Ok, I will be the first. Yes, I raided the kids’ bags last night for snickers, but Leslie did the same for Heath bars.
We have assembled a record of candy collection in our house. (Yes, we decided not to offer the kids the Vatican’s offer of an alternative fun mass). We persisted even in the rain last night to pick the neighborhood clean. Our house had the usual waves of trick-or-treaters: cute toddlers at 7, energetic adolescents at 8, and then the army of barely dressed burned out teenagers at 9 (including one who just showed up with tin foil on his head). That is the problem when you are known as a source of the Cadillacs of Candy: snickers and Peanut Butter cups.
As much as i hate Halloween I have had a terrible craving for Candy Korn for the last four days. I even went food shopping today, but held out. My capacity for self torture is infinite.
Well pardon me, after all, it’s sugar in the mornin’, sugar in the evenin’, sugar at suppertime…sugar time, sugar time, sugartime!
pardon me?
You have a great day….Sugared up kids, full moon sounds like a trip to the zoo is in order.
Oh boy, here I go. 750 sugared-up kids and a full moon.
If I were Lurch, I’d shudder.
I can haz pepto bismol? …
200+ kids; went through 8 bags of candy.
The kids don’t like the Heaths, Milk Duds, Paydays, and Dots, so I get them.
Yum!
lottakatz,
Thanks. The portrait by Aurthur Pan is close–you can see the pocket watch fob: however, the one I remember was from him sitting looking from the viewers left to the right–like the cat. He was also wearing a lighter colored, perhaps brown, vested suit.
Regardless, the Pan portrait captured the essence of what I remember.
No need though, to stop your or others’ photographic research…
or LIFE:
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/53378821.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=4996399091E83186847DAACBE82850CDE7C3DB1D2EA1C136
the one by Aurthur Pan?
http://images.worldgallery.co.uk/i/prints/rw/lg/1/0/Arthur-Pan-Sir-Winston-Churchill-101368.jpg
Mespo 72,
Your are truly a man of letters, intelligence, wit and…okay, I’ll omit ‘complete grace’…and I thank you for your due diligence to help resolve this threads’ contents. However, and without any pretentiousness whatsoever, that is *not* the photo residing in my mind’s eye. It is also not the photo of Churchill seated next to President Roosevelt and Stalin, nor the other photo to which I also linked below.
http://www.fotosearch.com/CRT723/000522cf/
http://www.fotosearch.com/IST534/1651728/
I remember a photo or drawing of Sir Churchill—from my grade school history book—where he is sitting in virtually the same aspect of posture as the cat is posing. The image is still vivid in my mind—no derogatory comments, please—because his gold pocket watch’s fob/chain is hanging from his vest’s watch pocket and laying across his protruding lower abdomen—or thereabouts.
However, I do not think he had that obnoxiously large cigar in his mouth, because as I recall, this was an official portrait, similar to the one to which Napoleon Bonaparte posed.
If some kind soul would find that portrait, that would ease my mind and vindicate my outstanding memory.
I further admit that whenever I saw Sir C. in his top hat, I was immediately reminded of W.C. Fields, especially in poses when both men also had a robust stogie protruding from their mouths.
FFLeo:
“That fat cat photo reminds me of a famous Sir Winston Churchhill photo.”
*****************
We aim to please:
http://toddborger.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/churchill.jpg
And in keeping with the spirit, a very Churchill-like quote:
“No diet will remove all the fat from your body because the brain is entirely fat. Without a brain, you might look good, but all you could do is run for public office.”
–George Bernard Shaw
That fat cat photo reminds me of a famous Sir Winston Churchhill photo.
Something very scary happened last Friday but it wasn’t connected with candy:
“The Obama administration has, yet again, asserted the broadest and most radical version of the “state secrets” privilege — which previously caused so much controversy and turmoil among loyal Democrats (when used by Bush/Cheney) — to attempt to block courts from ruling on the legality of the government’s domestic surveillance activities. Obama did so again this past Friday — just six weeks after the DOJ announced voluntary new internal guidelines which, it insisted, would prevent abuses of the state secrets privilege. Instead — as predicted — the DOJ continues to embrace the very same “state secrets” theories of the Bush administration — which Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically once vehemently condemned — and is doing so in order literally to shield the President from judicial review or accountability when he is accused of breaking the law.”
(from Glenn Greenwald’s column of today)
Ah but nal,
Did the kids have to catch the flying candy. Maybe the Monkeys could help:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SESI19h4wDo&hl=en&fs=1&]
I could have sworn that I read that “Cadillacs of Candy” bit in another post, but I can’t find it now. That time shift has really messed with my mind. 🙂
With the Turley Trebuchet as a trick, it’s little wonder you cleaned up on the treats.
JT:
” … barely dressed burned out teenagers at 9 (including one who just showed up with tin foil on his head).”
*************
Those weren’t teenagers with the tin foil hats. They were birthers!