Do you know this duck (puppet)?

Okay, so I haven't blogged in a long while. I have several ideas, and one of these days.... In the meantime, I am looking for a puppet that I believe was produced in 2000.

This puppet has a non-moveable mouth. The wings are operated by the pinky and thumb, and the other three fingers fit inside the head, with the hand entering the puppet from "below." Beak and feet are orange.

The duck's left wing has a Steiff-like button and a yellow ribbon. The centre of the button says "2000", and the word "millenium" is circled around the outside of the circle. A white tag on the inside indicates that the puppet meets the material safety requirements of Ontario, Canada.

I don't know the height of the puppet, but it fits an adult hand comfortably and allows most of the forearm into the puppet.

If you know who made this duck and/or where one is available for sale, please post here, and thanks for your help!

Query for the Catholic Church

(And for those of you unfamiliar with the King's English, "query" does not refer to the sexual orientation of the leaders of said organization. I really don't care about that. I'm just asking a question here.)

I was at a celebrated local eating establishment today. It was my first time there for their Sunday buffet, and I picked a lousy day to go because apparently a monseignor all the way from Ireland was here so there was over 80 people just from that group alone. Which meant that they ran out of stuffed turkey just as I got to that station. And I Don't Do Sausages first thing in the day. So I went meatless. But I digress.

I'm in line with a slew of Catholic priests and elderly Catholic parishoners and I'm the youngest person by about 20 years... and I so wanted to ask this question which has recently been plaguing me during my "off hours." I refrained, and am quite proud of myself. But since I don't want to explode with all this refraining and repressing, I'm going to ask my question here, 'cause that's what my blog is for... expressing my opinions and asking the questions that have plagued me since the Dawn of (my) Time, or at least since I first thought of them.

So here's the question.

If it is a sin for human males to masturbate because they are wastefully spilling seed which Could Become Life, why isn't it a sin for females to waste those precious monthly eggs? There are WAY more (like millions?) of those sperm in males, and their bodies can always make more, and now, thanks to Viagra, their bodies DELIVER more WAY past the point where we're comfortable considering the distribution process. Sperm are not a limited resource.

But eggs, on the other hand, are. The female body only has so many of them, and the number varies by female. In addition, the quality of the eggs degrade with age, such that a woman's eggs when she is in her 20's are of a superior quality than are those of a woman in her 40's. And they are of a limited number. Every month that an egg goes unfertilized is another potential life that is literally flushed down the drain. Which is just sad.

So here's my thought. If it is a sin to waste even one of the millions of sperm that males have, is it not a greater sin to waste even one of the only hundreds of eggs that a woman has? Shouldn't we be putting good Catholic girls on The Pill just as soon as they hit puberty so that those precious eggs can be stored and kept for the day when she is ready to have children, ready to allow those eggs to continue on their journey to becoming a human being?

Just a thought. Going back to potting my plants now.

I wonder if the monseignor is still at the restaurant....

That which does not kill us...

does NOT make us stronger.

But it may make us psychopathic.

'Nuff said.

How come...

If dust is made of dead skin cells, how come abandoned houses are so dusty? Fairies?

:-)

Food Issues: Get the Media out of the Kitchen

When I started this blog, I was going to write weekly. I have a list of potential topics, and even some rough drafts. But somehow... didn't happen.

However, this week, I do have thoughts. It's a minor topic, but worthy of consideration. So I've decided to share. See, I'm having food issues, and it's getting serious. In general I gross out easily, but it does take some serious work to turn me off my food. And yet, recently....

I was okay with Babe, the talking pig, even though millions of children would learn that their ham and bacon came from pigs NOT lucky enough to "talk sheep".

And I think it's kinda funny that adults are grossed out at finding breast milk in the fridges of new moms but regularly drink the breast milk of a completely different SPECIES.

But then there were the "Break-free" commercials, with the hen in group therapy to come to terms with the fact that HER eggs were not going to be eaten like regular eggs are. Which completely turned me off the product. I'm sorry, but I can't be a part of giving some poor hen psychological angst.

And the latest Milky Way commercial is just WRONG... the one where the a guy, after a date that went badly, turns to a candy bar for comfort. He pulls off the wrapper and reveals a stunning model who calls him her "buffet of manliness" (or something like that). Which just goes to show that eating chocolate for the aleviation of psychological pain is not just for women any more. (Maybe the hen should try it.)

But the commercial that has REALLY given me food issues is the new one from Dairy Queen, the one about their new popcorn shrimp. For those lucky people who can still eat shrimp 'cause they haven't seen the commercial... either stop reading now, or give up on seafood.

For those still reading: in the commercial, the lady shrimp comes along to the man shrimp and asks what he's eating. He says it's Dairy Queen's new popcorn, and it's really good. She has a piece, agrees that it's good, but then realizes that it's not popcorn, it's popcorn SHRIMP. Then they realize that their kids are missing. And the tagline? "Dairy Queen's new popcorn shrimp... so good, even shrimp'll eat it!"

Ew. On SO many levels.

First, we have talking food. I don't want talking food. I don't eat food that still has a face, so I can't eat large shrimp in Chinese restaurants or buy fresh fish in the grocery store. I CERTAINLY don't want to know that prior to being served on the table, my food was in a group therapy session, searching for their kids, or even just reading the paper over their morning coffee. And I REALLY don't want to be thinking that I'm eating someone's kids. I know I am, but I don't need to be reminded. It's hard enough to eat healthily... now is just not a good time for me to become vegetarian.

Second, we're introducing the concept of cannabalism. So, again, EW. I don't WANT to think something's so good that another of the something would it eat. That's Just Wrong.

I don't know that I'm really making a point. Not sure these thoughts are "blog-worthy." But it's WAY past suppertime, my tummy is rumbling, and I'm afraid to watch TV lest ANOTHER food become verboten.

Which I don't think is the goal of food manufacturers!

So What I Don't Understand....

So here's what confuses me. The United States is a country where, not too long ago, we were forced to debate and hash over and be inundated with the lurid details of a President, his assistant, and her little black (?) dress. I remember the word "impeachment" being bandied about because a married man was stupid enough to get a blow job while at work keeping the country safe and flourishing. Then he lied to a Grand Jury, WAS impeached, but got to keep his job. After all, the only ones dead were his sperm.

Now, not even a decade later, we have another President, a man who has managed to keep his pants zipped at work. (At least, as far as we know.) But that doesn't mean his track record (or his pants) is clean.

Bush's insistence on the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction led to an on-going Iraqi war that neither country wanted and which has resulted in the deaths of thousands on both sides. And it now appears he lied about the strength of his evidence.

Bush's government claimed to have had no warning about the events of 9/11 and no way to prevent or reduce the level of death and destruction. Later information suggests otherwise.

Four days after the destruction of Hurricane Katrina, Bush stated that there was no way to have predicted the level of devastation that would be left in the Hurricane's wake. Only now we learn that Bush ignored the advice and warnings delivered by high-ranking officials and scientists who foretold of grave disaster if specific measures were not immediately implemented. Perhaps not all 13000 deaths and 23000 missing can be blamed on Bush, but like 9/11, his hands are not clean.

And now Bush and his people imply that the 70% of Americans that doesn't support selling port access to Arabs are racists. Which isn't even an accurate interpretation of their concern: they aren't saying "don't sell port access to Arabs," thy're saying "don't sell port access to Arabs without running a security check first!" The question is, when there IS a terrorist attack at one of those ports, will Bush be around to say, "no one could have predicted that level of destruction"?

First off, if steps aren't taken after a warning is given, you're a lazy idiot. If you're a lazy idiot running a country, then you're a lucky lazy idiot and your country is screwed.

Second, calling protestors "racists" is at best naive, and at worst STUPID. It's not racism; it's Reality. It's learning from our collective experiences and protesting when it looks like we're on a steep sliding-slope back to where we've been before and really don't want to go again. We live in an era where we don't pick up hitch-hikers, we don't invite complete strangers to babysit our children, and we don't invite the homeless into our homes.

Maybe this is a bad thing. Maybe we should trust our fellow man a little more, but that's how we are living right now, that's the reality, and it doesn't make us prejudice, it makes us afraid. And we have every right to be afraid, 'cause there are some Bad People out there and They Want To Hurt Us. So we help at shelters and soup kitchens, we donate to the Red Cross, and we run police checks and get references before we leave our children with someone with whom we are not intimately familiar. This Just Makes Sense.

And yet Bush didn't even bother running a check on this so-called "terrorist-free" company, didn't even do a basic policy check to see what other Middle Eastern countries they were aligned with or who they were boycotting. He wants to take his alloted 45 days to "educate" Congress, and if they don't "see wisdom" after those 45 days... he'll over-rule them anyways?!?!?

So let's just do a quick comparison of who gets impeached in the States:

Clinton: purported sexual harrassment, one dirty dress, thousands of dead sperm, lying at a Grand Jury hearing.
Verdict: impeachment

Bush II: started a war that results in the death of thousands, ignored warning of imminent terrorist attacks, ignored warning of Hurricane devastation, agreed to sell access to US soil before doing your basic security check that DAYCARE WORKERS GO THROUGH. Did NOT spill unnecessary sperm.
Verdict: has to endure the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the 70% racist countrymen who won't play along.

Poor man. How he must suffer.