Friday, January 12, 2007

Good thing that Oregon has Klingon translaters...

Remember Multnomah County looking to hire a Klingon translater? Perhapes we can help with the whole "Vulcan" problem. At least I think that's the problem... or are the Klingons themselves the problem...? We need clarification. Quick, someone call Wu and ask if our phasers should be set to "stun" or "kill."

51 comments:

Chris Pieschel said...

Klingons? Vulcans? Star trek is so 1970's. How about using Star Wars references, at least that's a little more current.

Wu is such an idiot. What a pointless rant.

MaxRedline said...

I thought it was amusing. It really showcased Wu's clues.

OregonianinDC said...

Well dont forget this little tidbit...

Taken from 'The Hill' Newspaper
Dec 13, 2006

"Want to work for Rep. Wu? Only Mandarin speakers need apply.

It’s getting harder and harder to be an aide on the Hill these days, at least in Rep. David Wu’s (D-Ore.) office.
Wu is looking for a new legislative assistant, but the candidate must be fluent in, yes, Mandarin, “including proficient reading and writing skills.”
It’s something Wu’s office has always looked for in that position, explains Jillian Schoene, Wu’s spokeswoman, adding that the current legislative assistant speaks fluent Mandarin.
Schoene says it’s vital for the aide to speak Mandarin: “Well, him being the first and still only Chinese-American in Congress, quite frequently we have folks stop by or who write to us because of his background.
The ad for the job asks for a resume and one writing sample. It’s unclear whether or not the sample must be in Mandarin.
Rumors have it that future legislative assistants for Wu, who indeed speaks Mandarin, will have to possess juggling skills, be able to stand on their head and have prior knowledge and experience with fiddling. "

the man with no name said...

Looks like Daniel has nothing to say today, because he's taking his cue from Lars Larson's show.

Jesus, it was an ANALOGY using pop culture references. What's the big f---king deal?

Just in case anyone wants to take the incident as an opportunity to, like, actually learn something, the Vulcan reference is to the son of Jupiter in Roman mythology, the one who presided over fire, arms and armor. War implements.

What Lars and Daniel are not telling anyone is that Wu is clearly referring to James Mann's 2004 book "The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet" which is so titled because those guys (and gal, if you include Condi Rice) adopted the term THEMSELVES, to describe THEMSELVES.

David Wu did not introduce this term to political discussions about the war; the Bushies were tossing it around amongst themselves and a former LA Times correspondent got wind of it. Wu threw it back in their faces. I'm no Democrat, but he called it right.

So, now that Daniel can no longer cite his own ignorance (about this, anyway) I wonder if he will now put up a post making fun of the Bush cabinet because they think of themselves as heroic Roman gods.

I won't hold my breath.

Daniel said...

So were the Klingons Roman too? And when Wu specifically mentioned Star Trek did he really mean "Roman mythology?"

Maybe I'm still confused...

the man with no name said...

You're not terribly bright, are you?

b!X said...

Too bad that CNN article is wrong. As bizarre as the incident was, the only thing that happened was the county put Klingon on the list of languages it might encounter, which would mean they'd need to have access to someone who spoke it.

It was never that the country was looking to put a Klingon interpreter on staff.

Not that anyone has ever cared what the actual facts of the story were.

Mike said...

It's sad that this lying idiot is the "best" person that my Congressional district can come up with to "represent" me.

Mike said...

Wu's lies:
"Four years ago, this administration took America to war in Iraq without adequate evidence."

President Bush cited 17 U.N. resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein, who was tried, convicted, and executed in Iraq for commiting genocide against his own people.

"Since that time, this administration hasn't listened to the American people ..."

Congress who represents the American people authorized the war. Plus, polls with a 50%+ disapproval rating of the war didn't start showing up until late 2005/early 2006.

"... and it certainly hasn't listened to this Congress."
Do you mean this, the week-old 110th Congress? Or the Congress that authorized the war? By the way, you have heard of checks and balances haven't you? Which means Congress does not have complete control over what the President does.

I invented the mullet said...

I think the little fellow underwent a Vulcan mind-MELT !

I met him many years back, when he was first running for office, he's an annoying little guy.

Anonymous said...

Hey, the dude eats at McDonald's, need we say more?

silent bob said...

Mike’s reverence for the authority and war-justifying powers of U.N. resolutions would be touching if it weren’t undiluted crap. At the time Bush unleashed his “evidence” against Iraq, the country of Israel was in violation of more than 30 UN Security Council resolutions. That's THIRTY, Mike. Turkey had more than 20. The list goes on.

Bush’s lies no longer need to be recounted. It was all bullshit. The Bush administration knows it was bullshit, the rest of the world knows it was bullshit, the vast majority of Americans know it was bullshit, the military knows it was bullshit, and even intelligent, principled conservatives know it was bullshit. The number of those who still actually believe the bullshit -- and worse, are willing to admit it -- is so tiny as to render the exercise of trying to convince them a waste of time and breath.

R Huse said...

Wu makes the standard flawed argument that since the Bush guys have never been in a war they should not be able to send others into war.

Since Wu uses the Vulcan reference it would be nice if he also followed the concept of logical thought. Why in the world would it ever follow that if you have not done something yourself it is wrong to have others do it?

Also, what the hell is he talking about when he says the president took us to war without adequate evidence? Is anyone seriously arguing Saddam was in violation of the terms of his surrender? What a nitwit.

Anonymous said...

R huse obviously believes the bullshit.

Anonymous said...

David Wu is a rapist and a wife beater.

rickyragg said...

Not that anyone has ever cared what the actual facts of the story were.

Whatever the "actual facts" (nice term) were, the county became fair game as soon as they listed Klingon as a language they might "encounter".

It's a distinction without a difference.

Anonymous said...

BIX, Did you ever get a REAL job?

Did you just find maybe a govt. job, YEAH, I bet you did get on the trough.

Your left-winger/radical commie mommy paid your bills for years, you must tell us someday what a time you must have with mirrors, as the rest of us work for a living...YOU MAKE ME ILL!

Anonymous said...

As bizarre as the incident was, the only thing that happened was the county put Klingon on the list of languages it might encounter, which would mean they'd need to have access to someone who spoke it.

It was never that the country was looking to put a Klingon interpreter on staff.


BIXY: As I remember(correct me of course) you said little as usual about the insanity of the need for it translator, maybe if we refused a translator for some....they would go home!

Anonymous said...

Bush’s lies no longer need to be recounted. It was all bullshit

DEAR BOOBY: Besides your insane post, how is the rest of your day going?

When you stupid idiots come up with a plan...for world terror, call us....otherwise, STFU!

R Huse said...

Hmm, oh well, if all the anonymous's would kindly tell me how Saddam ever proved he had destroyed his WMD program, as he was required to do. Id be willing to listen. Until then their opinions are basically worthless.

Kaelri said...

That's not good enough. The war was sold to us on a hell of a lot more evidence than that. The aging weapons left over from before the Gulf War did not constitute a dire threat to the United States, nor to the neighboring countries. It is not conceivable that Saddam would have had the military position or political capital to provoke another war. Think about it: if Iraq had been the aggressor, there would have been no international debate; we would have gone in and kicked Saddam's face into the sand with the U.N.'s blessing. But the reality is that Iraq had simply ceased to be a military threat.

We were told that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, which was patently false. Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. was full of known falsehoods, including a made-up communication intercept, VX nerve agent that we knew had been destroyed, aluminum tubes that were said to "far exceed U.S. requirements for comparable rockets" (when the US Mark 66 rocket uses the same grade of aluminum and almost the same specifications), and a load of other claims that had been identified the previous January as "WEAK."

And I hardly need to point out the unambiguous certainty in the rhetoric of the administration. "Simply put, there is no doubt." "We know where the weapons are." These were lies, plain and simple. The administration was not making valid arguments, regardless of whether there were actually valid arguments to be made.

Were we justified to invade by the violation of U.N. resolutions? Perhaps. But that, sad to say, is not enough. Silent Bob makes a fair point on Israel and Turkey's violations; you're not saying we should invade them, are you? At this stage in our history, American foreign policy is simply rooted in self-interest; otherwise, there is no reason why American forces would not now be in Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, and about a dozen other countries.

Except this reason: that war is always the last resort of a civilized republic, and must be clearly identified as the lesser of two evils. Would it have been good to leave Saddam Hussein with that country in his palm? Of course not. He was an atrocious dictator who deserved a trial in the Hague. But the lives of the Iraqi people are now, believe it or not, worse. This state was completely predictable - it was predicted by everyone who gave even a half-second glance back at Vietnam, including the former President Bush. This is the basic economics of human decision-making: if it's going to do us more harm than good, then we shouldn't do it. We did.

Anonymous said...

Kaelri: It boggles my mind that your still calling that information a lie.

I STILL AGREE IT WAS BAD INFORMATION...IT WAS NOT A LIE!

Here is my bottomline, when you left-wing appeasers come up with with a bullet-proof plan,(sorry, you hate guns) any plan short of cutting out, of defending 70 percent of the worlds oil,(YES SONNY, IT IS, AND WAS ABOUT OIL)you get back to the rest of us..OK?

By the way, my wife has a friend that rode out of Kuwait with two little kids in a trunk of a car, while her husband staid to fight, he and she told us what Sadam's troops did to women and little kids who did not get out.

SADDAM WAS AN AGRESSOR!

You don't know me said...

Back to Chirs Pieschel's comments: Star Trek is so 1970's? I'm sure the flip open communicator is so 1970's in the sci-fi series. Today, what do I see, people flipping open their "communicators" and actually communicating back and forth.

Oh, yeah, there was a thing about anteannas sticking out of your head, back then you'd be nuts and hauled off in a straight jacket. Today, yep, anteannas sticking out of our heads, appearing that the person is talking to themself and we call that "normal". Bluetooth anyone?

bjdorr said...

Funny that Oregon's own David Wu goes off on a rant, comparing Klingons with the Bush administration. Then the following day, I read this article in the LocalNewsDaily.com/Portland Tribune that David Wu is named chairman of the House Technology and Innovation Subcommittee of the Science and Technology Committee (cue "The Twilight Zone" theme song). Hang on people, brace yourself; the Klingons--uh Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are in charge!

bjdorr said...

Former Ohio Rep. and now jailbird James Traficant who in 1993 constantly used the phrase "beam me up!" in his one-minute speeches. Nine years later he got "beamed" to jail for many violations in 2002.

R Huse said...

Kaelri - If you start a war, as Iraq did, Get your ass beat in a war, as Iraq did, and then violate the terms of your surrender, as Iraq did you get your ass beat again... as Iraq did. That's the way surrender works. Sorry, it is an unarguable fact that Iraq violated the terms of its surrender. For that they got reinvaded. There is simply no more valid reason for invading a country than that country not living up to the terms of its surrender in a war it started. End of story.

Also, its time for the left to give up the Bush lied idiocy. If Bush lied, then he would know he lied. Therefore it stands to reason he would have planted evidence of a WMD program rather than be found wrong on that score. A President willing to lie to get a country into war would not stop at planting evidence. What happened is Bush, along with the entire US congress and virtually every nation on the planet was wrong. Its time for the left to face that simple fact and come up with a new bumper sticker.

R Huse said...

Oh, and by the way, there is nothing wrong with a nations foreign policy being rooted in self interest. We tried many times to fight wars that had some self interest but were also to help other people. North Korea, Vietnam & Cambodia, Somalia all come to mind.

I would now like to personally thank the left, who all wanted us to cut and run in those wars and succesfully established their policy. Now that they have gotten their thank you it would be nice to see someone on the left take responsibility for the killing fields that ensued in virtually all of those countries. A show of hands please?

Yeah, I didnt think so.

So get off the moralistic high horse. The left has a real shaky record on this sort of thing and zero moral ground from which to preach.

Anonymous said...

"If you start a war, as Iraq did..."

RHuse, I don't know what color the sky in your world is, or whether yours is a carbon-based species, or whether you breath oxygen or nitrogen, or whether gravity exists there, but in our world, where the sky is blue, we are a carbon-based species that breathes oxygen and gravity exists, Iraq did not start a war against the United States. The United States launched a war against Iraq. We have killed tens of thousands of their civilians, and more than 3,000 of our own troops have been killed.

Interesting though, that you're able to somehow reach out of your parallel universe and communicate to us through Daniel's blog.

I'm curious, though: How many Iraqi civilians and American troops have died in your universe where Iraq started a war against the United States? How much do you spend doing this? We spend about $2 billion a week.

R Huse said...

anon 7:22

Iraq started a war with Kuwait, Got it now? Bells going off now smart guy?

Anonymous said...

If you knew anything about the history of the first war, pal, you'd know that the U.S. government engineered that conflict so it could justify going in there. It wasn't as blatently dishonest as the current one, but it wasn't exactly top secret, either. Go back and read about it. Wait for the bells. And the truth shall set you free.

R Huse said...

Correction - If I gave a damn about left wing conspiracy theories, Id be down with the whole US engineered the first war silliness.

Sorry dude, the April Glaspie conference does not an engineered war make.

Once again, another prime example of the Blame America First crowd.

Anyhoo, I will wait while you go run and look up who April is.

Better luck next time!

A Liberal Yeast Infection said...

The war was not predicated on a lie.

Go take a look in the Baccah Valley of Syria and Lebanon and tell me there are not WMDs there.

And if anyone wants to go to war with Israel, I say go ahead. Why? Because they will die if they do.

Bryan Saxton said...

"Correction - If I gave a damn about left wing conspiracy theories, Id be down with the whole US engineered the first war silliness."

??? RHuse, you are kidding, right? Pre-Gulf War I, two United States Diplomats signed to Hussein, who we were on friendly terms with at the time, that we had no interest vested in Kuwait and that it would not harm Iraq-US relations to invade. This was highly publicized.

PollyAnna said...

well the "Good News" is;
Oregon is living proof that there really are "out of this world aliens"..not just illegal ones...

Anonymous said...

RHuse is entitled to his own opinions, however ludicrous they may be, but he is not entitled to his own facts.

I found a great deal of material about all this, exhaustively documented, online. I was about to post it for RHuse's benefit, but then I thought: "Why bother?" Who cares? He will believe what he wants to believe. Let him. I don't give a shit.

Me, I think I'll stand with former REPUBLICAN Sen. Mark Hatfield. Whatever his reasons (maybe even a few "left-wing conspiracy theories" were among them) he was the only REPUBLICAN to oppose the first Gulf War. He may be wrong about this one, but he was right on that one. RHuse is wrong on both, but that's what you get for using your own facts.

R Huse said...

I think you guys are just mad that I knew who April Glaspie was and you didn't.

The fact remains, there were hearings at the Senate Foreign relations Committee as well as pretty exhaustive investigation by every major newspaper. All that could ever be established was that Glaspie said Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait was not a US concern. She was sloppy in her meetings with Saddam, that's it. Got it?

Where you guys go off the deep end is in making the leap that a poor ambassador equates to a conspiracy by Bush.

Big jump there. That's Daily Kos stuff. In other words: whacko land.

This is classic Occams Razor - never jump to a conspiracy when plain incompetence will do.

Bryan Saxton said...

"I think you guys are just mad that I knew who April Glaspie was and you didn't. "

You wish.

"The fact remains, there were hearings at the Senate Foreign relations Committee as well as pretty exhaustive investigation by every major newspaper. All that could ever be established was that Glaspie said Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait was not a US concern. She was sloppy in her meetings with Saddam, that's it. Got it?"

Yes. But there is a whole lot more.

There is a reason that we look mainly to Allison's Model #1 when dealing with International Relations. Summed up quickly, leaders who have out of control members are weak (or at least perceived as such). Either Bush 1 was an extremely weak leader, he didn't make a strong enough attempt to clarify or otherwise dismiss Glaspie's remarks, or he orchistrated the whole thing. I'm not extremely inclined to beleive the last one, but given Bush's predicesor's previous terrorist actions, I wouldn't be completely surprised if it were true. After all, the US government has done worse.

Bryan Saxton said...

I should probibly clarify. By Bush's predicesor, I meant Nixon, not Reagan.

R Huse said...

Classic "Blame America First"

"Gee, I don't think Bush orchestrated the whole war" - Writer tries to establish credibility by divorcing himself from the loonies

"But I wouldn't be surprised if Bush orchestrated it because we have done worse" - i.e., the loony conspiracy could be true because we are inherently evil, therefore look to us first for blame.

The odd part is the writer doesn't see the inherent contradiction - Bush was a weak leader in foreign policy, yet somehow suspicion remains he was strong enough in foreign policy to orchestrate a diabolical plan that induced Saddam into a war.

All absolutely fascinating things to observe, but also incredibly weird.

At any rate, the point remains since none of the big talkers can provide a finding of fact otherwise. Bush did not start Gulf 1, Saddam did, learn it love it live it.

Bryan Saxton said...

R Huse-

Is your last post a joke? If that's the best you can do, then you really have no argument.

Call it “blame America first” or whatever you want. It really doesn’t matter.

How do you think negotiations work? Do both sides come together and say, "Hey, is this ok?" If this is what you truly believe, you are delusional at best.

Any expert in negotiations will tell you that this was a blatant sign (yes, negotiators "sign", which is merely the understanding that nothing in negotiations is said or done without purpose) to Saddam that the US would not interfere with Iraq if they invaded Kuwait.

"The odd part is the writer doesn't see the inherent contradiction - Bush was a weak leader in foreign policy, yet somehow suspicion remains he was strong enough in foreign policy to orchestrate a diabolical plan that induced Saddam into a war."

Do you always employ the straw man tactic, R Huse? Perhaps you didn't see the qualifiers either and or.

"At any rate, the point remains since none of the big talkers can provide a finding of fact otherwise. Bush did not start Gulf 1, Saddam did, learn it love it live it."

You're wrong, both conceptually and technically. Bush declared war on Iraq, and (admittedly arguably, but experienced negotiators would agree with me) had previously intended to go to war with Iraq.

Just some advice: Whenever you try to remove yourself from the argument, as you did above, you just come off sounding like an idiot.

Anonymous said...

We have killed tens of thousands of their civilians, and more than 3,000 of our own troops have been killed.

NO KIDDING!!!!!!

Add up worldwide what these "pigs" have done worldwide, then get back to this forum.

As Bush said, "GOT A PLAN?"

R Huse said...

Oh well Bryan -

Fact is you still can not name one substantive body that agrees with you.

"Any expert in negotiations will tell you that this was a blatant sign"

Weird - The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for one, didn't find that at all. Oh well, so much for the "any expert" thing.

"Do you always employ the straw man tactic, R Huse? Perhaps you didn't see the qualifiers either and or."

Hmm, nope, I saw them pretty clearly. However you do say you agree with the first, but wouldnt be suprised if the second were true. Hence the contradiction. Assignment - re -read your own post.

"Just some advice: Whenever you try to remove yourself from the argument, as you did above, you just come off sounding like an idiot."

Ahhh - There is the personal invective I so love. It sure enhances all those claims to knowledge you have.

At any rate. All you seem to be able do is rant about your knowledge, and how those who ask the simple question "what investigative body or agency agrees with you" are idiots.

Since you cant name one, you have pretty much lost this argument.

Its the end of the road on this one kiddo. See ya on the next go round.

Anonymous said...

Rhuse: Whatever you may think about what did or didn't happen in Iraq in 1991, or in the months leading up to it, or in 1988 or 1995 or WHENEVER, there is one argument that you have nothing to say about because it is irrefutable: United States foreign policy in Iraq over the last twenty years or so (and in the Middle East in general) has been a mind-boggling disaster. Both political parties are to blame. Hundreds of THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed, entire cities have been bombed, razed or otherwise destroyed, and a couple generations of Iraqis have been raised in an environment of unending war, oppression, brutality and rampant injustice, largely thanks to the mechanations of the United States government as it moves pieces here and there on the chessboard called the Middle East, without any effort to genuinely understand anything or anyone over there, and without any serious consideration of what the people who actually LIVE there might want and actually need. One could list literally DOZENS of decisions, large and small (not to mention an unending stream of lies, perpetrated in no small part by the allegedly "liberal" media) made by Republicans and Democrats, that have in one way or another steered that country into the rocks time and again. If you don't understand that, or if you disagree with it, then you are not JUST an idiot. You are a fucking idiot, blind as a bat, and gullible as a 4-year-old.

Anonymous said...

As Bush said, "GOT A PLAN?"


BRYAN DOESN'T, OTHERS THAT POST HERE FROM THE LEFT DON'T, SO, I GUESS OTHER THEN CUT N RUN, THAT'S IS IT.

So when you get a Muslim for president, a prayer rug in front of the fireplace, LA RAZA telling us Gringo's, multi-cultural can get you killed. WE TOLD YOU SO!

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:27 ...

What's YOUR plan?

Anonymous said...

OH I HAVE ONE...it's not to show these animals my rear!!!!

AND YOURS?

the lancet said...

Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey

Authors: Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, Les Roberts

The Lancet, October 11, 2006

Summary:

Background: An excess mortality of nearly 100,000 deaths was reported in Iraq for the period March, 2003–September, 2004, attributed to the invasion of Iraq. Our aim was to update this estimate.

Methods: Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq. 50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households. Information on deaths from these households was gathered.

Findings: Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1,849 households that contained 12,801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1,474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year, compared with 13·3 per 1,000 people per year in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5 percent of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

For more information:

http://www.thelancet.com

Anonymous said...

For those of you who don't know, Bryan's one of those "fast food intellectuals," meaning the best job he can get is at the lowest rung of the food service industry, but he still thinks he's smart. Classic liberal delusion.

Anonymous said...

So when you get a Muslim for president, a prayer rug in front of the fireplace, LA RAZA telling us Gringo's, multi-cultural can get you killed. WE TOLD YOU SO!

I posted the above, I read it again.......It still looks like where we are headed!!!!

Me,I'm going go buy another 1000 rds of .223, cause I think we are at 11:45 on the clock!

Then I might meet some old Marines buddies in Montana, find some high ground and stay there as long as we can.

Anonymous said...

http://www.public-nudity10.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity6.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity9.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity4.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity7.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity2.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity1.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity3.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity5.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity8.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity10.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity

Anonymous said...

http://www.public-nudity10.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity6.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity9.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity4.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity7.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity2.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity1.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity3.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity5.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity8.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
http://www.public-nudity10.the-hottest-porn.info/ - public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity
public nudity