New Online Articles

I wonder how the ritual of giving gifts originated. It would have been a gradual thing. Perhaps it started when a caveman first gave the apple of his eye a choice piece of dinosaur haunch to win her favor. If he was successful, it would have caught on and spread like crazy. Then those who never got the really choice pieces of lizard would have tried it with whatever they did have. Pretty rocks or feathers maybe. It wouldn’t be long before competition broke out for the favors of the less ugly cavewomen and then obesity would be born from all those extra haunches.

Cavewomen would readily pick up on holding out for better offers. They would keep the prettier nod-edible gifts to flaunt before the other cavewomen, and collecting was born. As things progressed lizard meat would fall out of favor since once they got fat they were no longer the “apple” of anyones eye. Then the keepables like the pretty rocks and feathers would gain popularity and produce the first triumph of the nerds.

Cavenerds would start accumulating the prettier rocks and feathers and use them to barter for things that previously they had no hope of getting. They would trade them to the cavejocks for the choicest cuts of dinosaur and whatever services they may need such as protection from saber-toothed tigers, and boulder moving. The beginnings of commerce.

About the time we started counting time forwards instead of backwards, gift giving reached its most extreme when King Herod, having the hots for his stepdaughter, gave her the head of John the Baptist at a dinner party. Not much was eaten at that party after that. Head giving never again reached that extreme.

Masculinity went into a decline and by the 16th or 17th century the men were no longer giving up their pretty feathers, but started wearing them themselves. They really looked neat with their frilly blouses. The women of this period had to learn the art of gift giving to win the favors of the few men who were still willing to associate with women. With the advent of Joan of Arc women realized they didn’t really need men anyway except for their sperm. The men of that period recognizing the danger She presented to their increasingly effeminate selves, burned poor ‘ol Joan at the stake.

As we come to the 20th century, we find men giving each other gifts such as horse heads, roses, and a kiss on the cheek. None of which bode well for the recipient. Women wore their dresses right up to their nether regions trying to tempt men into propagating the species. They quite literally were giving everything they had. Pretty feathers had long since lost favor and from the 1940s to this day have been replaced with electronics such as mp3 players and cell phones. Today men and women no longer have contact with each other. They go on a date and sit next to each other and “text”. It all makes one wonder; Where are all these people coming from?

James is the owner of,currently 2 websites;
Ghillies and Stuff
Peggys Pretties

As a homage to Family Guy’s Peter Griffin, this article takes a look at five reasons why working in an office environment can has a detrimental affect to employees sanity.

For anyone who has experience of working in an office for prolonged periods of time, many of the issues detailed will seem common. In fact, for those lucky enough to escape the drudgery of such an environment, the excruciating antics seen on The Office can often be just the tip of the iceberg.

1. Office hours. More and more we are seeing companies offering contracts to employees stating working hours as being 9am to 5.30pm. Where has this extra 30 minutes come from? More pressingly, what does it achieve? By that time of the working day, most people have long-since downed tools and are on Facebook anyway.

Does it also mean that karaoke singers around the world are going to have to shoehorn in that extra half hour to the Dolly Parton song? Imagine: “Working nine to half-past five, what a way to make a living”. As if karaoke - and Dolly Parton - weren’t insufferable enough.

2. Charity days. You may be a company director with a lot of responsibility, so why not act like it. No amount of prancing around the office acting ‘wacky’ or dressed in a ‘crazy’ outfit in the name of charity will make you any more endearing to the company minions earning in a year what you make in a week. And for the rest of you: just have some pride and self-respect. Do you really think that a starving child in Africa will be pleased that you’re having a bath in baked beans to raise a few quid? Perhaps instead of spending GBP50 on tinned food you could’ve had some dignity and appealed to people’s charitable nature. It’s not big and it’s not clever. You’re just an idiot.

3. Office parties. Now, everyone has colleagues they like and don’t like. Those you like you choose to socialise with. Those you don’t like, you don’t. It’s that simple. So why when we go to office parties do we always end up getting stuck with those we categorically dislike. As if nearly 40 hours a week with these people isn’t enough, you expect us to do it in our own time and (invariable) at our own cost!

4. Cliques. In the north corner we can see the emos. In the south, the chavs. On the east side there’s the jocks, and on the west the geeks. No it’s not a school playground, but something very similar. Despite the workplace being somewhere for fully-grown adults, the office canteen can be divided into particularly groups; the most significant being the haves and the have-nots. Being in the right clique at the right time can see you progress your career either deservedly or not. But if your face doesn’t fit in that group? Forget the pay rise.

5. Inane conversation. A long time ago I was given a piece of advice that I wish many others had received: if you don’t have anything useful to say, don’t say anything. But no. Most people just seem to like the sound of their own voice and will talk at you - not to you - about the most banal, life-sapping subjects. Oh, you saw Big Brother last night? Good for you. You’ve not taken anything out to defrost for tonight’s dinner? That’s your problem. You don’t know whether to go out at the weekend or not? Why are you asking me! Stop boring people with inane chatter. Just because you like the sound of your own voice, no-one else does.

Max Clarke is a copywriter for holiday services company, Holiday Extras, currently writing about Gatwick airport parking, Manchester airport hotels and Heathrow airport parking.

There are a scant few celebrities who can say they have enjoyed constant fame since the mid-sixties. Even fewer can make this claim and say they have had no negative press in the 40 years they have been on television.

Despite what tabloids would have you believe, there is a group of characters who have constantly appeared on television since the 1960s, never once come close to a scandal, never aged and most surprising of all, are made of felt.

The Muppets are somewhat of a television institution, a part of many of our childhoods. Perhaps the most impressive thing about the excitable, fuzzy little puppets is the fact they continue to entertain us well into adulthood. Films like Muppets Treasure Island were equally popular among children and adults.

Reviews spoke about Miss Piggy and Kermit the frog as if they were real, living actors. USA Today praised the movie, saying; “Leave it to Miss Piggy and Kermit to discover uncharted gold in the shipwrecked-pirate genre”. This is the power of Jim Henson’s Muppets, they can make us forget that they are made of felt, ping pong balls and rods, but why? Where did the world’s most beloved puppets come from and what distinguishes a muppet from a puppet?

The muppets took their first tentative steps into the world of television in the mid-50s. Their now legendary creator, Jim Henson, was still studying at the University of Maryland at the time. Although he had made puppets for Saturday morning television in high school, Henson was unaware of the monumental popularity his creations were to enjoy in just a few short years.

The muppet phenomenon began to take shape in 1955 on the Sam and Friends Show, it was there that Kermit the frog first appeared. He was not yet officially a frog, more of a nondescript lizard-like muppet. He lacked his distinctive neck frill so the join between body and head was still visible and his voice was not quite that of the polished Kermit of The Muppet Show. He was made from a green coat discarded by Henson’s mother, with old ping pong balls for eyes.

Kermit came to be the template for the muppets, large eyes, a wide mouth and arms controlled by rods rather than strings. Unlike other puppets, usually made of wood, Henson made his muppets from foam rubber and soft materials, allowing for a greater range of realistic movement and emotion.

As the concept developed it became clear that a muppet can be almost anything. They have been human, animals, anthropomorphised animals (such as Miss Piggy and Kermit), robots, aliens and anything in-between. This multi-species cast transcended gender, race and religion and clearly showed Henson’s values of friendship and cultural harmony.

It is not only the physical design of the muppets that characterises them. Henson pioneered the use of the camera frame as a sort of stage. He ensured his “muppeteers” were out of sight by simply holding the muppets above their heads and filming the suspended muppets from the “waist” up. Human guests would stand on platforms or muppeteers would work from pits similar to those used by orchestras to ensure the illusion was not broken.

Maintaining the illusion that the muppets are alive is a massive part of why they became so popular, Henson investigated all relevant new technologies to keep this illusion going. Remote control, partially motorised muppets and some degree of CGI animation is now used to allow the muppets to do things impossible for normal puppets such as riding bicycles and dancing with no visible muppeteer.

Despite the popularity of modern muppets life was not always easy for Henson and his beloved pals. Throughout the 1960s the muppets mainly appeared as guests on talk shows, doing the occasional skit for variety shows and on adverts. They were made and operated by Henson and his wife, Jane, until the birth of Henson’s first child, after which Jane quit muppeteering to look after the new baby.

This was the point when Henson hired Frank Oz, the men developed a close friendship and a distinctive double-act. Their partnership came to shape the muppets, the characters of Bert and Ernie show the pair’s well developed performing partnership at its best.

In 1969 Henson began work on Seasame Street, this was to be one of the muppet’s greatest successes. After a shaky start the show went on to receive 109 Emmy Awards and is currently one of the longest running programmes in television history.

The runaway success of Seasame Street gave Henson the credibility to try groundbreaking new formats. He was keen to attempt a weekly television show aimed at the entire family rather than exclusively children. American television rejected the idea, they did not see the muppets as characters for adults.

Eventually Henson secured financing in the UK. The muppets creative team was moved to England and filming for The Muppet Show began. The show was family friendly but featured a satirical sense of humour that was designed to appeal to the parents of the children watching, an element which would become common in Henson’s work, notably Dinosaurs and Fraggle Rock.

A combination of talented muppeteers, well designed muppets, non-offensive family friendly scripts and loveable characters created the global phenomenon that is the muppets. This wild popularity combined with the show’s illusion that the muppets were alive led to them being treated as such.

Kermit the frog interviewed massive stars on The Muppet Show between 1976 and 1981 including: Diana Ross, Christopher Reeve, Johnny Cash, Elton John, John Cleese and Alice Cooper. Slowly The Muppet Show began to be taken seriously, as the show progressed it became the most desirable programme for celebrities to appear on. Kermit the frog was the Parkinson of the late 70s.

It was after the international success of The Muppet Show that Kermit and friends began to be treated as individuals rather than characters. Miss Piggy’s book went to number one on the New York best-sellers list, Kermit became the first and only frog to address the Oxford Union and the characters became celebrities in their own right. Kermit the frog even has a Hollywood star.

At the height of muppet-mania disaster struck, soon after the completion of Jim Henson’s Muppet Vision 3D Henson fell ill. On May 4th he commented he felt under the weather, 12 days later the father of the muppets was dead. Henson died from toxic shock syndrome brought on by a severe infection similar to pneumonia.

Two memorials were held for Henson, one in the US and one in the UK. Nobody wore black at either service and Big Bird sung Kermit the frog’s signature song “Its not easy being green”. Everyone waved a muppet butterfly as the surreal but deeply moving service progressed.

So just why do the muppets capture our imaginations so? It is perhaps the message of tolerance, love and friendship Henson wove deeply into every character. It could have been his tireless devotion to his art, to maintaining the illusion that the felt and foam characters he created were real. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact Henson’s puppets got to interview and were interviewed by the biggest names of the day.

Maybe their enviable film and television careers. Whatever the reason, the muppets have enjoyed a 40 year media career and they are showing no signs of slowing down.

A new muppet movie is on the way and The Jim Henson Company (now run by Henson’s children) has promised two new films based on Henson’s work, Fraggle Rock and The Dark Crystal. These new films will continue Jim Henson’s legacy, characters that bring families together and extoll the virtues of love and friendship, two things the world can never have too much of.

Samantha is an expert Research and Theatre consultant. She is currently writing for Show and Stay and is very excited about the upcoming West End revival of Oliver!

When the news broke late last week that North Pole Incorporated, (NYSE: NPLI) was filing suit against most of the world’s gas fireplace manufacturers, the shock was palpable. With Christmas just around the corner, this debate about fireplaces has taken the world by storm.

During a press conference, Lester Elfberg, Chief Legal Counsel for North Pole laid out his company’s grievance. “We at North Pole take Christmas very seriously, for obvious reasons. For centuries our company has had a mutually beneficial agreement, with the manufacturers of fireplaces, known as the Claus Accord. The current trends towards gas fireplaces that depend on either direct-vent or ventless systems are in obvious breach of this agreement. North Pole wishes to make it clear, we are not suing to prevent people from buying these fireplaces, rather we are suing for a safe alternative. This is about North Pole’s relationships with our customers and the health of our beloved CEO.”

The suit itself includes allegations of discrimination, breach of contract, and unsafe working conditions. The crux of the case hinges on whether or not North Pole’s celebrity CEO, Santa Claus, is able to make use of gas fireplaces during the company’s annual holiday celebration. A member of one of the manufacturing companies, speaking on a condition of anonymity due to the pending trial, had this to say, “We all take Santa’s safety very seriously. But let’s face facts; this is North Pole trying to tell us how to do our jobs. The man in red has no problem getting into apartments without fireplaces.”

A commercial, traced to the public action group People for Affordable Fireplaces, titled “Scrooge” paints a rather unflattering picture of Santa. The commercial, which a majority of fireplace manufacturers have come out against, alleges that Santa is seeking to profit from the increased sale of affordable gas fireplaces by forcing chimneys, driving a wedge between those who can afford a fireplace, and those who must go without. As the commercial states “Just because you can’t afford a chimney, doesn’t mean you can’t afford a fireplace. Don’t let Santa be a fireplace Scrooge.”

Pro-Santa supporters have been reacting to both the suit and the commercial with unwavering support for the man with the trademark laugh. “Look, Christmas is hard work. Santa has to fly all over the world and deliver presents. He’s got to juggle a huge list of who’s been good and who hasn’t, and all he asks for in return is for houses to have a chimney a certain width! What’s so wrong with that?” asked mall Santa, and pro-Santa pundit Jeffery Kerns of the NorthPoleOhio website.

The argument is quickly spreading, occupying the television, the internet, and the editorial sections of newspapers across the country. Several malls in America have had protestors removed for causing a scene. Fake fireplaces, complete with chimneys, are looking like they might become this year’s hottest lawn decoration. But, there is one noted area of silence - Santa himself. Notorious for his privacy, Mr. Claus has let his legal counsel handle all of the public relations regarding the case. With him not talking, it seems like the world will have to wait until this case sees trial before we learn the truth - are gas fireplaces a danger for Santa?

With looming fears over the current and future states of Christmas, over the safety of perhaps the world’s most beloved man, it’s easy to lose perspective. While collecting quotes for this story, I stopped a six year old girl named Jenny, to ask her if she was worried. Her answer was a simple no. When I asked her why she felt that way, she responded with perhaps the most profound statement a person could utter regarding this very complex and heated argument, “Because I’ve been good.”

In this, the age where it’s Pro-Chimney versus Pro-Affordability, Tradition versus Technology, it’s easy to lose sight of what really matters. To Santa, according to one very wise six year old, it’s not what kind of fire place you have that should matter, but rather whether you’ve been good. So be good for goodness’ sake.

This humorous article provided by Agee Woodworks, makers of Santa-approved fireplace mantels. Agee Woodworks is a family owned and operated business specializing in handcrafted fireplace mantels, mantel shelves, surrounds and cabinets.

The APB goes out and multiple New Jersey SWAT teams are called in to handle a robber in Somerset County. The problem is that the suspect, a woman, about five feet tall, was made out of cardboard. Police at first claimed they had no idea what set off the alarm at the bank which the cardboard figure was attempting to rob. A Montgomery Township Police officer informed NBC Los Angeles that alarms are often set off by animals, serious weather conditions, and perhaps the occasional wayward balloon, though none of these things were found on the scene at the New Jersey bank. Oddly enough this false alarm triggered, multiple alarm resources.

Resources say that on Thursday, Thanksgiving evening, the alarm was triggered at around 7:40 p.m. Officers arrived on the scene, and investigated the building’s exterior. They saw what they thought was at least one person. They were only able to witness this person through the drawn blinds on the bank windows, through which they could see her on a closed-circuit video monitor, which was cycling through interior security views of the bank. The cardboard cutout would not respond to any of the officers’ verbal commands. They had no choice but to call for backup. The senior officer on duty, a patrol officer, called for Somerset County’s Emergency Response Team to take further action on the cardboard robber.

The area around the PNC Bank in Montgomery Township was sealed off, and three apartment buildings nearby were evacuated as a precaution because of the dangerous “cardboard cutout.” More police resources were called in from Hopewell Township, Princeton Township, and Hillsborough to provide traffic control, as well as support for other calls. Resources claim the Emergency Response Team was ready to go within about forty-five minutes of the call.

The officers used bullhorns and speakers for about forty-five minutes to try to make contact with the cardboard cutout, but in vain. Attempts at telephoning the cardboard cutout were also ignored, and the police were baffled. Tense negotiations went on for over three hours, according to NJ dot com.

When the cardboard figure failed to respond, a resource of SWAT team members from three different New Jersey towns was called in to get to the bottom of things. They entered the building through the back, and entered a room that was not visible to the front windows. There they discovered the bank robber was a mere cardboard woman, who had most likely been a bank promotion in a previous life.

Of course, police officers kept reiterating they’d in fact made the right calls in this situation. It is now know that an ATM repairmen, who’d been at the site earlier in the day, had accidentally triggered the alarm. The ATM alarm resources indicated that break-ins were going on in multiple bank areas. The police did not give media outlets a monetary figure for their cardboard adventure, but did say that time served will be paid by the officers’ respective department resources. (SWAT costs are paid for by New Jersey counties.)

Since the ordeal, the cardboard robber has been removed from the premises, permanently.

James Farkenfur writes about what’s important for homeowners for Paramus New Jersey Water Damage Restoration and Paramus New Jersey Flood Damage Cleanup

Fans of hit animation Family Guy will be familiar with Peter’s news-time regular ‘You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?’

Inspired by this hilarious diatribe on pet hates, and with the festive season well and truly upon us, I felt it necessary to share details of what really grinds my gears about Christmas. Don’t get me wrong, Christmas as a whole is my favourite time of year. However, there are still a number of issues that ruin the holiday season.

1. Christmas specials. Year in year out, we are ‘treated’ by television executives to a Yuletide edition of a network favourite. Unfortunately, many of these network ‘favourites’ are nothing of the sort. If I had the option of gouging out my own eyes or watching an episode of ‘My Family’ or ‘Not Going Out’, I would be embedding my fingers into my eye sockets quicker than Santa can wolf down a mince pie.

These shows are pitiful attempts at comedy that are only worsened by putting a festive slant on the dross that is the storyline. And don’t even get me started on the reruns of so-called classics such as Morecombe and Wise. They’re dead. The ‘funnier’ one has been for ages. Comedy has moved on and no-one is laughing anymore.

2. Shopping. The actual act of Christmas shopping is not necessarily bad. In fact, I love scouting around town looking for the perfect - or amusing - gift to hand out on Christmas Day. It’s the fact you’re surrounding by people that ruins the experience. Push-chairs overloaded with gifts, men trudging around with arms stretched by hundreds of bags. Nobody is having fun. Just buy everything online.

3. ‘Sob’ stories. Of course, this is not aimed at those who truly face adversity and experience an unhappy Christmas. Instead, it is those pikey families who look for a freebie from the good natured people of the land. What’s that? Someone’s stolen all your presents but nothing else from the home? Instead of taking items they could see had value, they thought they’d add a bit of mystery to the theft and simply steal items that have been wrapped up and as such are an unknown quantity? Yes, we’ll get the whole police force onto that case right away. We’ll start by looking in your loft if that’s ok?

4. Visiting people. I understand that Christmas is a time for family and people want to see their loved ones throughout the course of the day. But how come I’m always the one driving all around the houses? Why is it that nobody ever appears to come to see us at our house? I’ll tell you. It’s because they’re only interested in receiving their gifts. If you give them a rubbish gift, it’s not so bad as they’ve not had to do anything. If it’s a good gift, all the better. Basically, they don’t want to run the risk of getting a rubbish gift and spending money on petrol. For shame, Britain, for shame.

5. Rubbish gifts. And speaking of rubbish gifts, people who give pointless ornaments, candles and other such ‘trinkets’ should just not bother. Homes up and down the land are becoming an eyesore as shelf space is being littered with kitsch junk. I urge anyone who receives any such item to throw it straight in the bin, preferably in front of the person who gave it to you. It’s the only way they’ll learn.

Max Clarke is a copywriter for holiday services company, Holiday Extras, currently writing about Gatwick airport parking, Manchester airport hotels and Heathrow airport parking.

It is estimated that over 90% of Illinois residents use their seatbelts. This has been the case for the last two years. Yet, apparently 90% isn’t good enough for Governor Rod R. Blagojevich. For some reason, he feels that the state needs 100% compliance with the laws requiring people to use seatbelts. He wants to use his resources to make sure that during the 2008 holiday season everyone wears a seatbelt. Many would argue this is their own decision. Why should they be required to wear a seatbelt? They aren’t hurting anyone else if they get in a wreck, aren’t wearing a seatbelt, and die. They have the resources to make an informed decision about whether or not to wear a seatbelt.

Governor Blagojevich’s dedication to seatbelt use is not a new thing, though. Since he signed the primary safety belt law in 2003, seatbelt compliance has gone up 14.3% from 76.2% in 2003 to 90.5% in 2008. During that same time, highway fatalities have gone down more than 200 a year. Apparently the governor feels that there’s a correlation between seatbelt use and highway fatalities going down.

Governor Blagojevich has been so bold as to use resources such as NASCAR drivers to encourage Illinois drivers to buckle-up. These NASCAR drivers actually tell people that they should buckle-up each and every time the person gets behind the wheel. Why do they think they know anything about driving safety? Aren’t those the guys speeding around a racetrack at unbelievably fast speeds? Sure, they need seatbelts to do that, but someone going a hundred miles slower than that shouldn’t need a seatbelt to drive safely.

For Illinois’ “Click It or Ticket” program, resources will be focusing upon both daytime and nighttime drivers. Just because almost half of all fatal accidents happen at night and because seatbelt usage goes down roughly 10% at night, Governor Blagojevich feels at least 25% of enforcement resources for “Click It or Ticket” should focus upon night driving. It’s just not fair. People might have thought they could drive at night without having to worry about the police forcing them to wear a seatbelt.

Some may feel “Click It or Ticket” is a nuisance more than it’s a resource to actually get people wearing seatbelts in Illinois. People will know about the program going on, and to avoid a ticket, the people will buckle-up during the program or buckle-up when they notice a policeman around, but that doesn’t mean that the people will continue to buckle-up after “Click It or Ticket” is over or even when there aren’t any policemen around. Others will feel that once you establish the habits, and give the people the resources to understand the importance of using a seatbelt, and people will keep using their seatbelts. If for no other reason, they’ll continue to use their seatbelts out of habit.

Yet, in the end, shouldn’t everyone be able to decide on their own if they want to wear a seatbelt? Why must other people force someone to wear a seatbelt? Sure, it’s there to save lives, but it’s about saving the life of the person wearing or not wearing the seatbelt. What’s next? Forcing everyone to only eat healthy food and to stop smoking?

Samson Paulotti shares How-To tips and other information for Illinois Restoration and Cleaning & Restoration Information

If you’ve ever experienced both the Northern California and Southern California way of life, you understand that they are very different ways of life. In general, what’s important to someone living in Northern California is something completely different from what’s important to an individual in Southern California. Other than the Sacramento and San Francisco areas, much of Northern California can be pretty small town. The two ends of the state are like two very different states.

What can be done to the restoration of a separated California? Many small towns in Northern California want conservative values. Think Sarah Palin shooting wolves out of her plane. I’m going to bet some of those people in Northern California living close to the wildlife are wishing they could do that in their state. Yet, those in Southern California are horrified that someone would even consider killing a wild animal. Those from Southern California have never heard their dogs yelping at night when a wild cougar attacked the family pet or found bear tracks leading up to their trashcan. It’s really like two different worlds, not even two different states. Can restoration of ideals and a sameness of heart really take place between these two different worlds?

One thing that would need to take place to unite the state is a restoration in the Northern Californians’ belief that their vote really does count. Sure, they probably played a pretty large part in making sure Prop 8 passed, but their presidential vote rarely seems to matter in their state’s election of the president. If before an election you drive through a typical Northern California community, chances are that at least a majority of the signs in the yards are for the Republican candidate. Yet, when was the last time a Republican candidate won the California nomination for the president? Restoration of a California united? Not looking too promising right now.

Even when looking at California not on a Northern California versus Southern California perspective, restoration and uniting of the state does not look promising in the near future. One of the biggest political decisions in recent history for Californians was Prop 8. Many saw this is a restoration of core values to the state. They saw it as coming back to the original definition of marriage. When Prop 8 passed, making only marriage between man and a woman and not between two men or two women legal, did those who opposed this measure just sit back and accept the decision of their fellow citizens? Nope, instead of a restoration of order and unity, it looks like there’s even more a division among Californians. There are those who voted for the Prop 8, and there are those who voted against it.

Prop 8 opponents are not happy with the decision of others in their state. Although they have now been able to unite with those living in the opposite side of the state, the division is now somewhere else. There is always a division in the state, whether it’s about animal rights, human rights, gay rights, or any other rights, will California ever be completely united concerning a cause? Will it ever be all about California and not about Northern California versus Southern California or Prop 8 supporters versus Prop 8 opponents?

Samson Paulotti reports on issues affecting homeowners for The Restoration Resource California and Restoration Industry Resources

Drunk Busters is a New Mexico resource which allows citizens to report drunken drivers by dialing #394 on their cell phones. The operator on the other end asks for information, such as the drunk driver’s location, and the color, make and model of the car the alleged drunk is driving.

On November 23rd, a couple of calls to the organization reported that an extremely drunken driver was weaving down the highway. The first resource behind these calls reported that the drunk was driving in the median, and also that the driver came close to hitting a highway guardrail. The picture the first caller painted was one of a man weaving from one side of the road, all the way to the other. The second caller related much the same news: that the drunk driver looked as if he were going to “smack” another vehicle.
These resources initiated a police chase of the suspect, who did not stop for the police, but rather kept swerving across all lanes of traffic, and on and off the road. Resources report that the chase began on State Road 16, off of Interstate 25 toward Cochiti Lake. When a New Mexico state police officer finally caught up with the drunk, the resource of the officer’s dashboard camera showed what the callers had reported in real time. The dashboard camera resource clearly witnessed the drunk (later identified as Roy T. Auilar, a twenty-one-year-old from the pueblo of Santo Domingo) weaving around the road, close to guardrails, and in front of oncoming traffic. The oncoming car left the road to avoid the drunk, who then drunkenly slid his car back across the lane, and almost right into another car. The drunk then left the road, uprooted a fence, and kept on driving across the open range.

When the drunk finally decided to call it quits, he attempted to put the car in park and get out of it. Instead, he put the car in reverse and stepped out of it. The car’s left front wheel then careened over both of the drunk’s legs. Police quickly called in the paramedics, and the drunk was taken to the hospital. However, he did not go quietly - it took a resource of six officers to get the drunk out of the ambulance, since he was combative to the point of excess. He had to be restrained during his entire stay at the hospital.

The drunk, Aguilar, was charged with aggravated DWI, and inside of his vehicle a near-empty bottle of vodka was discovered. Apparently, the drunk had had no idea where he was when he was still on the road. Police resources say the suspect thought he’d turned off on the Santo Domingo exit, though that exit was eight miles ahead of where he’d actually pulled off. The drunk is now residing in jail with minor injuries, awaiting the results of his blood sample, which was taken to check for alcohol.

Beth Olignerf reports on issues affecting homeowners for Albuquerque New Mexico Water Damage Restoration and Albaquerque New Mexico Flood Damage Cleanup

Kate’s jacket was torn into bits and pieces. It all happened within a couple seconds. However before I will tell you about…

…The disasters at home.

Brian, who isn’t Brian Adams loves to whistle and he calls that singing. His room is like an old farm with plenty of trees. Trees have nests but the birds came from Mars or some other planet. The still whistle but it’s more like a referee whistle.

That’s why his neighbor Kate, wanted to grab him from his throat and place him inside a cage. That was a bit impossible but she wanted a revenge.

Luckily she figured out a way to get rid of Brian songs and his disastrous melodies. She saw an advert on the newspaper to adopt a cat. Within a day Kate’s new cat, which was not familiar with people got also used to Brains bird-like whistles.

Monday morning, revenge was to begin. As soon as Brian heard the bell ringing there was Kate and her new cat. She didn’t bother give her a name. The cat’s job was to do a revenge only.

Her cat ran inside his house, running like road runner. No one bothered say anything until suddenly the cat vanished and there was not a sound anymore.

Both Kate and Brian went to take a look. The cat’s mouth was larger than normal. Oh no, where’s my hero … (Apparently Brian also adopted a pet. Guess what pet he adopted!) A BIRD.

Poor Brian, he was doing singing lessons with his bird. In fact the cat was lying down on the musical pieces. (maybe she wanted to vomit the bird - I don’t know) The cat lunch was not corn flakes or some cat food - quite different.

You see, your stupid cat, Brian told Kate whilst looking at the cat. Kate replied: the bird was anyways sick of your songs or whistles. Why bother?

The cat was still hungry though. She didn’t felt right. Her stomach wasn’t used to birds or feathers. Brian was desperately tired, his songs where damaged. His bird was gone.

Man think fast.

Brian wanted to eat the cat at all costs. (yes, he is stupid). The cat preferred to sit down and relax. Brian made a decision to eat the cat or try to bite her. Well, the cat quickly jumped and a 1500meters race began all over the house.

The cat wanted shelter so badly that she jumped on Kate and they fell on the ground. What a mess… Both Kate and the cat ran quickly outside of his house.

Very strange ending. This shows proof that sometimes man act like animals and vice versa. Kate was so please with her cat. Indeed the cat become her best friend after that HUG inside Brian’s house.

They went for a competition for the best cat and won a sum of money. Next they changed house and they lived happily ever after. Brian was going to end in a zoo cause people phoned rescue cause they taught there was sick birds in the house.

Click here for more funny videos, images, jokes, cartoons and more on Karl’s blog. Bookmark his funny blog now!