Monday, June 15, 2009
The Lanigan Safe Grad story has blown into a huge media storm of mass proportion.All kinds of media including this blog,Saskboys Abandoned Stuff,a CBC television report, major Canadian newspapers,international media and talk radio from coast to coast are discussing the concept and legality of "Safe Grad". As Jim Lahey may say, " it's a shit storm , with shit ropes and shit hawks riding the shit wind".
The residents of Lanigan are peeved that their decision to host a binge party for beginners is being singled out and have protested in droves.Safe Grad proponents are convinced that supervised drinking by responsible adults is the only way to protect "kids"from the consequences of binge drinking.
The nomination for "Bad Parents" of the year is unjustified.
Let's set aside the usual arguments surrounding the issue and examine Safe Grad's from a new perspective specifically risk,liability and responsibility.
As a parent, can I be criminally charged for permitting my child to drink alcohol outside of my home ?
The law can be interpreted in many ways,case law sets the precedent for legal decisions.The law clearly states it's illegal to purchase alcohol for minors or serve a child who is not yours' alcohol, .
Maybe the Safe Grad will be incident free but the next enabled party could find you being charged.I'm sure a large order of alcohol from the local beer or liquor store could be tracked to the party property one way or another.Your fellow PTA'ers may be all gangsta wit you until the police are interviewing your homey friends about "who supplied the juice.
Could your signature on the permission form create the piece of evidence which convicts you of child abuse if your child or another teen partier is harmed because of your "negligence".
I would be mortified to serve alcohol to my teen and her friends and watch them get stupid.
Who is going to pretend that the lil darlings are going to have one or two glasses of chardonnay and discuss politics,religion and the Stanley Cup playoffs.
What's the entire point of the party? PARTY !
What eighteen year old wants their parent at a party,handing out drinks and watching your best friend blow chunks of Junior Mints and Lemon Gin and Wink ?
Who in their right mind would want to chaperon ?
See above Youtube video and assess your tolerance.
School Board Liability
It has come to my attention that a certain "Safe Grad" committee has held meetings on school property .The Safe Grad Committee distributed permission forms which include an alcoholic drink order form.Despite lipservice to a "division policy",
it seems that school administration may be negligent enforcing this policy.
RCMP are refusing to intervene in this event and choosing to take a "don't ask,don't tell attitude".
It's not legal to serve alcohol to minors, unless you as the parent is serving the booze.
I'm not sure that permission forms cut it.While we're at it,since when can you sell alcohol to minors ? Is " contribution to a delinquency of a minor" a factor
The RCMP is adamant that no federal,provincial or municipal laws are being broken,I guess they interpret the law a bit differently out west than in other parts of the country. I'm hoping that no one at this event will be charged with a DUI and am sure that there will be a couple of cruisers parked at the boundary of the event.
No one will get hurt or die in a motor vehicle accident from driving to or from the party on the night of the Lanigan Safe Grad.
This night will be an exception until the day when your underage teen decides to drink without you.
Stats prove that a teen has a higher probability of developing into an alcoholic if parents permit or enable underage drinking.This defeats the myth that children of teetotallers or MADD advocates are more likely to engage in binge drinking.
Lets be real.
Enabling and supervising your child drinking underage hasn't worked.
Saskatchewan has the highest proportion of adolescent
drivers (age 16 to 19) who are fatally injured and
have BACs (blood alcohol contents) above the legal
limit. That comes out to 29 per cent of Canada’s total
If parental supervision of such events teach our teens to drink moderately and safely ,the above stats would read differently.
In any action, a wise person assesses the risk before taking any action.
Even if you win a civil or criminal action, can you afford the legal fee?
MADD produced a position paper entitled ,Alcohol,Teens and Catastrophe, What Every Parent Needs to Know About Avoiding Alcohol Liability.
R Solomons legal opinion scared me off of providing my home as a party house.
The article states,
" What will get me sued ?
• As a Provider of Alcohol: The law does not prevent you from
being a gracious host, and no one has ever been held liable for serving
Your potential liability as an alcohol provider begins when you serve,
give or make alcohol available to intoxicated individuals in circumstances
in which they pose a risk of harm to themselves or others. For
example, you may be held liable for serving alcohol to an obviously
intoxicated guest who you know is planning to drive. Individuals will
be considered intoxicated well before they become incoherent or completely
unable to take care of themselves. The courts will focus on
whether the individual displayed obvious signs of intoxication, such as
slurred speech, boisterous conduct or a lack of physical coordination.
As a provider, you may be held liable if your intoxicated guests
injure themselves or others on your property, on their way home and,
perhaps even until they regain sobriety at home. These
general principles will be applied more strictly in the case of
• As an Occupier: Even if you do not provide any alcohol, you may
be liable for alcohol-related injuries that occur on your property. The
term ‘occupier’ includes anyone in control of property who has the
power to admit or exclude entrants. For example, you would be considered
an occupier when hosting a party in your home, running a social at
your service club, or renting a hall for your daughter’s wedding.
Occupiers are not responsible for every injury that occurs on their
property. Rather, they can only be held liable if they are
negligent in maintaining the physical condition of the property, supervising
the conduct of their guests or controlling the activities on the
The liability issue is often framed in terms of whether the
occupier took reasonable steps to prevent harm in the specific
• Expanding Liability: The scope of alcohol liability continues to
evolve and expand. For example, organizers of potentially
dangerous activities must take whatever measures are reasonably necessary
to prevent intoxicated individuals from participating. Employers
have been held liable for negligently failing to prevent alcohol-related
workplace injuries, and for alcohol-related injuries arising from negligently-
planned, managed or supervised company parties or other social
events. Parents, coaches, counsellors, police, and others in positions of
authority appear to have a broad duty to protect young people who are
or may be intoxicated.
1 Do not serve, provide or make alcohol
available to any person who is, or may be,
under the legal drinking age. Not only is
the conduct illegal (with few exceptions),
it will also adversely colour the courts’
perception of your conduct.
2 Do not permit drinking to be the focus of
the party or event. Do not permit drinking
competitions or other practices that
Liability for Activities on the Premises
Stringer v. Ashley
Stringer broke his neck diving from the Ashleys’ second-storey bedroom window
into their shallow swimming pool. He and several other guests had dived or
jumped into the pool between 10 and 22 times without incident. Mrs. Ashley had
warned Stringer, who had at least six drinks at the party, not to dive. However, the
jury held that it was not sufficient to simply warn Stringer, who was obviously
very intoxicated. According to the jury, Mrs. Ashley should have told Stringer to
leave, stopped the party or called for help to dissuade Stringer. Mr. Ashley was
held liable for failing to assist his wife. He should have asked Stringer to leave,
locked the bedroom door or otherwise prevented further diving. Although Stringer
was largely responsible for his own misfortune, the Ashleys were found 40% at
fault for Stringer’s $5,000,000 in damages and thus were held liable for
In the preceding cases, the specific danger was readily apparent to the occupier
during the event. However, occupiers may also have some responsibility for simply
allowing events to be held on their property that have, in the past, been associated
with violent, dangerous or irresponsible conduct. Indeed, this reasoning may
have prompted a $700,000 settlement in a case that arose from a “bush party”
hosted by the defendant’s son on the defendant’s farm. Bush parties commonly
involve underage drinking, severe intoxication, assaults, illicit drug use, and
impaired driving. The plaintiff in this case was left a quadriplegic following a
fight that he had initiated at the event while intoxicated. Apparently, previous
bush parties on the farm had also resulted in numerous problems. No formal invitations had been issued to the 300 youths who attended, nor did the defendant or
his son provide any alcohol. The plaintiff sued the defendant as an occupier for
merely allowing an event to be held on his property that he knew or ought to have
known posed foreseeable risks of injury to those attending.
(ii) Liability for the Conduct of the Entrants
McGinty v. Cook
A conservation authority was held liable for over $210,000 after the McGinty
family was assaulted by intoxicated youths. Although the park was advertised as a
quiet family campground, the staff largely ignored the McGintys’ complaints
about the youths’ noisy party. Later that evening, Paul McGinty was attacked
when he responded to cries for help from the party. The intoxicated youths then
viciously assaulted Gregory McGinty. The conservation authority was held liable
as an occupier for negligently failing to control the assailants’ conduct. Despite
previous incidents with the group that summer and a violent confrontation earlier
that evening, the staff did not eject the assailants or take any other steps to protect
the other campers. The court stated that, at a minimum, the police should have
been called earlier in the evening and the quiet time should have been strictly
i) Liability for the Condition of the Premises
Chretien v. Jensen
The Jensens lived on an island connected to the mainland by a bridge that they
had responsibility for building, maintaining and repairing. The bridge, which was
about 20 feet above the river bed, had a low guardrail made of logs, but no
handrails or lights. As they had often done, the Jensens allowed their adult children
to host a party for their friends, who brought and consumed their own alcohol.
As in the past, the bridge was the gathering place for much of the socializing.
Late in the evening, the plaintiff, who was very intoxicated, fell from the bridge
onto a raft moored below and was rendered a paraplegic. The court held that the
Jensens breached their standard of care as occupiers, because the bridge was
unsafe for such alcohol-related gatherings. In particular, the court was critical of
the low guardrail and lack of handrails. Since the plaintiff was 40% contributorily
negligent, the Jensens were held liable for 60% of the plaintiff’s losses.
Private hosts and providers should assume that they may be
held liable for giving, serving or making alcohol available to a person who they
know or ought to know is intoxicated, particularly if there is reason to believe that
he or she may be driving. Moreover, the courts will likely apply more stringent
principles of liability in cases involving underaged drinkers.
Some courts have equated the
term “intoxication” with a blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) of
0.08% – the level at which it
becomes a federal criminal offence to
drive. Nevertheless, the successful
claims have typically involved
drinkers whose BACs were double or
more this level. It is reasonable to
assume, however, that the courts will
adopt a lower BAC threshold for
underaged, inexperienced or otherwise
Parents would not be held liable for the injuries
caused by an 18-year-old who was no longer living at home
unless they somehow facilitated, encouraged or participated
in the conduct causing the harm. Similar principles
apply to teachers, coaches, counsellors and others
who work with children and young adults.
( read the organizers of the event, parents signing permission forms allowing their child to purchase alcohol from another parent,school board for allowing event planning to take place on school property or forms to be distributed at the school)
There are two major types of alcohol-related claims. First, you may be held
liable for providing alcohol to intoxicated individuals who then injure themselves
or others. Second, even if you provide no alcohol, you may be held liable as an
occupier for any alcohol-related injuries that occur on your property. While the
courts will be more critical of alcohol-related events involving underaged youth,
this will likely be viewed as only one factor in determining liability."
If your sorry ass is ever charged or sued,expect a hefty bump in your insurance premium,the chance that no insurance company will ever cover you ever again, and the cost of a civil suit which isn't covered by any insurance company. Why take the risk
Is it worth it ?:
Monday, June 8, 2009
No more sneaking beers from your parents fridge or paying lots of dough to get an elusive fake ID in order to buy a case of beer or coolers if you're under the age of nineteen in Lanigan Saskatchewan.
The Star Phoenix reported that parents in Lanigan Saskatchewan are organizing a
"Safe Grad" party in which Lanigan Central high school students who have reached the age of fifteen (Grade Ten) and have a signed consent form from their parents or guardian may attend a party at a private residence to celebrate the end of the school year. The Star Phoenix reports,"The graduates planning to attend the Saturday night drinking party had to submit a form signed by their parents in advance of the party. The graduates had to pre-order and pre-pay for the alcohol they'll drink during the 9 p.m. to 2 a.m. party. Graduates and their guests, who have to be in Grade 10 or higher, will be allowed up to 10 drinks, including beer, vodka, rum and rye".
Is this a story from an alternate universe where parents encourage binge drinking or
a new phenomena of parenting from the generation of people who made "My Super Sweet Sixteen" a hit TV show ?
Why are thirty and forty something adults blatantly breaking the law and enabling their children to drink underage ?
Is this binge drinking culture so entrenched in our rural society that our law enforcement turn a blind eye when it comes to enforcing liquor and control laws regarding minors ?
Safe Grad parties started in the United States in the late 1980's as an initiative to reduce impaired driving accidents and excessive drinking on Grad night.High school committees and parent volunteers create all night parental supervised and school sanctioned dry events focused on celebrating without alcohol.Some school grad committee's hold carnivals,camping trips,dances all of which are alcohol free but are often held before the "real thing" or skipped for the usual pissup at a bush party or at a classmates home.
Even though "Safe Grad" protocol is followed by American and Canadian prom and graduation party organizers,statistics show it hasn't had an effect on underage binge drinking and the resulting havoc.The impact of alcohol in
Saskatchewan, in terms of death,illness and economic costs, adds up
to 508.7 million dollars annually.This is a cost of 503 dollars for each
person in the province. Binge drinking was promoted as a cultural rite of passage through popular 80's movies such as Animal House and Can't Stop The Feeling .Bush parties and underage drinking has been part of the culture of rural Canada for generations and is entrenched in our culture as hockey.
A resident of Estevan,Saskatchewan states," It's definitely a culture of alcohol here, no question of that. If you go to some gathering, the expectation is that there will be alcohol served. If you offered something else to drink, your guests would think you quite strange. When they are told that you don't drink alcohol, people think there must be some health issue that prevents you from doing so, and they feel sorry for you because you can't get hammered like all the normal people.
The thing that really gets me is how proud they are of their drunken silliness. "Oh man, I was so drunk I can't even remember getting arrested. That was such an awesome party!" And everything is a reason for a drink. It's Wing Wednesday. It`s Thirsty Thursday. It`s F*****-Up Friday. It`s Christmas. It`s Canada Day. It`s Remembrance Day".
The parents of today binge drank from time to time so find it difficult to outright ban their children from underage drinking.It's easier to supervise the party and prevent impaired driving than to turn a blind eye to your teens activities or risk your teen defying you.
Saskboy,a popular Saskatchewan author who writes at www.abandonedstuff.com observes," there has been a generational shift to one where the older generations are afraid to punish the younger, perhaps because they know that the younger will rebel at least as hard as they experienced during the 1960s. As more old guard die off, we're on the crux of a sweeping generational change in a lot of norms if my generation starts making laws.Parent sanctioned drinking is the norm in Saskatchewan, but interestingly I think if they caught their kids with marijuana there would be hell to pay. "Safe Grads" are about as dangerous as uncontrolled ones, because you have parents acting as chaperone's for 18 year olds who should know better by that point. It doesn't bode well for those children in their coming years if they can't drink safely without Mommy there with them. Hopefully they are fast learners and don't meet the nose end of a vehicle with an intoxicated driver in charge, or the wrong end of a knife in a drunk fight". He further adds,"Some people opposed to Safe Grads (not to be confused with Dry Grads) may be prohibitionists, but I know prohibition won't work. What might work is a fun dry party that isn't set up as a token to fail. People have fun without alcohol in all sorts of situations, so dry parties shouldn't be set up like booze parties minus the booze. Any recipe missing the main ingredient will be bland, so make a different fun time".
However a Lanigan resident supporting their initiative states,"In my town there were often many grad parties, which would usually get out of control and end up with some kid in the hospital because of drunk driving or alcohol poisoning. So the parents of my town came up with a safe graduation party. The whole point of the safe grad is to make sure that the teens at the party do not exceed their limit and have a safe ride home, as parents volunteer to drive kids back and forth from their homes to the party and to supervise the kids at the party.
There is a form that is given out to students wishing to attend the grad party, this form must be signed by the student's parent. On the form the parents and student decide how much alcohol to buy, which will be given to them drink by drink by parent supervisors at the party. The supervisors cut off the students from alcohol when they think that the said student has drank enough.
Now this is being criticized in the local paper and while I know,and all of the parents and students know, this is supplying alcohol to minors, without a safe, supervised grad though, there would be many accidents. I was at an unsupervised grad party last weekend and there were three car accidents and a rape. These events would have been prevented if the party had been supervised".
Before parents agree to supervise underage drinkers or agree with the line, kids will be kids,we need to be be aware of the danger of binge drinking.
Kirk Sinclair, Author of Know when to draw the line: A guide to lower risk drinking states, " binge drinking is what happens when someone drinks a large amount of alcohol in a short period of time through:
- Binge drinking (having more than 5 drinks during a drinking episode)
- Drinking games
If someone drinks too much too fast, the amount of alcohol in a person's blood - called Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) - rises to a high level really quickly
A BAC of 200-300mg% would likely cause alcohol poisoning
Alcohol poisoning can cause brain damage or death
Someone who blacks out, passes out, or throws up is on her or his way to alcohol poisoning
Here's an example:
If a 110-pound female had 6 drinks in 4 hours, she would have a BAC of 225 mg%. She would be putting herself in danger of getting alcohol poisoning.
What about the "one drink an hour" rule?
This is misleading. Science has shown that the old "one drink an hour" rule is NOT TRUE for all people.
For example: If that same 110-pound female drank 7 drinks in 7 hours, she would still be at real risk for alcohol poisoning - she would have a BAC of 225 mg%.
If she was driving she would be more than 4 times the legal limit of alcohol for driving" !
In Ontario under aged impaired teens who are hospitalized and treated for alcohol poisoning face criminal charges,sentencing may include psychological treatment,detention in a juvenile facility,probation and an indefinite ban on securing a drivers license .
Can today's parents create an open environment where children form a healthy attitude to alcohol. Is outright prohibition on teen alcohol use archaic and ineffective ?
Maria Christenson,a Seattle Author and Mom states," It seems to me the most important things to teach teens about alcohol are moderation and responsibility. When my 16 year old son expressed an interest in drinking beer I made him research types of beer, how they're made and then tell me specifically why he wanted to try it. "Just to know what it tastes like," he answered. We decided on a local microbrewery ale and we split a bottle and talked about the taste and what types of food it might enhance, things like that. That was a couple of months ago and he hasn't had any since. He knows he just has to ask me if he wants a half glass of beer with dinner, but knowing that, it's no big deal to him. My kids can have a small glass of wine with dinner on special occasions or when they ask, but they rarely ever do. I want them to think of alcohol as something to drink because of taste rather than as a means to get drunk and so far that works.Lastly, I help my kids navigate their way through the issue of alcohol use, but I would never feel comfortable giving alcohol to other kids.Her response to the Lanigan parental permission requirement was "Written permission?... I recall being a pretty decent forger of adult signatures as a teenager".
Anna Burwell Gohm,an Ontario Mom says,"When we were kids ,Dad let us drink in front of him or away . None of us grew irresponsible or were big time drinkers. I have always allowed my children to drink with us within reason but we (John and I)don't drink ourselves sick either . I feel we are teaching our kids responsible drinking early.Our oldest boy is turning 16 this fall and he has gone to and had bush parties where drinking is involved . They are somewhat monitored by adults but what is the point of saying no ... they'll just get it someway and drink it anyway.I for one,would rather know where my child is and what he's doing than be naive and say ..my child wouldn't do that.To them its no big deal ,if they want to party ,what ever, and we have an open honesty policy ....you break it PARTY OVER !!Honest about everything ALWAYS ! They won't be busting out of their parents rules at nineteen going yay I'm free, I can drink , by that time it will be no big deal. I trust my kids and if they want to have a couple of drinks with in reason and not get stupid I don't have a problem with that. Life's about lessons and parents need to be open minded .If there are no rules ... whats the fun in breaking them .... and I must say I have 3 amazing kids who I trust completely .They tell me everything cause they know I won't freak out".
Parents seem to be split on the this issue, but all agree that ignoring underage binge drinking hasn't worked in the past either.
Will "Safe Grad" parties where alcohol is consumed by minors stop binge drinking and encourage moderation or is it just a token gesture by parents who don't want little Justin getting killed on grad night because he had one too many ? Are we just concerned with the outcome of underage drinking and ambivalent or dismissive of the danger of binge drinking because we did it and survived?
Recent research shows that there are long term effects of teen alcohol consumption.
Binge drinking is more harmful to brain cells than any other pattern of
drinking.A person’s brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s and adding alcohol to the mix is a recipe for disaster.
The brain goes through dynamic change during adolescence, and alcohol can seriously damage long- and short-term growth processes. Frontal lobe development and the refinement of pathways and connections continue into the mid-20’s.Damage from alcohol at this time can be long-term and irreversible. In addition, short-term or moderate drinking can impair learning and memory far more in youth than in adults. Adolescents need only drink half as much as adults to suffer the same negative effects.
In 2008, a survey of first year Canadian college students showed 38% of students admitted to binge drinking and impaired driving causing accidents among those 16-25 is on the rise in Canada.Teaching children about alcohol moderation and keeping the lines of communication open are important yet it's evident there is a gaping lack of intelligence in condoning or validating underage drinking through supervising safe grads or buying alcohol for minors... and it's illegal.
The age of majority in Saskatchewan is nineteen and it's illegal to purchase alcohol for a minor. The act states in section 110(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4), no person shall sell or give beverage of
alcohol to a minor and nothing in this Act is to be construed as authorizing the sale
of alcohol to minors.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a parent, guardian or spouse who gives
beverage alcohol in a private place to a minor who is his or her child, ward or
spouse, as the case may be. I'm sure the intent of the legislation was to avoid the criminalization of parents who serve their offspring a mimosa at new years brunch but not foreseeing parents setting up a private bar where up to ten drinks can be bought. Police are aware that "safe grad" parties happen in communities throughout Saskatchewan but are turning a blind eye to underage drinking on private property.
"The model that I'm referring to talks about where there is a parent or guardian on-site and they are making a decision, as the parent or guardian, for their child, in terms of whether or not they are going to provide them alcoholic beverages at that specific time, in that specific location, at a private place," explained RCMP Sgt. Brian Jones in a Star Phoenix news article.
"It is an arrangement between private property owners and parents and guardians of those people in attendance. It's a private function on private land. Whether it's a good idea or not is not for us to decide," he said.
I guess the police decipher the law to believe the signed contract by the parent bestows an authority to serve and control alcohol to another child or that every parent will accompany their child to the party. I'm highly doubtful of the validity of that interpretation or if there will be equal amounts of teens and parents at the Lanigan event.
It seems the police decision to turn a blind eye to enforcing the law creates an urgent need for new dialogue and clear legislation regarding underage alcohol use which our police feel is enforceable. Or is it merely police negligence ?
If the majority of adults believe it's okay to accommodate underage drinking why isn't there a clamor to lower the age of majority and liberalize the law ?
Finally ,why do parents choose to break the law and buy or allow alcohol to be served in our homes to our children and their friends ?
Parents such as Tony Slattery, father of six was not surprised by the Lanigan Safe Grad plan and commented," I do not condone it. I think this is totally irresponsible on behalf of the "caring" parents that participate in this. If we look at this as a way to help keep things safe for our kids...why have a drinking age at all? Should we lower it? Maybe we could have a contract on the limit of how many joints,lines of coke,ecstasy... or any other drug can be allowed. I mean..they are just going to do it anyway so lets help them in a safe monitored environment... This behaviour will cause long term issues with alcohol for some of these kids. We should be taking the higher road as parents.I think its about responsibility and a 10 drink limit for a child ( that's the legal definition of anyone under 19) is totally irresponsible. It is one thing to allow your own child to drink in your home under your supervision...but to allow them (which to a child is a encouragement) or anyone to drink excessively is not right.That is not being responsible as an adult".
The Lanigan "Safe Grad" has raised more questions than answers and it's past the time where we can ignore how society handles this issue. It's clear that authoritarian parental handling of the issue didn't work for our generation yet this new method of supervised drinking isn't creating a moderate responsible attitude towards alcohol either.
Too many young people binge drink,drive impaired,have unprotected sex while under the influence and pose a risk themselves and others. The answer is transparently clear,as parents we need to protect our children from predators,unsafe situations and unfortunately sometimes from themselves. We need to have clear and open dialogue on this issue and put a stop to teen alcohol abuse and senseless loss of life. For our kids sakes...
Thursday, June 4, 2009
It was lots of fun harvesting the yellow morels and I just wanted to share my newly downloaded pictures with you.We were pleased with the crop, the morels were bug free
and delicious.We removed the extra dirt,cut them in half and laid the tiny treasures in the sun to dry. Easiest harvest ever !
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
For my entire professional career,I have spent thousands of hours and dollars ensuring my hairstyle was attractive,professional and efficient.I usually wash,blow dry and straighten my naturally wavy hot mess hair. My coarse thick hair is unusually wavy but has an annoying straight layer on top which drives my hairstylist mad. The straight iron has been a godsend, without it, I appear like I just got out from under the covers.
I used to hate my hair until I met my reno man and he encouraged me to let my hair go wild and free. I used to be mortified by his suggestion until we started working at reno house and the hair upkeep just got to be too much. I started wearing my hair up and under a hat as a safety precaution and to keep it clean. Drywall dust and hair is not a good combo... and my straight iron is in a box somewhere ...
I was further inspired by the man himself who has not cut his hair since last year.This guy has had a brush cut since I met him a few years ago... this is drastic.
His hair is now past his ears and the wave in his hair turned into ringlets. My boomer guy has reverted to his long haired youth and dare I say it ... he looks hot. I'm predicting the Howard Stern hair will make a comeback among guys 50 plus as part of a zoomer retro movement.
In the meantime, my hair now resembles Drew Barrymores new tousled much criticized hair style. Sometimes I don't know if we resemble derelicts or celebrities but if you see us on one of our walks around the hood, do say hello.
Monday, June 1, 2009
I'm not getting paid for product placement or review.
In fact,I have never blogged about a product although I have complained about a business or two ;)
In my household,I have a love hate relationship with the coffeemaker.
We make 1-2 pots a day,for people who love a deep rich brew,no Timmies for us.
The man and I create our own blend at the supermarket and mix it with dark columbian to make a spectacular cup of coffee ... java....drink of the gods.
The coffeemaker invariably gives up the ghost after the warranty expires.
Three coffeemakers have given up the ghost within the last five years.
The last two culprits, "Starbucks" and "Hamilton Beach" each lasted 18 months...sigh..what's a girl to do ?
I'll tell you what,don't pass go , go directly to "The Bay" and buy the latest thermal carafe Cusinart Grind and Brew.
Imagine, waking up to fresh ground coffee at your specified time.No more messy paper
inserts as the fine metal/plastic filter cleans up just fine.
The coffee will stay hot for six hours and makes enough for four large cups of joe.
The best part of the deal is the three year warranty,add the Bay guarantee and you have yourself a worry free java machine.