Posted by christine on Apr 19, 2010 in
Humour Are you a chocoholic? Answer these questions to help find out.
chocoholic (def): a person who has or claims to have an addiction to chocolate
If you have more than 2 secret stashes of chocolate candy, you might be a chocoholic. (Be honest.)
* If your top 3 favorite candies all have chocolate in them, you might be a chocoholic.
* If you have more than 4 books at home on chocolate, you might be a chocoholic.
* If your favorite dessert is chocolate cake with chocolate frosting and chocolate ice-cream on the side, then you might be a chocoholic.
* If you name chocolate as one of the seven wonders of the world, you might be a chocoholic.
* If you bookmark more than 2 websites on the health benefits of chocolate, then you might be a chocoholic.
* If your favorite movie is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, you might be a chocoholic.
* If you own more than one chocolate-related T-Shirt, you might be a chocoholic. (If you actually wear that chocolate T-Shirt in public, just admit it. You are a chocoholic.)
* If you name your first-born child after your favorite chocolate candy – then you are a definite, full fledged chocoholic.
* If you are a chocoholic, there you may want to try one of two possible cures:
CURE #1: Chocolate Overdose
In several cases a chocolate overdose will effectively kill your chocolate bug for a period of time. At some point, too much chocolate in a given month will cure your addiction – for at least a week. Your personal chocolate overdose limit will depend on your level of addiction. (We sell a variety of chocolates to help you do this in style.)
CURE #2: Chocolate Substitution
Chocolate substitution is another option, if the chocolate overdose doesn’t work. It involves starving your chocolate bug by offering it wholesome candy substitutes. The concept is that your body will gradually forget its craving for chocolate. (We sell a variety of delicious candies to help you do this in style.)
If one of these cures doesn’t work, well, at least you would enjoy the attempt . . .
By the way, here are some great links on the health benefits of chocolate. You may want to bookmark them in case someone tries to convince you that chocolate is not good for you.
* http://www.momscape.com
* http://www.aphrodite-chocolates.co.uk
* http://www.chinesefood.about.com
Well, of course it makes sense that chocolate really is healthy. Chocolate is made from a bean – and so, wouldn’t that be like eating a vegetable? (Try explaining that to your mom.)
Posted by christine on Apr 15, 2010 in
Humour Today, few things are more entertaining than observing the continuing debate among intellectuals about the merits and demerits of economic freedom.
What is the cause of the levity? Most of the opinion is decidedly about the demerits of economic freedom, with a pronounced preference for any form of governmental supervision that would supposedly assure the equitable distribution of material wealth.
The problem is, of course, that the very debate, or intellectual freedom itself, is only made possible by economic freedom, which is the principal support of free speech. Why? It is a truth far too often demonstrated that once the state owns your meal ticket, you?re a slave of the state. And you better shut your mouth or you could end up in a Gulag or a rice paddy.
Or, as the philospher Herbert Marcuse noted, a centrally controlled economy is actually state capitalism, conducted by insiders with decided benefits allocated for those who open and close the national treasury.
Meanwhile, the rest of the citizenry are expected to wake up and row the ship of state, with scant provision of bread and water for the dutiful and a plentiful supply of lashes for any who dare to complain.
A free economy is far from perfect, but it supports the stage on which intellecutal freedom may cavort.
So wisdom comes down on the side of improving it, not abandoning it, and with so much clarity that debate with a bias against it is downright amusing.
Posted by christine on Apr 11, 2010 in
Humour As we listen to the two principal culprits of Al-Qaeda attempt to motivate the unsuspecting to become suicidal dupes of its ideology, we cannot help but hear that their furious rhetoric is grievously flawed. We decided we might save some lives by bringing to bear on their promise of Paradise via murder the most frightening prospect a furiously brandished lie can confront: logic.
Let?s begin by reviewing the fundamental values on which their provocative illogic is based:
1. There is only one true God
2. God is great
3. The way to please God is to kill people who don?t believe in Him exactly the way we do.
Well, well, let?s have a look-see.
If there is only one true God, we are all ? Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Jews, and those who believe anything else ? ?children? of the same God.
If God is great, God is logical.
If God is logical, He would very likely not be pleased by some of His children killing His other children. In fact, He would, logically, be upset.
If so, He would be far less likely to offer the preferment of His highest reward to those who killed His other children. In the traditional eschatology of what?s up and what?s down, He would, in fact, present the wayward murderers with a more heated welcome and final destination.
Now, in place of Al-Qaeda?s fundamental illogic, let?s ask if there might be a more promising means of paradisiacal ascent.
How about, instead of belligerence, beards or burkahs, we turn to that staple of merit, behavior?
We suggest the widely applicable alternative of mutually considerate behavior; even better, the high but underestimated virtue of kindness. We needn?t put off those we hope most to influence by suggesting the ideal advocated by many of those al-Qaeda tarnishes as infidels and crusaders: love for one another.
Yes, Osama and Ayman, it is by behavior inspirited by benevolence, not murder incited by hatred, that Muslims, or any other inhabitants of this life-blessed earth, are more likely to please any one true God and thereby gain entrance to the Paradise such a God may have reserved for them.
If one must advocate a radicalism, let it be a commendable one ? a radicalism, preferably considered just normal behavior, that embraces all humans beings as brothers and sisters, and, in fact, every living thing that has found a foothold on this fragile paradise of life, as it spins its uncertain way through the slightly traveled and only fractionally understood universe.
Posted by christine on Apr 8, 2010 in
Humour A humorous look into the not so secret inner workings of the female mind, good for a laugh.
Even though if you ask a woman if she is a typical woman she will say no, chances are if you ask her significant other he will probably say that she has many of the stereotypical traits that men are always making fun of, but confronted with this insight the woman will not only deny this, but will give examples of how she is not like other women.
Here, you will be able to examine and appraise some of the more common ways in which women behave in all their dealings with their men.
1) She can and will confront her partner when she feels she has grown in size. But, for him, his reply must always be similar.
2) She will talk against her own kin. But, under no circumstances can he indulge himself in such behaviour as well.
3) Women also enjoy bashing their significant others family, and if he does not agree then he is blind and stupid.
4) If a man makes a mess but does not clean it up he is being lazy, but when the a woman leaves a mess it is ok because she is just tired.
5) She is allowed to claim that if he is annoyed by her behaviour, he can leave. But, he can, under no circumstances, claim the same thing.
6) When he barks out at their kids, he must control himself because she never does the same. In her case, it is their kids who must learn how not to anger her.
7) When a Woman asks her significant other to make her a cup of coffee it is no big deal, and is expected to be done with out a complaint, but if a man asks a woman for a cup of coffee the woman will come back with “I am Not Your Slave”.
When the partner does not respond, the woman shouts and asks him to do so. But when he does, the woman shouts and asks him to shut up.
9) She will raise hell the moment he fails to comply with her important requests. But when he argues on the same lines, she will state that the same moral does not apply because each and every issue is crucial to her.
10) If he goes out and spends cash on something, she will claim that is a spendthrift. But, when she follows suit, the reason is that life is worth living to the fullest.
11) The partner does not know how to say sorry. The woman does, but, it is just that there is never a reason to say it.
12) The partner has got to nurture the relationship. But, on the other hand, the woman is tired and needs her beauty sleep.
Closure:
Let it not be argued or mentioned that a man is more than a woman because the opposite is the case. Women have more brains, are funnier and have a much better sense of fashion and humane characteristics. All I have done above is pointed out some of our female oddities, and such have not degraded women, but rather empowered them.
Posted by christine on Apr 4, 2010 in
Humour Today’s topic, ladies and gentleman, is: Time. We’re going to talk about time today because I never seem to have enough of it. And I figure that if I dedicate a whole article to the subject of time and stress some of it’s finer points, then perhaps Father Time will show his appreciation by granting me a few extra hours each day. This will allow me to be able to complete a couple more important tasks each day such as hitting the ‘Snooze’ button on my alarm clock at least 15 more times each morning. And speaking of snoozing, there will be none of that during today’s lesson which will begin right now:
Time is defined by the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as: ‘A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.’ This definition leads us to the obvious question: If a definition contains 20 word, 5 of which contain 10 or more letters, and it still doesn’t make much sense, isn’t it time to get another dictionary?
Of course, dictionaries aren’t the only people who have trouble with time. The ancient Mayans, for example, struggled to understand time for centuries and never got it quite right. One look at their calender clues you in to this fact. The Mayan calender had 18 months, one of which was called ChikChan (short for May), and each month had 20 days. There was even one month, Wayeb, that had only 5 days. As you can imagine, this horribly inaccurate calender made scheduling important events like the Super Bowl next to impossible. It also left them wide open to insults from other ancient civilizations, like the Sumerians for example, who had fairly accurate calenders.
The Sumerian calender had 365 days per year and even incorporated a leap year. Sadly, there was no Presidents Day, Martin Luther King Day, or Arbor Day incorporated into the Sumerian calender which is why the Sumerian civilization was eventually wiped out. Such flagrant calender discrimination, even in the Dark Ages, could not be tolerated.
Since we have covered all pertinent information available about calenders, I think it’s high time we expand our understanding of time by discussing another mechanism by which we mortals judge the passing of it. But first, does anyone know where the phrase ‘high time’ comes from? Is there such a thing as ‘low time’. Feel free to ponder these questions quietly as we move on to discussing: The Clock.
A clock, for those of you who don’t know, is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as…Wait a second! Let’s not even go there. We’re already pretty confused as it is. Let’s just all agree that a clock is a device that has lots of numbers and two arms and makes it’s living by juggling minutes and seconds.
I feel the extreme need to insert a time cliche here. This cliche makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and probably has pagan, barbaric origins, but I think it summarizes what we’ve learned thus far in our discussion. So here goes our first time cliche ‘A stitch in time saves nine’. And now back to the show.
There have been numerous different kinds of clocks throughout history. Many of them made absolutely no sense whatsoever. A good example of this is the ancient Egyptian water clock, which was basically just a bowl with a hole in the bottom of it. There were markings on the inside of the bowl that measured the passage of ‘hours’ as the water level reached them. One of the obvious problems with this clock was the fact that whenever working-class Egyptians wanted to get off work early they would keep taking little sips of water from the bowl/clock throughout the day. This was one of the reasons it took so long to finish the Pyramids.That and the lack of power tools.
Time doesn’t permit us to talk about the other types of ancient clocks like obelisks, sundials, and hemicycles. And there definitely isn’t time to go into merkhets.
Speaking of merkhets, a close cousin of the clock is the watch. The watch is the time-telling device that most of us use today. We do not however, use it to tell time. We use it to do numerous other tasks that watch manufacturers have incorporated into watches like instant messaging, reading email, and fast forwarding the DVD player. There’s even a new watch on the market that comes equip with a radiation detector. And you laughed at the Eyptians for drinking from their time-telling devices.
Obviously, time is not something that can be explained in just one lesson. There’s a ton of more interesting stuff we could go into about time but, frankly, I don’t feel like taking the time to look it up right now. I believe I’ve achieved my goal of using as many time cliches as I possibly could in one article and now, I think it’s time to call an extended timeout on this whole time subject. I’m sure when I do write the follow-up to this article that it will be just in the nick of time. Probably sometime around Wayeb 1st.
Posted by christine on Apr 1, 2010 in
Humour The new show that is installed at The National Gallery of Art, ?Bellini, Giorgione, Titian and the Renaissance of Venetian Painting,? presents us, not only with ravishing beauty, but with the vision of a time when apparently religion and nudity were easygoing companions. For instance, at one stroke of the brush, that genius of color, light, and form, Giorgione, could render ?The Adoration of the Shepherds,? and with another stroke of his brilliance his “Portrait of a Woman,” with her seductively bared breast.
What are we to think as we behold such comfortable camaraderie between subjects that, in our own time, are at really quite opposite ends of the usual sense of propriety?
We cannot but help ask ourselves if there really was a time when the ways of man to God, in terms of pious depiction, and the ways of God to man, in terms of bodily design, were comfortably inviting to the same artists and, even more astonishingly, approvable by the religious and royal personages on whom they relied for their brushes and bread.
And, in light of these beautifully refreshing visions, what are we to think of the current separation of conservative church and revealing art?
Dare we acknowledge the riveting idea that religion at its truest must accommodate itself with reverence, not only for the unseen but for life as we see it has been created, clothed for ancient shame or social courtesy but also naked as the day it was born?
While such a vision may seem radical to our immoderately tempered sensibilities, it was apparently quite wholesome way back around 1500.
And that perception bares questions that much of the contemporary world prefers to clothe with silence.
Posted by christine on Mar 24, 2010 in
Humour Fueled by skyrocketing gasoline prices, the Senate once again took up debate on oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.
The members were sharply split along party lines, with Democrats maintaining that the very idea of intruding on that pristine national treasure with oil rigs is an affront to every responsible American’s instinct for wilderness preservation, while Republicans were more inclined to advocate tapping the oil for the preservation of their electoral status as members of the Senate.
The preservation of the American public’s ability to pay for something besides gasoline was also mentioned in passing by one Senator.
Prodded to act by an impatient President, seeking the preservation of whatever positive numbers he still maintains in the popularity polls, the two sides finally arrived at a compromise agreement.
The word “drilling” would be forever struck from the bill and will be replaced with a term Democrats feel is far more appropriate to an area so rife with wildlife, that is, the word “hunting.”
Once the bill was redrafted to specify the crucial change from “oil drilling” to “oil hunting,” the Senate passed it with near unanimity.
It will now go to the President for his signature, which is expected about as soon as he can locate a pen. Shortly thereafter, he will address the American public about the breakthrough legislation.
He is expected to note that he has long advocated drilling in the wildlife refuge but has been blocked by a divisive Congress. He is also expected to assure a fuming public that the price of gasoline is certain to go down as soon as the pipelines are in place, the drills hit gushers, and the oil companies agree to build more refineries. During the years that will be required for all of the foregoing conditions to be met, he is expected to encourage the public to conserve gas by hitching their cars together, so only one out of every six vehicles will have the engine running.
Mr. Bush was so pleased by the passage of the bill that he went straight to Vice President Cheney’s office to have a celebratory conversation, but he was informed that the Vice President, upon hearing about the amendment to the measure, immediately packed up and headed to the refuge to enjoy a pristine weekend of hunting.
The President telephoned his airplane and explained that the measure called for oil hunting, not hunting for animals. The Vice President acknowledged the difficulty but explained that, since the word “hunting” was in the amendment, he felt he was on safe grounds to interpret the meaning by putting the primary emphasis on “hunting.”
They finally agreed that disagreements about emphasis and subordination were unlikely grounds to exacerbate the recent calls from more irascible circles for their impeachment.
Posted by christine on Mar 21, 2010 in
Humour Grandma made a major decision the other day. She had been ponderin and ponderin how to deal with her three little darlins in the best way possible. She finally decided since there were three of them, maybe there should be three of her. Yep, Grandma decided she?d split her personality into three personalities and become three in one. Who knows? Even that Miss Ophrie might come a callin to her door and a wantin to meet them three in one.
So Grandma had to decide which three personalities she?d be. She thought about the girlies? favorites, but she didn?t know what no Lindsay Lahon, Hannah Montana, Dora the Explorer, Taylor Hicks, Paula Abdul, Hillary Duff, or even Polly Pockets might be all about. So Grandma just fell back on her old tried and true personalities?some that she knew real, real good!
For starters, Grandma thought it might be a good idea to start the day off with her Shirley Temple personality. After all, her little sweeties couldn?t even be that sweet theirselfs. Grandma thought she could get that nice Miss Cindy down at the Roffler Shop to put them Shirley Temple curls all over her head. Then she?d find herself some big fancy candy shop and git her the biggest, stripedest lollipop that?s ever been made. Grandma?s old knees got to knockin when she slipped right into her Shirley Temple stand-out dress with her crinoline slip peekin out from the bottom. Grandma even brought out an old pair of Shirley Temple black patent leathers to complete her new personality.
Needless to say, when Grandma Shirley Temple walked in to model her new personality to her babies, they all went to screamin and a laughin and callin Grandma a silly goose. That, of course, was before they spied the giant lollipop, and then they started to grabbin and callin claims to that big beauty with so much enthusiasm they crushed the candy part and sent the stick part a sailin through the air until it landed straight up and down in Grandpa?s glasses (which he?d just put on to see who that cute little doll in the Shirley Temple curls was). Fortunately for him, he didn?t have ?em on long enough to see Grandma a pullin just bout ever one of them curls straight out.
So, on to the next personality. Grandma thought she?d make a perfect Annie Oakley. Gittin a big ole hat over what was left of them curls was not too much trouble, but when Grandma put them spurs on her brogans she wound up scratchin up her brand new hardwood floors that Grandpa had just laid.
Grandma didn?t have no cowgirl vest so she just grabbed the chenille bedspread, and it almost went all way around her to be the purtiest vest any cowgirl ever saw. Last, Grandma strapped her gun and holster set (who knows where it came from?) round her hips. Then she picked up the babies? jump rope and started to twirling that rope and a lassoing right there in front of that television set where them babies was glued to some show called Deal or No Deal.
It took ?em a minute to notice Annie (aka Grandma), but when they did, they went to grabbin and callin claims on them there guns on Annie?s hips. Whoa! Grandma couldn?t let them sweeties get their hands on no guns so she thought real fast and with all her might and her sharp-shooter?s eye, she slung them guns straight for the sink full of dirty dishes. She knowed them girls wouldn?t go nowhere near dirty dishes, and she was right. The next thing she heard was, ?No deal!?
Well, Grandma was now left with her choice of a third personality. There was no question which one that would be. Grandma got her lipstick out and drawed her biggest, reddest Joan Crawford smile anybody had ever seen. Yep, Grandma was gonna be a perfect Mommy Dearest. To tell you what happened next would be too scary, but Grandma?ll tell you in a heartbeat that her babies won?t go near the closet no more, and they keep awakin up in the middle of the night screamin something she can?t understand about coat hangers.
Grandma tried. Grandma failed. Now Grandma will just be Grandma, but she still wonders what would have happened if she?d just made her experiment a little easier and split into the Three Stooges instead. (Bomp, slap, thump!!)
Posted by christine on Mar 3, 2010 in
Humour While America is experiencing a gasoline shortage, the nation?s dependence on foreign oil is about to end.
A researcher at The Department of Energy, from which breakthrough ideas emanate on a regular basis, noticed that Americans, along with most people who ever lived, have a virtually unlimited and renewable supply of B. S. He wondered if it might be turned into fuel.
The hypothesis proved so promising that his work produced a marvelous result in as short a time as it took to record some B. S. from a wonderfully fertile colleague and wire it to a refinery. He calls the new potion Bio-Super.
?It?s the most concentrated fuel in history,? he tells us, ?with an octane rating of 99.9. I figure we?ve got enough of a supply to meet our total energy needs for the foreseeable future. All we have to do is keep B. S.-ing the way we do, and we?ll have all the Bio-Super we and our children need.?
The product is ready for mass production. The technique calls for the collection of B. S. from all over the country by having the most irrepressible exponents of it talk into microphones. The B. S. is then broadcast to the closest refinery.
Bio-Super also has an advantage over other fuels in terms of pollution, because the process actually takes a lot of it out of the air.
Since the B. S. is so highly concentrated to begin with, the production of Bio-Super is quite a lot more efficient than the manufacture of biofuel from corn or woodchips. Just a hundred words of good old American B. S., particularly from people who like to hang out at bars after work and talk their heads off, can produce enough to fill up the gasoline tank on a Hummer.
The only negative aspect is the product?s exceptional volatility. Once you pump it into your tank, you have to slam the gas cap shut instantly or it will all evaporate. Motorists are also advised only to remove the cap when the gauge is nearly on empty and to stand aside; otherwise, there is the risk of being knocked out with a force that scientists have calculated is equivalent to six airbags.
Posted by christine on Feb 27, 2010 in
Humour Traveling can be a humbling experience, particularly when you travel to a foreign country. Such experiences, of course, give rise to travel jokes.
Travel Jokes
1. Three brothers are sitting at the bar in a Moscow establishment. An older man is sitting at a table behind them and has obviously had too much vodka. He stands, walks up to the first brother and says,
?Your mother is a vicious, greedy woman!?
The brother tells him to shut up and go sit down.
After about 5 minutes, the old man stands and walks up to the second brother,
?I sleep with your mother whenever I want!?
Disgusted, the brother tells the old man to bugger off.
A few minutes later, the old man stands and starts walking towards the third brother. All three brothers turn around and yell,
?Dad, go home!?
2. You?re at a bad hotel when the bed mint moves.
3. ?Visi, Vermini, Vomnui? ? I visited, I freaked, I threw up.
4. The President?s Vacation
George and Laura Bush take a vacation to Crawford and decide to go the grocery store. In the checkout line, Laura recognizes the man working at the register as an old high school boyfriend. After chatting, they leave the store and George says,
?Wow, imagine if you had married him. You?d be married to a grocery store clerk now instead of the President of the United States.?
Laura rolls her eyes and says, ?No. I?d be married to the President of the United States.?
5. ?Veni, Veneri, Vamoosi? ? I came, I caught a disease, I ran away.?
Typically, just the act of traveling produces more than a few funny moments. Get out there and go.