Ask any of my friends in my head and they will tell you that if there is one thing I love its commemorative plates. I frequently tune into “Antiques Roadshow,” for they do get some gems on there at times, but they are usually out of my price range. Since I am currently in the market for some terrific flatware, I thought it would be a good idea to post some of my favorites in the hopes that an offer may come my way on a plate that could join my Kristi Yamaguchi on the shrine in my room.
If you have any additional commemorative plates I would love to see them!
When I first saw the phrase, “River plane crash,” my first inclination was that it was some term indicating a loss at Texas Hold em, but it was only because I had caught the words out of the corner of my eye. After closer inspection, however, I quickly realized the already disaster trodden city of New York may have, again, been struck with a terrible tragedy and I subsequently flipped on the TV for some live moment by moment coverage.
However, some amazing details begin to emerge, so incredible I doubt I will ever see anything even remotely close to it again within my life time. It is not often a plane can pummel from the heavens and plunge into either land or water with the whole of the crew and passengers surviving. You know when you get that overly long dissertation by the flight crew prior to take off? It had always occurred to me just to space out during the whole water landing crap. I mean, hitting the water at the speed planes can reach; the water might as well be ground. Furthermore, I figured, what realistically are the chances of me getting out and being able to use my cushion as a floatation device anyway? You can forget it. I always reached the conclusion that if I was unlucky enough to be on such a vessel when it crashed into a vast expanse of H20, I was mollusk food and my body would thereby be fed on by crabs as they feed on me now.
Now, due to the incident which occurred on the 15th of January, I am going to have to completely rethink these conclusions. With all the 155 people on the plane being able to land on the Hudson river, whose sludge may have cushioned some of the blow, maybe next time I will listen to the stewards reciting the canon of airline survival, rather than getting my last few moments of cell phone use in by text messaging the cougar I am interested in. At any rate, it is obvious the real hero of this situation was the pilot and the credit belongs to him alone, but let us look who is to blame, shall we?
They, that is the FAA, are claiming the crash was due to a bird strike. A bird strike? With the economy how it is? These damn birds should just be happy they have jobs! Yet, they feel the need to sabotage an airline? It’s just over the line and if I am driving and I see some of these birds in a peck-it-ing line, I am going to be really pissed. Ingrate geese.
Let us take into account some of the weird coincidences surrounding the events and examine the possibility this could be the culmination of some astral plan. My friend relayed to me that she and her friend were discussing airplanes when it came up on the news. Furthermore, I myself was watching “Riverdance” at the time and then a plane lands on one. Some odd crap there.
First, we have the geese who carried out the plan, but the question remains; to whom were the geese mystically subject? I would propose it is none other than Riverdance “star” Michael Flatley. Yes, the Lord of the Dance, is also the lord of disaster. When he first appeared on the scene, I knew he meant trouble and whenever he comes around something bad happens. Sure enough, this is manifested after I put in my special edition, director’s cut “Riverdance” DVD. Take my word for it, Flatley is a bad omen. I mean, the guy is like Halleys Comet.
In conclusion, we see who is really at fault: its me. If I didn’t put in the DVD nothing would have occurred in the first place. I was the initiator, Flatley the mediator, and the geese the messenger, the whole of the blame being trifold. With that I would like to apologize to everyone and hope all the emotional scars of those on the plane heal quickly. Lastly, to prevent any further similar incidents I am throwing out all my Enya music as well. Just in case Irish folk music can produce the same effect as an Irish dance troupe. You can’t be too careful.
I used to think Hamas wasn’t all bad, I mean it is named after pretty tasty dip, and the chickpeas are delicious! Yet, Hamas has really tumbled down hill since the good ol’ days when they resorted to suicide bombings to take out the infidels. Now, instead they resort to rockets and attacking over long distances with limited success. However, one long range attack is proving to be very effective and this is the one which rages on the hearts, minds and constitution of world-wide popular opinion.
Since it’s founding in the late 80’s, Hamas has been waging a war with Israel by formulating suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and along with their campaign of terror, organizing a campaign of propaganda for the purpose of enslaving the minds of the people living there and throughout the middle east. The depravity of such Palestinian groups knows no bounds as seen with the deployment of mentally handicapped women and children to set off suicide bombs, it no longer being a suicide, but rather murder of the most perverted kind. Words do not exist to properly articulate how disgusting such actions are.
Despite all this though, we see an increasing sympathy for Hamas, who has quickly put on the guise of victimhood to engage in this new kind of war, not by bombs and guns, but through TV screens, radio and other media. An outcry is being raised against Israel now, whose sovereign borders were encroached upon by attacks of violence, yet they are increasingly being seen not as a country defending itself, but as a country hell bent on war and the death of millions of people. An argument I have run across is that Israel is somehow at fault because their attack has caused the death of more people then Hamas’s “minor” mass murders.
Yet, this argument denotes all action would cease at this very hour, and no further acts of violence would be committed by either side after the war halted (we need to call it as it is, war, not some minor skirmish). I don’t think I need to go too far into it when I say this is a silly thing to presuppose. Hamas will rise up once again as soon as the fighting has ended and we all know it. Also, it is unreliable to base any ethical conclusion on mere statistical data such as this, for it doesn’t take into account, oh little things like, you know, right and wrong. It was the actions of Hamas themselves that determined how Israel is reacting. Would we ourselves want such groups attacking us to continue on unchecked? By no means! No being is outside the principle that our actions result in consequence. Hamas certainly isn’t exempt from it and they should not be treated like they are. The blame rests on Hamas’s shoulders and the blood of their very own people is on their hands.
I find myself frustrated at this increasingly contradictory message being expressed by Hamas. I don’t see how you can precipitate a violent situation by targeting innocent people and then turn around and play the victim. You can’t. Now, I am sympathetic to the innocent deaths of those in Gaza due to Israel’s defense, but what I would postulate is that it’s a reverberation of the initial actions of Hamas. Furthermore, their complete disregard for human life is apparent by the utilization of human shields around their biggest targets, which Israel would naturally want to target. They choose these places not to be in some far away compound, but instead in the middle of populated area’s and surrounded by women and children for a reason.
This is no accident; it’s a logical conclusion that Israel would attack these locales and they are using the very attack from Israel, against Israel, by use of this propaganda. It is working too, for demonstrations are happening all over the world for Israel’s supposed butchery; the most striking being right here in America. Terrorism is being supported on our own soil, which was, in 2001, drenched in the innocent blood of thousands of Americans due to it. That day Hamas celebrated in the streets, yet now reach out to the Western world to help their cause, while groups march waving the flag of Hamas within our cities. They are protected by the first amendment and their expression isn’t illegal, though I would be keeping a close eye on them if I were in a position to do so, but still, there is really only one flag they should be waving and that’s a flag that stands not for death, but for life. Not for violence, but for peace. Not for division, but unity. Finally, not for anarchy, but for democracy. They are not fit to be called American’s no matter what hyphenated title you want to give them.
On January 20, Barack Obama will officially be sworn in as the president of the United States and there is already a substantial amount of controversy surrounding the ceremony. The invocation is to be done by Pastor Rick Warren, who was invited to perform the initiation by the president elect himself. In addition to several gay rights groups being upset that Obama would invite the Pastor, and whom consider it contradictory to the promises Obama has made, the American Humanist Association has filed a lawsuit affirming that the statement “so help me God,” included in the invocation is unconstitutional. Apparently, this lawsuit is being filed by the same guy who lost previous identical lawsuits in 2001 and 2005.
I suspect the outcome will be the same for this lawsuit as well. To me, it just doesn’t make sense that if you are elected into public office, then you are somehow exempt of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Those who are elected by a majority still have those inherent rights the forefathers determined applicable to every individual. To suggest otherwise and to hinder someone from making an oath to their god is infringing upon the very constitution such groups claim is being breached already. However, despite their proclamation, it is truly their desire which would be the trespass if put into action. The first amendment states it protects against religion as it applies to law and not the free exercise thereof.
The constitution protects us against many things, but one thing it doesn’t offer, is the absolute protection against being offended. The constitution and, indeed, the very meaning of liberty itself, denote that sometimes, unfortunately, you’re going to step on a few toes in your exercise of these freedoms. It is inevitable in a democracy, and such people as the American Humanist Association need to reflect on exactly what battles they are choosing to fight and when it is appropriate. Unfortunately, they don’t, and as our country teeters on the brink of falling into a permanent state of economic and social dejection, we have people who are getting all worked up about an oath; and an oath to what means exactly? To improve this country and to lead it to a state that is better than whence it was found by the incoming administration. Therefore, I would challenge any of those offended by “under God” or “so help me God” to not look at the words, but the maxim, or motive behind it. Truthfully, the reason behind why such an oath is being made should be of most concern and focus, not necessarily upon what deity or conception thereof (depending on your worldview) it is.
To be truthful there is a part of me, being a Christian which would like nothing more than for every incoming president or official to swear unto God that they will make the choices which only serve in the ultimate best interest of the nation, but to do so would contradict those very principles and freedoms that protect myself. Thereby, to advocate such a thing would promote the very elimination of those freedoms and liberties that I hold dear. I have no issues with any blessing or oath during the invocation and the elements of such should be based upon the president-to-be’s discretion. That is, if an atheist or agnostic gets elected, than he can opt not to make an oath to a higher power. Likewise, if a Buddhist gets elected than he can opt to make an oath onto him. It should be up to the incoming President, how THEIR inauguration goes, for though it is clearly in the public view, we cannot forget the personal nature of the event as well.
Furthermore, why it has been a part of the invocation so long isn’t because it is trying to single out any one religion, but rather a ceremony where the candidate determines it is appropriate to make an oath to something greater than himself, above his own self-interest and swear to continue to protect those rights, which are considered an inherent part of mans being. That is, freedom, brotherhood or sisterhood, truth, justice, liberty, equality and the like. Of course, we could always just smash a bottle of champagne over a president elects head for blessing, much like they do with ships before they set out to sea.
That being said, people that oppose presidents who adhere to a religion still have a say. In fact, their voice can be heard in the most boisterous way possible within a democracy, and this is by their vote. If the voting pool is really concerned about religion creeping into the white house, than may I suggest not voting for a candidate who subscribes to any particular religion. This would be the most effective way of expressing your opinion, and would not attempt to encroach upon the liberties or freedoms of those who endorse, within their lives, any religious creed.
So when Obama takes the oath, I say good for him, but him alone, for at that moment, it’s going to be personal in nature, and to forbid him from taking the oath, in the way he desires, would nullify the constitution to which he is swearing an everlasting allegiance.
I agree with the general goals and principles set forth by the environmental movement. I mean, who wouldn’t? It doesn’t serve any ill purpose to be environmentally conscious and it can only really benefit us in the long run, so what’s the problem? Why be against it? I am not against it, but there is a problem nonetheless. The problem is I just don’t give a crap anymore. Not because of the goals of environmentalists, but rather the devices they use to bring the means to an end, and these tactics being consistently shoved it in my face all the damn time! I can’t go anywhere or do anything without seeing billboards, signs attached to the sides of buses, newspaper and periodical articles, hearing radio broadcasts, podcasts, blogs, seeing commercials, activists tossing pamphlets at me, which by the way must have cost the lives of thousands of trees (which Weyerhaeuser replanted anyway so its ok) and that will all eventually end up littering the sidewalk, only to be later swept up into a landfill. A type of environmental collateral damage if you will.
We all know the message by now. It is not a secret to anyone of us. Yet, there is a constant barrage of demands from environmentalist groups anyway. All the time it is, conserve energy! Okay. Get a more fuel efficient car! Got it. Put a brick in your toilet tank to conserve water! Done. Drive less! No problem. Keep your tires inflated! For sure. Need tabs? Check your emissions! Understandable. Unreasonable prices, but understandable. Don’t use Aerosol cans! Fine. Get more energy efficient light bulbs! I hear ya.
Eventually at some point they got tired of making demands which we, the ordinary citizen, can do something about. They got bored and started loudly proclaiming issues that will certainly bring an end to the world, but we, the average person, have no control over. Stop the methane emissions of cow farts! Ummmm... The ice caps are melting! Well, guess we’re screwed. Atlantic Penguin populations are the lowest they have been in years! Yeah, well that’s too bad, I guess. Murderous ivory hungry poachers are killing Elephants year after year, which will lead to the eventual extinction of the species! Yeah, I don’t have a passport or the authority to go fight poachers, so my hands are pretty much tied on that one. Where are the Seals?!? The Seals are dying! Ok, well I guess I won’t go baby seal clubbing this year, whatever.
Sometimes they can’t even make up their mind on what is best for the environment, as with the constant moral battle one encounters between paper or plastic in the checkout line of the supermarket. We were told to use plastic, then paper, but one fills up landfills, but one kills trees, ones biodegradable, one takes thousands of years to rot and burning it only pollutes our air, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I don’t care. Triple bag it and wrap it in 4 sacks of plastic there bagboy because I don’t give a crap anymore. Its much like health, if you are flooded with over abundant, contradictory, forceful information, a certain percentage of the population is going to revert back to that youthful rebellion in which the vast majority of all people have experienced at one time or another in their lives. You can only take so much data and contradiction concerning whether to eat eggs or not and whether it is good for you or not, before you eventually say, screw it! Over-easy please!
So yes, I applaud the concept behind the obtrusive message, yet it is the way it is presented that makes me roll my eyes and not care. Especially when watching TV. I sit down to eat my eggs and there is, for some reason, an ex-ER doctor, seeping with melancholy, telling me about the environment. Thank you Noah Wyle for bringing that to my attention and helping me to understand the plight of the arctic Polar Bear. I would have never been able to come to a full comprehension of the problem without the aid of an, at best, mediocre actor, has-been, ex TV “star,” such as yourself. Perhaps next, Dave Coulier could help me to understand the issues of deforestation that confront the South American Wedge-Tailed Shrew.
The self righteous attitude of some of these people that hang onto the environment with an almost spiritual intensity can be a rather large turn off to the movement as well. I don’t need you self-righteous folk glaring and grimacing at me in my truck, while you sputter on by in your Prius or other hybrid Mr. and Mrs. High-and-Mighty. The best way for these groups to go about it, would be to make the public aware, but to put most of their efforts behind the scenes, like in legislation and conservation efforts and not getting on my case because I just happened to fart two times over the daily allowance supposed by your Earth group. I would say, chances are, a huge rock falling from space is going to kill us all anyway, way before we destroy our own planet. So keep it up Earth-peace or whatever your called and I just may splurge on the extra thirty cents to buy light bulbs that last half as long, use three times the energy and are a third as bright. Furthermore, the brick in my toilet is coming out. That’s right, I so went there.
Quick Note: I don’t like hitching a ride or hijacking other people’s jokes or humor. Actually, if I thought I could get away with it, why not? So, with that being said, I would like to give partial credit to Greg Gutfeld of Red Eye on Fox News Channel for his “peanuts” remark that aired on TV a couple nights ago. This most certainly contributed to the following blog entry. I normally have no problems ripping people off, but I know if I don’t say something, someone is going to approach me and flip me crap for it. So now you can just bite me. Having covered my ass, which I would never do if I were to meet Greg in person, here is my pathetic attempt at a little word play. Enjoy, or press back on your browser. Whatever.
On A Simple Case of Peanuts Envy
For you socially awkward people as myself, perhaps this may ring a bell. You remember those damn perfect smug bastards in high school who got everything from perfect sporty DNA to prom king? They are talented in sports, popular, and they always get the girl! Damn I hate them, and still do as a matter of fact. It’s a bitterness welling up inside me and my therapist is working on it constantly with heavy medication and electro-shock therapy. High school may have been bad for you, but try having a peanuts allergy and have these types of people set their sights on you, rubbing their peanuts in your face. Like you needed it any worse than it already was. You going home every Friday night crying, with your only company being silence, tears and an industrial sized container of petroleum jelly. No, they just can’t let you be, they still need to pick on the little guy in order to somehow increase their social standing amongst their peers, which could not possibly be improved upon anyway. Yes, we have all been there.
In Wenatchee, Washington, the very same city that had a run in with a Pterodactyl and located in my home state, 19-year-old Joshua Hickson overheard a conversation in the school’s lunch room where a student commented that he had an allergy to peanuts. The day was September 8, 2008 and it will forever be a day of infamy when one thinks upon spreadable food products. Hickson gave the boy a peanuts facial by using a nearby PBJ sandwich as a weapon and slapped some of the creamy peanuts butter upon the victims forehead, which hopefully didn’t get in his hair.
Hickson you’re a jerk! Yet, with a name like Hickson, he probably is a varsity quarterback or something and could most definitely kick my ass. Crap! I live in the same state as this guy and am still sore from getting a wedgie at work the other day and really don’t want another. Likewise, a purple nurple wouldn’t be pleasant, nor a Charlie horse, or a swirly. I hope he doesn’t read this and track me down. Hickson, I am sorry! I am sorry Hickson!
Anyhoo, the boy goes and gets cleaned up and time passes, but then Hickson, who I am sure is really handsome by the way, is informed he needs to appear in court to defend himself against assault charges. Yet, an injury didn’t even occur to the victim and there isn’t any emotional scarring beyond that which happens in the course of a normal high school day with all its clique warfare. The creamy peanuts didn’t cause any harm whatsoever to the whiny little bitch. However, the victim did say that he had issues in the past with peanuts touching his face, or skin and causing a reaction. I don’t know why this was enough to send Hickson to jail.
Hickson only got four days, but I found it curious that he was convicted based on what could have happened rather than what did. I mean sure, this would make sense in relation to an attempted murder case or something, but I found the incarceration of Hickson for minor assault with a condiment to be stupid. It seems too minor of an offense to warrant charging someone on a pure hypothetical. Trust me, I didn’t have it great in high school and am still picking bits of my old Fruit of the Loom’s out of my rectum. However, kids are kids and teens are teens and it should have been dealt with by the school and by the parents just like it would have everywhere else. Perhaps the victim just got jealous of how Hickson could handle the delectable peanuts and got a real strong case of peanuts envy.
