Funny Asians Bad Asians of 2007

Nakamura Hiro: comedic, warmhearted, childishly optimistic, and at last immature.
















Mohinder Suresh: tall, handsome, with a beautiful voice, yet gullable and ultimately ineffectual.















Cheng Zhi: a villain in its entirety.

友人の一日（第二回）

先週末リノへ行って、大変な見に遭った。お金を失ったが、カジノで大変楽しかった。帰り道で、雪がひどく降ったから、チェーン規制が求められた。沢山の人が車を止めて、チェーンかスノータイヤを着けなければならなかったから、ひどく渋滞した。どちらも持っていなかったから、ゆっくりと注意して、運伝しないといけなかった。家まで１０時間以上かかったので、長くて大変な運伝をして、疲れきった。もし日曜日夕方あちを出ていたら、月曜日に会社に行く事ができなかっただろう。

友人の一日（第一回）

この場所で一番速く車を運伝しますか。間違いなくパトカーだと思います。先週San Tomas Expressway を車を運伝していた時、制限速度は時速４５マイルだったにもかかわらず、パトカーが時速７０マイルより速く走っているのを見た。日本ではそなん事を見た事がありません。パトカーの速度違反を誰が取り締まる事になっていますか。

The purpose of logic faculty in us

One comedian once said: "I really tried to have the faith (that the earth was created in 7 days), but...I have thoughts, which can really xxxx up the faith thing".

If we are created, why would we be given the capability to reason well enough to deny our origin? If the design is perfect, every bodily part has its own function and purpose. Our eyes enable us to see, ears to hear, and a brain to know, learn, and reason. Sometimes things are not obvious to our sensory organs, like air molecules or microwave. But over the course of human civilization, we learned through the logic faculty in our brain to use tools to detect things invisible to our eyes or inaudible to our ears. Therefore the purposes of eyes and ears are once again fulfilled.

Overlooking all major world religions, there are still a few questions that demands better answers. For example, the purpose of existence. Why was the universe created? Some people would say: "Oh, I don't attempt to second guess His purpose". But can we even if we try? We are created because our creator is bored? Or is He/She lonely? Can we reach a reasonable conclusion? At least I haven't thus far.

Some other people would say: "Oh, you don't have to think too hard, just take a leap of faith". But why should we give up something which is given by our creator and which is perfectly purposeful and functional in order to take on faith about our creator? I think there is something wrong there.

Tom Leykis

I just started listening to Tom Leykis. An interesting fella. Some of his preachings include (from the two weeks I listened):

1) Three strikes on dating: if the girl doesn't put out after the third date, DTB (dump that bitch)
2) A man should never get married nor should he move in with another woman. A man has nothing to gain in any relationship, except sex, which he should have gotten within three dates.
3) As a rich and successful man, Mr. Leykis never comprises with any woman. Zero tolerance. His way or the door.

Many women called in criticizing him for demeaning comments and immoral influences, while young men called in worshipping him as "a father they never had".

Is Tom Leykis bad?

Mr. Leykis' preachings come from his own experiences. Despite what he says or does, namely treating women no more than sex objects, he finds no trouble getting young and pretty girls into his bed. As a matter of fact, there is probably a long queue outside his door beating each other up trying to get in. So given Mr. Leykis' social and financial status, what he says or thinks is irrelevant. So it's quite a fair trade. Mr. Leykis looks only at faces, boobs, and asses, and his female counterpart looks only at cars, boats, and penthouses. She may be at a slight disadvantage under certain zero tolerance rule, but "sleeping with Leykis" could be a big plus on her resume to land in an even bigger name. So really it's a win-win situation for both of them, and we should be happy for them.

The society is never short of either kind. Such codependency works. Mr. Leykis won't be on the air bragging if there are no girls throwing themselves at the rich and famous. Conversely, without those "free spirited" girls, guys who practice Mr. Leykis' philosophy will soon run out of dates and have to rethink their strategy.

Well, is Tom Leykis bad? Like everything else in this universe, Mr. Leykis exists for a reason. If he got reasons to exist, he can't be too bad after all.

(btw, he is doing much better than just existing...)

"Click"

It's a really good movie. It may look like another cheesy Hollywood flick, but I think the script is well written. Auto piloting through life, its self-reinforcement, and human's tendency to repeat mistakes. The situations are familiar, and morals simple. Yet the metaphor of a remote with all its functionality is clever.

However, I'd have cast differently. A much less goofy male protagonist with better acting would be better. I feel that Mr. Sandler is Mr. Sandler in all his movies. Definitely fewer unnecessary eye candies, namely the attractive Beckinsale and Cassidy which are quite distracting from time to time. And too many doggie styles.

Despite all those, it's a good script. Too bad many good people don't get a break in life. C'est la vie, oui?

God In Perspective

Q1 of 2: Why would god care about us?

He's been busy. As far as we know, the universe is huge. There are millions upon millions of galaxies. All his labor's fruits. We are on a tiny dust bit called Earth. Imagining god is having fun putting his right hand toward a black hole to get a thrill of sucking feeling, or moving a bunch of galaxies away to create a reddish coloration so his neon disco party decoration is really brightened up. To him, human beings are maybe like tiny, albeit very cute, amoebas. Imagine coming home from a great day with your golden retriever in the park, you put on your bifocals and set up the microscope. "They are so cute, swimming away with their pseudopods...Oh My Self, I killed them with my bread crumbs."

Q2 of 2: How in the universe would we be able to understand god?

If you play a recording of K550 to a petri dish, imagine one amoeba says to another: "I really appreciate the distinct quality of the submediant E flat major, in the overall G minor key". The other one says "Who cares. Look, there is a piece of fibrous crap, let's swim there as fast as we can, okay?"