-market speculation. "Is this a preview to $145 oil? I don't think so. But I think this underscores the need to increase oversight of these markets."
For a brief history on the price of petroleum check out this link. Many charts to show how historic events have shaped prices and the hypocrisy of recent memory.
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Two/Three Year Bachelor"s Degree eh?
After missing the last game of the season, well technicaly I didn't miss it, they're just re-playing here in a bit, I did my usual search of the news. I ran across this on UPI. I think its a thread from the AP but I dunno for sure. Anyway, give it a read and watch for the jump.
U.S. colleges offering three-year degrees
WASHINGTON, May 23 (UPI) -- More U.S. colleges say they're joining Bates in Maine and Ball State in Indiana in offering three-year undergraduate degrees.
Paring the traditional four-year college education by a year would aid focused students who know what they want to study, The Washington Post reported Saturday.
"Today's economic crisis and tight budgets are the best time to innovate and change," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a former U.S. education secretary and past president of the University of Tennessee.
The three-year degree is the common model at the University of Cambridge and Oxford University in England and is being offered in the United States at Bates, Ball and several other colleges.
Hartwick College in New York is cutting a year and more than $40,000 in costs off its undergraduate program, while Lipscomb University in Nashville plans to offer a three-year degree beginning this fall, the Post reported.
A three-year program will be offered at Chatham University in Pittsburgh, while Purdue University's College of Technology in Indiana plans a two-year bachelor's degree aimed at unemployed auto and manufacturing workers.
Well, isn't that something? I wonder if this trend will continue. I for one would hope not. At the moment, I attend a 2 year technical school. There, I can only get an Associate's Degree. There are no options for a Bachelor's. Now, if I personally had the option to go to a University and grab a Bachelor's in 2-3 years, I'd have probably taken it. Another thing, won't this flood the already dismal job market? I keep reading on some sites and in the papers that the unemployment rate is getting better. And technically it is, but at a staggering slow rate! I just don't understand the logic of giving someone a degree that use to take 4 years to get. Becase basically you're just stripping down the information, or perhaps it's viewed as trimming the fat, for the same product. I guess we'll see how this progresses. I have a feeling more schools will jump on board this in the years to come.
s
T
s
U.S. colleges offering three-year degrees
WASHINGTON, May 23 (UPI) -- More U.S. colleges say they're joining Bates in Maine and Ball State in Indiana in offering three-year undergraduate degrees.
Paring the traditional four-year college education by a year would aid focused students who know what they want to study, The Washington Post reported Saturday.
"Today's economic crisis and tight budgets are the best time to innovate and change," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a former U.S. education secretary and past president of the University of Tennessee.
The three-year degree is the common model at the University of Cambridge and Oxford University in England and is being offered in the United States at Bates, Ball and several other colleges.
Hartwick College in New York is cutting a year and more than $40,000 in costs off its undergraduate program, while Lipscomb University in Nashville plans to offer a three-year degree beginning this fall, the Post reported.
A three-year program will be offered at Chatham University in Pittsburgh, while Purdue University's College of Technology in Indiana plans a two-year bachelor's degree aimed at unemployed auto and manufacturing workers.
Well, isn't that something? I wonder if this trend will continue. I for one would hope not. At the moment, I attend a 2 year technical school. There, I can only get an Associate's Degree. There are no options for a Bachelor's. Now, if I personally had the option to go to a University and grab a Bachelor's in 2-3 years, I'd have probably taken it. Another thing, won't this flood the already dismal job market? I keep reading on some sites and in the papers that the unemployment rate is getting better. And technically it is, but at a staggering slow rate! I just don't understand the logic of giving someone a degree that use to take 4 years to get. Becase basically you're just stripping down the information, or perhaps it's viewed as trimming the fat, for the same product. I guess we'll see how this progresses. I have a feeling more schools will jump on board this in the years to come.
s
T
s
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Bush's "Smoking Gun" Witness Found Dead of "Suicide"
Ok I get a host of emils from all kinds of sources: left, right, and middle. The IndictBushNow.org folks email me about once a week with updates on the case. A little back story for those of you who don't know, a large group of people are working their ass off to bring about a federal investigation on the torture of detainees due to it being a violation of the Geneva Act along with war crimes. You can go to http://www.indictbushnow.org if you really want to know more. But anyway I got this news emailed to me today and found it fitting to share. Not to say I'm surprised by it but it's worth sharing.
Bush's 'Smoking Gun' Witness Found Dead
IndictBushNow files Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to get to bottom of story
The cover-up of Bush-era crimes is taking a shocking but not unexpected turn. A fateful move has been made and it is certain to backfire.
A prisoner who was horribly tortured in 2002 until he agreed - at the demand of Bush torturers - to say that al-Qaeda was linked to Saddam Hussein is suddenly dead. Several weeks ago, Human Rights Watch investigators discovered the missing inmate and talked to him. He had been secretly transferred by the administration to a prison in Libya after having been held by the CIA both in secret “black hole prisons” and in Egypt.
Under conditions of extreme torture, the prisoner, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, agreed in 2002 to supply the Bush-ordered interrogators what they sought as a political cover for Bush’s marketing of the pending war of aggression against Iraq. Mr. Libi agreed to tell them whatever they wanted in exchange for an end to the torture. The now famous Torture Memos providing legal cover for the torture were written at the same time starting in the summer of 2002.
Libi’s tortured and knowingly fabricated testimony was the source of information used by Bush to sell the war to the U.S. Senate, and the source for Colin Powell’s bogus and lying presentation to the United Nations in 2003.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are now running around saying that the torture regime “protected the country from terrorist attack.” But the torture was used for the personal political goals of Bush and Cheney: namely, to sell their Iraq invasion to a very skeptical and disbelieving country.
Having been discovered by human rights investigators two weeks ago, Mr. Libi’s story coincided with the release of the Torture Memos and the growing clamor for criminal prosecutions of Bush officials.
His testimony is the smoking gun that would reveal that the torture regime was not for “national security” but for the personal political aims of Bush and Cheney.
He was Exhibit A in the indictment that alleges that tortured confessions and the contrived legal justifications of torture set up by Justice Department lawyers in July/August 2002 were central to the launch of the war against Iraq.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died and tens of thousands of U.S. service members have either been killed or badly wounded in a war that was based on lies fortified and promoted by the most sadistic torture.
Mr. Libi is suddenly dead. A Libyan “newspaper source” says that his death is an apparent suicide. His friends don’t believe that.
We are building a movement for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. This is not a political choice. It is a legal imperative. Mr. Libi’s death must be the first business of the investigation. When other prisoners who had been kept at secret sites were sent to Guantanamo, the Bush administration and the CIA intentionally kept Mr. Libi from being part of that transfer. Mr. Libi was publicly stating that the Iraq-al-Qaeda links attributed to him from his torture sessions were not true.
“Who was the beneficiary” from his death? Why was he spirited away by the Bush administration to hidden foreign prisons after he recanted his tortured testimony and revealed that he was forced to make false statements about Iraq under torture?
Suicide.... right. Remember Putin and the isotope? How bout Barry Jennings? William Cooper? The Branch Davidians... etc etc. It's no secret what happens to someone that does anything that could possible get anyone of the elites in trouble.
They die.
s
T
s
Bush's 'Smoking Gun' Witness Found Dead
IndictBushNow files Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to get to bottom of story
The cover-up of Bush-era crimes is taking a shocking but not unexpected turn. A fateful move has been made and it is certain to backfire.
A prisoner who was horribly tortured in 2002 until he agreed - at the demand of Bush torturers - to say that al-Qaeda was linked to Saddam Hussein is suddenly dead. Several weeks ago, Human Rights Watch investigators discovered the missing inmate and talked to him. He had been secretly transferred by the administration to a prison in Libya after having been held by the CIA both in secret “black hole prisons” and in Egypt.
Under conditions of extreme torture, the prisoner, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, agreed in 2002 to supply the Bush-ordered interrogators what they sought as a political cover for Bush’s marketing of the pending war of aggression against Iraq. Mr. Libi agreed to tell them whatever they wanted in exchange for an end to the torture. The now famous Torture Memos providing legal cover for the torture were written at the same time starting in the summer of 2002.
Libi’s tortured and knowingly fabricated testimony was the source of information used by Bush to sell the war to the U.S. Senate, and the source for Colin Powell’s bogus and lying presentation to the United Nations in 2003.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are now running around saying that the torture regime “protected the country from terrorist attack.” But the torture was used for the personal political goals of Bush and Cheney: namely, to sell their Iraq invasion to a very skeptical and disbelieving country.
Having been discovered by human rights investigators two weeks ago, Mr. Libi’s story coincided with the release of the Torture Memos and the growing clamor for criminal prosecutions of Bush officials.
His testimony is the smoking gun that would reveal that the torture regime was not for “national security” but for the personal political aims of Bush and Cheney.
He was Exhibit A in the indictment that alleges that tortured confessions and the contrived legal justifications of torture set up by Justice Department lawyers in July/August 2002 were central to the launch of the war against Iraq.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died and tens of thousands of U.S. service members have either been killed or badly wounded in a war that was based on lies fortified and promoted by the most sadistic torture.
Mr. Libi is suddenly dead. A Libyan “newspaper source” says that his death is an apparent suicide. His friends don’t believe that.
We are building a movement for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. This is not a political choice. It is a legal imperative. Mr. Libi’s death must be the first business of the investigation. When other prisoners who had been kept at secret sites were sent to Guantanamo, the Bush administration and the CIA intentionally kept Mr. Libi from being part of that transfer. Mr. Libi was publicly stating that the Iraq-al-Qaeda links attributed to him from his torture sessions were not true.
“Who was the beneficiary” from his death? Why was he spirited away by the Bush administration to hidden foreign prisons after he recanted his tortured testimony and revealed that he was forced to make false statements about Iraq under torture?
Suicide.... right. Remember Putin and the isotope? How bout Barry Jennings? William Cooper? The Branch Davidians... etc etc. It's no secret what happens to someone that does anything that could possible get anyone of the elites in trouble.
They die.
s
T
s
Jesse Ventura FTW
I woke up this morning and do like I usually do, look up news, and I found this online. Even if you aren't a wrestling fan, Jesse Ventura is the man. I mean check out these videos man! He makes pertinent points on water boarding, the legalizing of Marijuana, Al Franken(why hasn't he been seated yet? I mean honestly... Coleman let it go man. You lost.) and Dick Cheney and the GOP. He's funny and enlightening. I always held the point that politics and wrestling wee the same in a matter of speaking. Think about it. I could get deeper into this but I'll wait for when I have more time.
PART 1:
PART 2:
PART 1:
PART 2:
Monday, May 11, 2009
What's the Big Deal?
So I've been reading all over the blog-o-sphere about how horrible this joke is from Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondents dinner. If you don't know what I'm talking about here's the joke:
Sorry but that's funny! Is it in poor taste... well yeah it is. I suppose that's my humor style though. The more dry, cynical, and sarcastic the better! But all those against it should take a moment and consider the fact that she's not making up what Rush said. He did say he wanted Obama's administration to fail. See exhibit b(granted I could do exhibits b-z but I think this is where it started at CPAC)
So there you have it. See here's the problem with Republicans. When you lose you have to have humility. When you get on a grand stage like this and start ranting about how nothing would make you happier than seeing YOUR PRESIDENT, the leader of YOUR COUNTRY, fail... well I'm not gonna go as far as Wanda says and say you could be the 20th hijacker on 9-11, but I must admit it's rather silly and unfounded.
I couldn't stand George W Bush when he was President. I mean the list of shenanigans that he and his cohorts induced on our nation and the world was to much to bear. Did I want him to fail? NO! He's MY PRESIDENT. Unfortunately for the lot of us though, W excelled at failing! Just take a look at his speeches. Every time I hear(d) W talk I wanted to take the nearest sharp object and shove it in my ear. I wanted to dip my head in a vat of sulfuric acid. I was ashamed to be an American. He disappointed me on SOOOOO many levels by FAILING. Here's a few examples:
-The Patriot Act
-Iraq
-Afghanistan
-9/11 fear mongering
-The Patriot Act 2
-No Child Left Behind
-Katrina...
...do I really need to list them all?
It pained me to see the legislature he signed and the bills he opposed. The unjust war he created. The constant fear mongering and lies. So many misinterpretations of the truth. He failed over and over and over again. I mean there are books in Barnes and Nobles with "Bushisms"(quotes so horrible there was one for every day of the year.) He failed constantly. All I wanted him to do was make me proud. And he never did. But was I on the side lines going "WOO HOO! Go W! Go! Keep up the fuck ups man!" No... because that's ridiculous.
I'm not an Obama-ite.... at least not anymore. I do admire him though. It's hard not to. His resume is impeccable. And while I don't appreciate how liberal he leans I'd be hard pressed to say I'm not proud of the fact our country has a President who can speak proper English.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that wanting your President to fail is beyond counter-productive. It makes absolutely no sense. If you want the President to fail then why are you even living here? I remember debating my right leaning friends about W when he ran the country and how they would tell me to move if I didn't like it. Seems fitting that perhaps Rush and his right wing nut cases should do the same. By the way, I thought Rush was done with the pills? Someone needs to stage an intervention. Only a drug addict would long to see the person who leads them fail. Please Rush, go to Charter. If you can't get help there, please.. get help somewhere!
s
T
s
Sorry but that's funny! Is it in poor taste... well yeah it is. I suppose that's my humor style though. The more dry, cynical, and sarcastic the better! But all those against it should take a moment and consider the fact that she's not making up what Rush said. He did say he wanted Obama's administration to fail. See exhibit b(granted I could do exhibits b-z but I think this is where it started at CPAC)
So there you have it. See here's the problem with Republicans. When you lose you have to have humility. When you get on a grand stage like this and start ranting about how nothing would make you happier than seeing YOUR PRESIDENT, the leader of YOUR COUNTRY, fail... well I'm not gonna go as far as Wanda says and say you could be the 20th hijacker on 9-11, but I must admit it's rather silly and unfounded.
I couldn't stand George W Bush when he was President. I mean the list of shenanigans that he and his cohorts induced on our nation and the world was to much to bear. Did I want him to fail? NO! He's MY PRESIDENT. Unfortunately for the lot of us though, W excelled at failing! Just take a look at his speeches. Every time I hear(d) W talk I wanted to take the nearest sharp object and shove it in my ear. I wanted to dip my head in a vat of sulfuric acid. I was ashamed to be an American. He disappointed me on SOOOOO many levels by FAILING. Here's a few examples:
-The Patriot Act
-Iraq
-Afghanistan
-9/11 fear mongering
-The Patriot Act 2
-No Child Left Behind
-Katrina...
...do I really need to list them all?
It pained me to see the legislature he signed and the bills he opposed. The unjust war he created. The constant fear mongering and lies. So many misinterpretations of the truth. He failed over and over and over again. I mean there are books in Barnes and Nobles with "Bushisms"(quotes so horrible there was one for every day of the year.) He failed constantly. All I wanted him to do was make me proud. And he never did. But was I on the side lines going "WOO HOO! Go W! Go! Keep up the fuck ups man!" No... because that's ridiculous.
I'm not an Obama-ite.... at least not anymore. I do admire him though. It's hard not to. His resume is impeccable. And while I don't appreciate how liberal he leans I'd be hard pressed to say I'm not proud of the fact our country has a President who can speak proper English.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that wanting your President to fail is beyond counter-productive. It makes absolutely no sense. If you want the President to fail then why are you even living here? I remember debating my right leaning friends about W when he ran the country and how they would tell me to move if I didn't like it. Seems fitting that perhaps Rush and his right wing nut cases should do the same. By the way, I thought Rush was done with the pills? Someone needs to stage an intervention. Only a drug addict would long to see the person who leads them fail. Please Rush, go to Charter. If you can't get help there, please.. get help somewhere!
s
T
s
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Stamps Going up in Price... again.
On Monday it'll cost you an extra 2 cents for a stamp. Yes, the price has gone up again. I think this is the 3rd year in a row the price of a stamp has increased. Other changes as of this Monday include:
~The postcard stamp increases by a penny to 28 cents.
~The first ounce of a large envelope increases 5 cents to 88 cents.
~ The first ounce of a parcel increases 5 cents to $1.22.
~New international postcard and letter prices are, for one ounce, 75 cents to Canada; 79 cents to Mexico; and 98 cents elsewhere.
I can't really hate on them for doing this. With the internet I rarely ever actually mail anyone anything. A few times a year Ill mail some DVDrs out but it's rare. As far as mailing letters, or paying bills, all of it's mostly done online for me. It seems the internet, while it is made convenient for all of us, is hendering many business from making the money they were use to. http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=1215712281985423634
Last year the postal service was 2.8 BILLION dollars in the whole. And we're almost half way thru this year and the count is at 2.3 billion dollars. I'm amazed that they haven't asked for a bailout! Because let's be honest about it. The measely increase in price over certain items is not going to pull them outta the hole. If anything it might actually make more people STOP using them and find alternative means of shipping their mail.
But maybe it'll work out for them. I think the untimely demise for the postal service is within the near future. Along with, and I hate to say it, newspapers.
Check the link
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1883785,00.html
But hopefully I'm wrong...
s
T
s
~The postcard stamp increases by a penny to 28 cents.
~The first ounce of a large envelope increases 5 cents to 88 cents.
~ The first ounce of a parcel increases 5 cents to $1.22.
~New international postcard and letter prices are, for one ounce, 75 cents to Canada; 79 cents to Mexico; and 98 cents elsewhere.
I can't really hate on them for doing this. With the internet I rarely ever actually mail anyone anything. A few times a year Ill mail some DVDrs out but it's rare. As far as mailing letters, or paying bills, all of it's mostly done online for me. It seems the internet, while it is made convenient for all of us, is hendering many business from making the money they were use to. http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=1215712281985423634
Last year the postal service was 2.8 BILLION dollars in the whole. And we're almost half way thru this year and the count is at 2.3 billion dollars. I'm amazed that they haven't asked for a bailout! Because let's be honest about it. The measely increase in price over certain items is not going to pull them outta the hole. If anything it might actually make more people STOP using them and find alternative means of shipping their mail.
But maybe it'll work out for them. I think the untimely demise for the postal service is within the near future. Along with, and I hate to say it, newspapers.
Check the link
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1883785,00.html
But hopefully I'm wrong...
s
T
s
Friday, May 8, 2009
16 yr Old Boy Arrested Under Patriot Act
When is Obama going to repeal the Patriot Acts? My money is on never but maybe... just maybe he'll prove me wrong.
Check the link. The Patriot Act MUST be repealed!
http://www.aclu.org/PatriotActFlash/PatriotActFeature.htm
s
T
s
Monday, May 4, 2009
The Brazilian Secret... WHY?!?!?!
*DISCLAIMER FOR THE LADIES: I'm just keeping it real man. Please don't flame me for being honest...
SO... I was watching futbol with Cory this weekend on GolTV(think it was Real Madrid getting raped by Barcaleona) and during the half they played this infomercial. Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with "Brazilian Secret":
Alright... all I gotta say is, Damn man... this shit isnt right. My favorite aesthetically pleasing part of a woman is her ass.
Observe:
I mean tits are great but gimmie a girl with a nice ass and some pretty legs and I'm good to go son! Boobs are fun and all but I just never have been a titty man. So I really never hated much on the wonderbra. I mean, sure, it's a bit misleading. I've been there before and while I was disappointed it didn't matter much. This however... man... wtf! If I check out a girl and she has an ass that looks like these broads in the commercial, then I get home an ass drops I'm gonna be a bit more than disappointed.
Just one question...... What's so wrong with working out? I know people get self concsious about their appearance, especially you ladies, but damn, I'm drawing the line! If you don't have an ass like a Brazilian girl, tough shit. Take your flat booty ass to the gym and work out till you do(if it means that much to you). Don't LIE about it and wear these panties that make it look like you do. Ya feel me?
Now, in defense of the ladies, I will admit that society pressures women into fitting a certain ratio which for most, if not all of you, is damn near impossible. You grow up with Barbie who has proportions that are inconceivable. If a woman was really shaped like Barbie she'd probably toppled over her ridiuclous bust size! Then there's all those damn magazines, supermodels(who should really eat something in my humble opinion), celebrites and all this influx of bllshit on the TV trying to tell you how to look and then you forget how beautiful you actually are. Its rare... and I mean
REEEEEEAAAAALLLLLLLLYYYYYYYY RARE
that I meet a girl who actually knows she's hot. And I know a bunch of hot ass females. I don't think I have a single ugly girl friend(real talk). You give some of these chicks a compliment and they lament over how you're just being nice or exaggerating. It's ridiculus. Learn to take a compliment yo.
Listen up ladies... and dudes too... there's no such thing as the perfect woman. No such thing as the perfect man. People are inherently flawed physically and mentally. You can name anybody you want in the world, nobody is fine all the time. EVER. You think Angelina Jolie wakes up looking like she does on the cover of Vogue? With all those kids.... Jigga please...
So let's just keep it real. If you got a flat ass, flaunt your personality! Own that flat ass! Or go to the gym and shape it up. When did people get so damn lazy man?! It seems like America's solution to problems is to just lie about it and hope when the lights go out nobody notices....
Well I do America! I see through the facade! Down with the Brazilian Secret, Wonderbras, botox, gastro intestinal surgey(go on a diet.. damn!) Enzyte(Smiling Bob can EAT ME), Viagra, etc etc. When will we learn to accept oursevles as we are?
Ok, I'm donw ranting. It's been a blah day
s
T
s
Excuse the type-os... it's late.. I'm tired... get over it : p
SO... I was watching futbol with Cory this weekend on GolTV(think it was Real Madrid getting raped by Barcaleona) and during the half they played this infomercial. Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with "Brazilian Secret":
Alright... all I gotta say is, Damn man... this shit isnt right. My favorite aesthetically pleasing part of a woman is her ass.
Observe:
I mean tits are great but gimmie a girl with a nice ass and some pretty legs and I'm good to go son! Boobs are fun and all but I just never have been a titty man. So I really never hated much on the wonderbra. I mean, sure, it's a bit misleading. I've been there before and while I was disappointed it didn't matter much. This however... man... wtf! If I check out a girl and she has an ass that looks like these broads in the commercial, then I get home an ass drops I'm gonna be a bit more than disappointed.
Just one question...... What's so wrong with working out? I know people get self concsious about their appearance, especially you ladies, but damn, I'm drawing the line! If you don't have an ass like a Brazilian girl, tough shit. Take your flat booty ass to the gym and work out till you do(if it means that much to you). Don't LIE about it and wear these panties that make it look like you do. Ya feel me?
Now, in defense of the ladies, I will admit that society pressures women into fitting a certain ratio which for most, if not all of you, is damn near impossible. You grow up with Barbie who has proportions that are inconceivable. If a woman was really shaped like Barbie she'd probably toppled over her ridiuclous bust size! Then there's all those damn magazines, supermodels(who should really eat something in my humble opinion), celebrites and all this influx of bllshit on the TV trying to tell you how to look and then you forget how beautiful you actually are. Its rare... and I mean
REEEEEEAAAAALLLLLLLLYYYYYYYY RARE
that I meet a girl who actually knows she's hot. And I know a bunch of hot ass females. I don't think I have a single ugly girl friend(real talk). You give some of these chicks a compliment and they lament over how you're just being nice or exaggerating. It's ridiculus. Learn to take a compliment yo.
Listen up ladies... and dudes too... there's no such thing as the perfect woman. No such thing as the perfect man. People are inherently flawed physically and mentally. You can name anybody you want in the world, nobody is fine all the time. EVER. You think Angelina Jolie wakes up looking like she does on the cover of Vogue? With all those kids.... Jigga please...
So let's just keep it real. If you got a flat ass, flaunt your personality! Own that flat ass! Or go to the gym and shape it up. When did people get so damn lazy man?! It seems like America's solution to problems is to just lie about it and hope when the lights go out nobody notices....
Well I do America! I see through the facade! Down with the Brazilian Secret, Wonderbras, botox, gastro intestinal surgey(go on a diet.. damn!) Enzyte(Smiling Bob can EAT ME), Viagra, etc etc. When will we learn to accept oursevles as we are?
Ok, I'm donw ranting. It's been a blah day
s
T
s
Excuse the type-os... it's late.. I'm tired... get over it : p
Friday, May 1, 2009
So long Souter... so who's next?
Well....
I honestly didn't think it would be this soon for a member of the Supreme court to decided to step down. And to go evem further, I didn't expect it to be Souter. I mena he's only 69. Not the oldest member, he falls in the middle somewhere. I had my money on Stevens. I mean he's 84. Then there's Ginsberg. So Obama is gonna have to probably pick another judge. That's either great or scray depending on how you loook at it. But whatever.
I believe Souter was place by George HW Bush in hopes he would swing to the right but when I look over his record he eneded up being a more moderate liberal judge. Just another Bush fuck up I suppose. Care to specualte who's on deck? I haven't a clue but I'll put money it's a liberal... and probably a woman... maybe even a minoirty liberal women. Too bad LAB isn't older. I mean how could you pass up seating a Jewish lesbian black woman with liberal tendencies?
s
T
s
I honestly didn't think it would be this soon for a member of the Supreme court to decided to step down. And to go evem further, I didn't expect it to be Souter. I mena he's only 69. Not the oldest member, he falls in the middle somewhere. I had my money on Stevens. I mean he's 84. Then there's Ginsberg. So Obama is gonna have to probably pick another judge. That's either great or scray depending on how you loook at it. But whatever.
I believe Souter was place by George HW Bush in hopes he would swing to the right but when I look over his record he eneded up being a more moderate liberal judge. Just another Bush fuck up I suppose. Care to specualte who's on deck? I haven't a clue but I'll put money it's a liberal... and probably a woman... maybe even a minoirty liberal women. Too bad LAB isn't older. I mean how could you pass up seating a Jewish lesbian black woman with liberal tendencies?
s
T
s
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)