Bleeding Onion

"Don't bleed on my onion!"
Home     About Us     Contact Us     Site Map     Store     No Need To Look Here      

Welcome to Bleeding Onion!

 

We are not affiliated with any political party, religious group, corporate entity or fast food resturaunt.  We are average Americans who sometimes have a little something to get off our chests.  Sometimes it is political, sometimes it is day to day life, sometimes it is news worthy.  We are always honest and shoot straight from the hip.  We are sometimes sincere and sometimes humorous, but we will always try to make you think.

 

We encourage you, the average guy and gal, to voice your view too!  Send us your comments, perspectives, or cash and our editing monkeys will do their best to put your words or video on BleedingOnion.com for the world to see.

 

What to watch for in the future:  Minor Mentions, just because they are under the age of 18 doesn't mean they don't have something to say.  And a spot for our soldiers at home or abroad, because we should all listen to what they have to say.  

 

Enjoy and keep coming back, just don't bleed on our onion!

 

-Craig

Editor-in-Chief

 

Current Article

 

ThoseSneakyMarines Blog!

23 December 2007

 

I created an official blog at: www.thosesneakymarines.spaces.live.com

 

The whole story is there and I updated some of the info.  The original four pictures that are going around the internet as well as the additional three new ones are there and I included a second album with 12 more photographs from my time in the Gulf.

 

You can read the following two articles if you want, but it would just be better for you to go to the blog site.  At least there you can comment.

 

Go on... click the link...

 


 

RE: Sneaky Marine

22 December, 2007

 

I had planned to write some additional stuff about the time surrounding those photos of the nude girl on the A/C, but the kids, the wife, the job, the chores, and the book writing have smuggled my time away from me.  With that said, I am going to cut to the chase and own up to my promise to add two additional photographs that have not been seen yet.  These photographs are of A/C 70 with the nude girl on the aircraft, the "Kickin' Chickin" near the cock-pit and the paint crew standing in front.  I am the one on the bottom row on the far right next to Hawkings.  Glaze, McCarthy, Perez, Iving etc... are also there. 

 

Looking back at my journal on day 124, it was me and Hawkins that did the planning and scheming of the paintings.  That day, on A/C 51, we had begun at least five faces.  On day 122 of my journal, we had put a witch's face on the left side of the nose on A/C 63.  I now wish I had taken more photographs of our work, hopefully, additional pictures will surface some day.

 

Anyway, here they are, taken at Ras al-Ghar, Saudi Arabia late December, 1990:

 

 

 

And here is a picture Courtesy of Crew Cheif Jeff Gottlob of him standing in front of his A/C 70.  Jeff approached me with the idea of painting his home state on the nose.  After getting his approval of my draft, I painted his great state of Texas.

 

Semper Fi!


 

Sneaky Marine
23 March, 2007


Have you seen the e-mails or web sites that are discussing “Those Sneaky Marines” and the camouflaged paintings they did? I have, which is why I am writing this next piece.

I am that Sneaky Marine! But I did have help.

Today, I was reading on the blogs about what people thought regarding those camouflaged paintings of nude women on helicopters, and for the most part it is all positive. A few people had inquiries about whether it was done for morale, bad morals, to force Islam’s to commit suicide for seeing a naked body, or that the paintings were photo-shopped. And heck, one person even said (tongue in cheek) that it was the new opening credits for the next James Bond movie (that cracked me up!).

And to that one person out there that said the painter (me) “has never seen real boobs before”, I have and I am not going into detail about it. My Mom visits this site and will give me the wooden spoon to my backside if I don’t keep it clean.

 

____________________________

 

A little background information...

I will start this from the beginning. Forgive me if I skip a detail as I am writing this from memory (my journal and additional pictures from that time are stuffed away in storage). And just so you, I am a bit of a smart-ass.

From 1986 – 1992, I was an active duty United States Marine, my highest rank achieved was Corporal. I was attached to HMH-466, a Marine CH53-E helicopter squadron located (at the time) in Tustin, CA. Ever drive along the 5 freeway between Santa Ana and Irvine? If so, you may have seen the large white and green hangers. Those were originally ‘Lighter Than Air’ (think blimp) hangers, which later became Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. These days they seem to be primarily used as stages in some movies and television commercials.

My job: Aviation Ordnance (think explosives and such). My basic job is to maintain the helicopter’s electrically primed ordnance and machine guns that are normally kept at the base armory. In times of war, I am the door gunner. The .50 caliber machine guns are mounted to the helicopter and I stand behind them and fire at the enemy as we fly by.

My very good friend Dean B. stills calls me the “Get some! Get some! Guy” (he got that from the movie ‘Full Metal Jacket’). Some people think being a door gunner is cool and it was. But, we are the first to get shot at, after which, they aim for the pilots. At one point, during the Persian Gulf War also known as Desert Storm, Saddam Hussein had a $5,000.00 bounty on our heads. $5,000.00 was a lot of money in that region at that time.

August 2nd, 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Kuwait is a small Middle-Eastern country that sits southeast of Iraq’s border and northeast of Saudi Arabia’s border along the Persian Gulf. Kuwait is a small country very rich in oil.

August 22nd, 1990, my helicopter squadron HMH-466 had just finished taking apart our helicopters for transport in a C5 cargo plan. Now we are on our way to say “Howdy” to Saddam’s troops.

____________________________

 

On with the actual story...

Fast forward a bit to about December (I think) 1990, we were stationed at the Port of Al-Jubayal, a small naval port for Saudi Arabia. We just received our shipment of tan camouflaged paint and we were ordered to paint our ‘birds’. I, recently having gotten into a little trouble, was on that detail. There were a handful of us to get the job done and at the moment, I cannot remember the names of the rest of the guys. Sorry guys!

By mid-day, I was getting a little bored of the painting and being a smart-ass, decided to make one of the spots into the figure of my girlfriend (at the time), similar to the “Mud-flap” girl. I had gotten part of the head, back and breast done when one of the other guys on my squadron’s paint detail approached and noticed what I was doing. I personally was not planning on leaving it, I was just amusing myself. But my co-painter thought it was funny and joined in. He helped with the hair, since I was having a problem with it and he tackled rear-end.

Soon enough, everyone else on the detail joined in and we worked through the night using large lights on a generator. I figured if the enemy saw the pictures, maybe they would pause for a moment and double check, giving me enough time to pop off some rounds.

We all thought that no one would really be able to see the paintings from a distance. But we ran into a bit of a snag. One of the Gunny’s saw it and brought over the XO (Executive Officer, 2nd in command under the CO – Commanding Officer). The XO, to put it nicely, was a jerk and did not like what we were doing.

Eventually, the CO got involved (I think one of the Crew Chiefs ran off to get him). After some discussion and viewing what were doing and seeing how excited we were, he decided to allow us to continue. The paintings stayed on the birds until we got back stateside. Bummer. So, I guess you could say that those paintings were done for morale. And it is one of my best memories of the Gulf War.

The paintings continued. Someone liked Elvis, so we painted his Elvis’ head. One of the Crew Chiefs nickname was ‘Rooster’, so we painted a rooster’s head on the front of the bird. I painted a hand sticking out the middle finger (something the CO did not know about or would have approved) on the bottom of one of the birds. And the guys painted a silhouette of me holding up my hand doing the peace sign.

Now, there is one thing I would like to call out, and that is the middle finger painting: 1. Kids, don’t do middle finger paintings. And 2. This was in no way an offensive gesture aimed at any religion. We saw Saddam’s army simply as the enemy, not a religious group! They had done some horrific things to the Kuwaitis and we were not happy about that.

I will admit though, while on parameter guard duty (our base had the second largest ammo dump in theater, so we were a potential target), I would take out my ham from my MRE (Meals Ready to Eat) and rub my weapons and ammo with it while yelling out in Arabic to the desert beyond what I was doing. Why would I do that? In their culture, having pork in your system will exempt you from entering heaven. I know, I know, not cool. But hey, I figured if they knew I would fire ham at them then they would avoid instigating a fire fight. Suffice it to say, I didn’t get shot. Did my ploy work? You be the judge.

Fast forward to today, almost; last year my friend Tammy M. sent me an e-mail with the subject line “Those Sneaky Marines” and attached were pictures of my (and my crew’s) painting work. I was shocked and surprised! One of the guys in my old unit must have sent these to someone, who (may have) in turn wrote up a commentary and then mass e-mailed them to their contacts.

Then a few weeks ago, my friend Penny S. sent the same e-mail to me. Huh, I got it again! So, today, out of the blue, I Googled “Those Sneaky Marines” and I discovered those pictures are all over the internet, with commentaries and blogs about them. Holy Cannoli!

I started blogging back until I realized, “Dude, you have your own web-site!” And here we are.

How did those pictures get on the net? Not sure. I was on a military themed web-site today, and they indicated that (L.) Lofton had sent in those pictures to one of the staff. Lofton was a Crew Chief in my squadron, more than likely, he took those pictures.

No one is bleeding on my onion. I just thought this was a damn good story to tell. How often do you get a chance to find out the origin of something like this?

Back in 1990, I never dreamed photos of our paintings would be shown all across the country! And that people would have discussions about them, sometimes heated ones about “Macho geared propaganda” and “Male species crap”. I guess the past really does catch up with you.

_________________________

I would like to give great thanks to the kind people over at
ForumsForums.com
for their support and offer of having me post this story on their site as well.

Another thank you to Gary M. of
Gawfer2001.blogspot.com  for offering to write this story and for his support. Although Gary did not write this piece, we together, may re-visit this story and bring more of it out after I get my stuff out of storage.

 

One last thank you to Patrick of dutyinthedesert.blogspot.com for his support and referencing this story on his blog.

And I thank you, the reader for enduring this longer than usual article. If you enjoyed it, please have your friends and family come read it, or simply send out an e-mail to your contacts.

As for me, I am still out there in the blogs, telling people this story.

-Craig

Until I can get into storage early next month, I will show you these pictures from the internet. The first picture shows that first painting I did (with help) that started all this. Can you find the girl?

 


 

 

 
Wife 1.0 vs. Great Spouse 2007
22 March, 2007
 
My soon to be sister-in-law sent me a very funny e-mail recently.  I am sure you have seen it before, but here it is again.  I am also posting my reply to her and that is the reason why you are about to read it.
 
________________________________________________________________
 
Dear Tech Support:

Last year I upgraded from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0. I soon noticed that the new program began unexpected child processing that took up a lot of space and valuable resources.

In addition, Wife 1.0 installed itself into all other programs and now monitors all other system activities, such as Poker Night 10.3, Football 5.0, Going To The Pub 7.5, and Softball 3.6.  I can't seem to keep Wife 1.0 in the background while attempting to run my other favorite applications. I'm thinking about going back to Girlfriend 7.0 , but the uninstall doesn't work on Wife 1.0.


Please help!


Thanks,
Troubled User.....

_____________________
REPLY:
Dear Troubled User:

This is a very common problem that men often complain about.

Many people upgrade from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0, thinking that it is just a Utilities and Entertainment program. Wife 1.0 is an OPERATING SYSTEM and is designed by its Creator to run EVERYTHING!!! It is also impossible to delete Wife 1.0 and to return to Girlfriend 7.0 . It is impossible to uninstall, or purge, the program files from the system once installed.

You cannot go back to Girlfriend 7.0 because Wife 1.0 is designed to not allow this. Look in your Wife 1.0 manual under Warnings: Alimony-Child Support . I recommend that you keep Wife 1.0 and work on improving the situation. I suggest installing the background application Yes Dear 2.7 to alleviate your program problems
.

The best course of action is to enter the command C:\APOLOGIZE! because ultimately you will have to give the APOLOGIZE command before the system will return to normal anyway.

Wife 1.0 is a great program, but it tends to be very high maintenance! Wife 1.0 does come with several support programs, such as Clean and Sweep 3.0, Cook It 1.5, and Do Bills 4.2.

However, be very careful how you use these programs. Improper use will cause the system to launch the program Nag Nag 9.5 Once this happens, the only way to improve the performance of Wife 1.0 is to purchase additional software. I recommend Flowers 2.1 and Diamonds 5.0

 

 

My responce to Lita...

 

Hi Lita!


Great info, thank you.


As you know, I have a tendency to heavily research things ahead of time and this is what I have found; yes, all of the statements about Wife 1.0 are true. Although there are some security patches for Wife 1.0 they do not cover the viruses I have a headache and Mini van desire. There is also a huge hole in the wallet port that can financially destroy you.


I have a friend that is a developer for the Great Spouse 2007 operating system and he suggested that I try the free beta version, Fiancée 2006, and I have to say it is a more stable system.


The only problems I have found is with the Restaurant Leftovers program which has a tendency to leave the leftovers on the kitchen counter instead of going an extra two feet to the refrigerator and the Bills Manager program which seems eager to do the bills but misses the due date by 30 - 60 days. The program also has a tendency to change my Calendar entries without notifying me, re-defines my Thesaurus so that I do not understand what it is saying and it needs a lot of communication with the user. For some reason the volume control has only two settings; low mumble or loud screech.


Those are all things that I can deal with for now since Fiancée 2006 comes with a Funny Bone program that woks pretty good and the Chef program is excellent. This beta version comes with a Games & Entertainment panel that I find very cool and relatively unrestrictive. (Tip: DO NOT run the Amore feature until the kids are well asleep! Trust me.)


My developer friend says that when I upgrade from Fiancée 2006 to Great Spouse 2007 in October, many of the quirks I have experienced will simply go away (not sure if I buy that) and the Tasmanian Devil Syndrome will be less severe. GS7 also comes with a customized Insta-Kid package, I plan to get six different units with varying degrees of maturity and sizes. (What? I get bored sometimes.)


A number of years ago I had Wife 1.0 and it totally corrupted my system, I had to send everything to the city dump. I will NEVER use that again. I am having a much better experience with Fiancée 2006 and look forward to my upgrade to Great Spouse 2007 later this year. For anyone running Wife 1.0, I am sorry to say that you are eternally doomed and eventually you will have to start over from scratch.


For every one else, I recommend holding out for Girlfriend 2008!


-Craig


 
Of Race and Sex
06 March, 2007

What are we, as a nation, thinking? Regarding our 2008 Presidential candidates, portions of our population say one of them is not black enough, or that it is time for a woman to be in the White House, or that they feel skittish about a Mormon President. What the hell?!

This isn’t a beauty pageant, or a High School election. The person we put in the Oval Office in 2008 will be the leader of the free world and having southern charm, great abs, a brilliant pant suit, or prayer isn’t going to get the job done. Although, praying wouldn’t hurt.

The individual we elect needs to not only lead our country, but be able to guide the world. That person needs to be smart, level headed, respectful, and not put up with any bull. I couldn’t care less if the next President is a hairless, atheist, hermaphrodite, whose skin is purple with blue swirls, green polka dots, and orange stripes.

This shouldn’t be a popularity contest; it should be a job interview. Personally, I hate job interviews, but the next President isn’t going to be strutting from coast to coast with a tiara and a bouquet of roses. Our next President has a job to do, and big one at that.

If I am going to vote for anyone, I want to see what they have done in the past, I want to know their hurdles and how they accomplished them. I also want to hear what they plan to do to fix our national and international problems. I don’t want to hear that they have a plan; I want to see that plan. I want to see the list of the problems they have identified and their proposed solutions. Then I want to see their list of national and international things that are going alright and how they would manage those things or improve them.

What I listed in the previous paragraph has nothing to do with race, sex, creed, or whether they are gay. And I really do not want to know about that last one, it is none of my business and none of yours either. Single, married, divorced, re-married, domestic partner, who cares? Those have nothing to do with job performance.

So, are you sitting there reading this and wondering what color I am? What God, if any, I pray to? Whether I am a man or a woman? Or if I am gay? Why? What does it matter? None of those things affect the way I am using my keyboard. I’m just doing my job.

Are we going to vote for a President in 2008? I certainly hope so, because if we go and vote for the Prom King or Queen, we’ll just be bleeding on our own onions.
 
 
Another Bullshit e-mail
 04 March, 2007
 
I recently received the following e-mail from a very dear friend and second Mom to BleedingOnion.com:
 
 
U.S. Government ReleaseS
New Dollar Coins



You guessed it: 'IN GOD WE TRUST' IS GONE!!!


Who originally put 'In God We Trust' onto our currency?

My bet is that it was one of the Presidents on these coins.

All our U.S. Government has done is Dishonor them, and disgust me!!

If ever there was a reason to boycott something, THIS IS IT!!!!

DO NOT ACCEPT THE NEW DOLLAR COINS AS CHANGE

Together we can force them out of circulation.
 
_______________________________________________________________________
 
It appears that the original writer of the e-mail is not the one holding the new dollar coin, because the holder of the coin would have noticed an edge inscription of "IN GOD WE TRUST".

Below is a picture from the U.S. Mint's offical web site:




Further more, the writer also has their history a bit wrong; (1) they suggest that it may have been one of our Presidents that put 'In God We Trust' on our money and (2) that our government is dishonoring our past Presidents. Not true on both accounts.

1. Coins in the 1860s had 'In God We Trust' added by the request of Reverend M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania in a letter he sent to the Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase. The Act of Congress dated January, 18 1837 prevented any changes to existing coins. But that Act did not cover new coins, so the motto was added to the new 1 cent, 2 cent and 3 cent coins by the Coinage Act of 1864. The Fourth Coinage Act in 1874 thusly allowed all coins to have 'In God We Trust' inscribed on them.

As for paper money, the motto began to appear between the years of 1957 and 1966 from a law passed by the 84th U.S. Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956.

2. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 the following: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

And in 1808 he also wrote: "We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

Ulysses S. Grant had quoted: "Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."

Opening statement of Article XI of The Treaty of Tripoli, approved by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

And as President, Theodore Roosevelt argued against the requirement of the motto on coinage, not because of a lack of faith in God, but because he thought it sacrilegious to put the name of God on something so common as money.

Some history on our national motto:

In 1956, the Cold War was in full swing, and the anti-Communist suspicion of the McCarthy era was at its height. Partly in reaction to Communism (which was officially atheist), the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution to replace the existing motto with "In God we Trust." According to United States Code, Title 36, Section 302, the new motto officially displaced the original 180 year-old national motto "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) when President Eisenhower signed the resolution into law on 30 July, 1956.

And where did 'In God We Trust' come from?

One origin of the current motto can be found in the final stanza of "The Star-Spangled Banner," written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key (and later adopted as the U.S. National Anthem), contains one of the earliest references to a variation of the phrase: "...And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

As you can see, I have done a little research on the subject. It is not my intent in this writing to express a view for or against the subjest of having 'In God We Trust' on our federal currency, I am merely trying to point out a few facts that the originator of this e-mail may have incorrectly assumed.

If we are to honor our Presidents, honor our religeous beliefs, we should begin by honoring the truth.

For more information on the new one dollar coins, please visit:
http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/$1coin/index.cfm?action=reverse

And to all you jackals out there that are fracturing the truth to force your point of view on others, stop bleeding on my onion!
 
King's Vans
01 March, 2007
 
Here is a simplistic example of someone bleeding on another's onion.
 
My 14 year old (soon-to-be) step-son, Isaiah, was visiting for the weekend a couple of weeks ago.  He had forgotten to bring a shirt to sleep in and asked to borrow one of mine.  Knowing that Isaiah has a history of borrowing other people's property, (sometimes without their knowledge or permission) and that he seems to have an issue giving back said borrowed items in a timely manner or in the condition in which they were before he borrowed them, I decided to help this shirtless young man anyway.  I gave him one of my work t-shirts. 
 
Shortly after putting it on, he got a food stain on it and immediately apologized (ah yes, excellent example that he is maturing, taking responsibility for his actions, and showing respect for other people's belongings!).  I told him to make sure that he gives it to me when he takes it off so that I can treat the stain.  The next morning, he decided to wear it back down to his Dad's house and I explained to him that it is his resposibility to get it back to me.  Since then, Isaiah's mother has seen him a number of times and has returned to me several white t-shirts, none of which are mine nor are they my size.
 
Earlier this past week, I was with my fiance at her parents' house (they live two doors down from Isaiah's father) and I called Isaiah on his cell (he was currently in his father's house) and asked that he find my t-shirt and return it to me.  He chose to take a nap instead.  Therefore, his irresponsibility is causing him to bleed on my onion.  I recognize the fact that it is just a t-shirt.  I also recognize that Isaiah may need some help in learning responsibility.  So to help him, his mother and I decided that I should hold on to something of his until he returns my property to me.  Unfortunately, the only thing we could find of his at my future in-laws' house was a pair of Vans tennis shoes that actually belong to Isaiah's friend King.  I remarked outload, "Everything Isaiah has belongs to someone else, he has nothing of his own!"  Using the notoin that Isaiah is currently responsible for King's Vans, we chose to take those for our object of education.
 
As of this writing, King's Vans are on promenent display in my home and public viewing of King's Vans cost only 25 cents per person, per viewing (no IOUs).  No appointments or reservations needed, the line starts at my front door.
 
Yes, this is a very, very minor situation.  But I write this to help you, the reader, understand the dynamics of bleeding on someone else's onion.  And sometimes, we all have the ability to help stop or prevent someone else from bleeding on our onion.
 
Isaiah, in case you are unaware, you are bleeding on my onion, pal.