Sunday - February 13, 2011

Packers Fans

A little email update on our two feathered friends down there in hill country.

They’ve been in their bad weather inside duck bin for most of the past month – too cold and their kiddie pool is frozen solid.  I hear there is rumor of 50 and 60 degree weather just a few days away – they will definitely be swimming like hell when the weather breaks.  They watched and rooted for the Green Bay Packers with me at the Super Bowl, too. 



“Nothing scores higher in ‘awww’ factor than baby ducks.  If you attempt to sway my decision in this matter – I’ll be forced to kill off whatever you suggest as the alternative.”
(Cattywumpus, USA: Unpublished Chronicles of Thots Whilst Shaving)

Of course Harold and Skokie (the two ducks) are Packers fans: they have the team colors built right in!



It hasn’t been a good year so far for Miss Autumn, our champion coyote eliminator. She lost her father in law, a WWII veteran, to high speed cancer and poor hospital care in late January. The end is also part of the circle, but that doesn’t make it any easier.



But I am having a nice moment in my mind, imagining what an indoor bad weather duck bin would look like. I’m thinking either some kind of brightly painted large toy box off in one corner with a small puddle leaking out, or one of those old time artfully perforated tin storage boxes up on a closet shelf in the kitchen. Either way, faint and questionable quacks can be heard. Quack. “Hey, remember us?” Quack. “Um, it’s dark in here!” Quack. “Is the game on yet?” Not to worry though; I know for a fact that her puddle ducks are more cuddle ducks than anything. And aren’t their baby pictures just too cute for words?

Posted by Drew458     on 02/13/2011 at 09:19 AM   
Filed Under: • Animals • Daily Life • Family • Miscellaneous •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - December 03, 2010

hey daddy, I want a brand new car, champaign, caviar … DADDY, you oughta get the best for me

Just a kind of human interest story. 

Hey, Daddy, I want a diamond ring, bracelets, everything
Daddy, you oughta get the best for me

Hey, Daddy, gee, don’t I look swell in sables?
Clothes with Paris labels?
Daddy, you oughta get the best for me
(words and music, Bobby Troup, 1941)

Original recording by Sammy Kaye
HERE

Not bad for a 22-year-old: F1 mogul Bernie Ecclestone’s daughter Petra to buy £66m house

By Richard Kay

The estate agent’s blurb called it a ‘trophy property’ that should appeal to a ‘Russian oligarch, a Hollywood star or a sheik’.

And if that was not enough, the £79million price tag should cut out the average first-time buyer.

Now, nearly 18 months after JCB digger tycoon Sir Anthony Bamford put his Grade II-listed pile in Chelsea, west London, on the market - at a £34million mark up on what he paid for it four years earlier - he has at last found a suitable purchaser… though you couldn’t find anyone less like an oil sheik.

The buyer is also rather prettier and younger than your average oligarch. Step forward Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone’s stunning younger daughter, Petra.

At 22, the model-turned-fashion-designer has been living with her long-term businessman boyfriend, James Stunt, in a seven-storey house in Eaton Square, Belgravia.

The fact that her new abode boasts up to 14 bedrooms is undaunting for her — a visitor to Eaton Square noticed her dressing room took up an entire floor.

The house she is buying, which includes a lodge next door, is set back from the road and boasts six reception rooms and ten bathrooms. Plenty of room, then, for James, 28, and his cellar of fine wines — he has a collection of Petrus spanning the great vintages of 1945 to 2005, worth £150,000.

Petra’s four dogs — two bulldogs, a boxer and a cavalier King Charles spaniel — will also have plenty of room to share.

The house, close to the London home of royal fiancee Kate Middleton, is being marketed by Beauchamp Estates in Mayfair.

With its own drive, a huge frontage and with planning permission for an underground swimming pool and gym already granted, it is said to be the most valuable property in Chelsea.

Sir Anthony and his wife Carole bought the mansion from Lebanese businessman Ely Calil in 2006 for £45million.

MORE OF INTEREST HERE, AND SEE HER OTHER HOUSE

Posted by peiper     on 12/03/2010 at 10:20 AM   
Filed Under: • Celebrities • Family • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - August 03, 2010

A Special Book

I’ve always loved books. At least since my public school teachers taught me how to read. (caveat: Mom had a lot to do with teaching me to read. )

Nowadays I don’t have cable TV.  My wife constantly comes home with stories of how we are ‘weird’. Yet we manage to save mucho dinero and give our local public library lots of business.

One of my all-time favorite movies is The Princess Bride. I’d almost forgotten the ‘prologue’ of the movie. Grandpa brought a ‘special book’.

I used to read to my granddaughter. She’d pick a book, settle herself on my lap, and imperiously proclaim ‘Read Me’.

So, I’d ‘read her’.

I’ve used this in my marriage. We now spend time reading to each other instead of watching TV. 

Posted by Christopher     on 08/03/2010 at 09:59 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Family •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - August 01, 2010

Breast-feeding at the Y…M…C…A…

H/T OldCatMan

OCM quotes the article without giving a link. I found a link to an article covering this event here. But go to OCM’s blog. He’s got interesting audio/visual coverage.

Elizabeth Gomez , a mother of three from Medford, said she was told by a Y employee to leave the baby-sitting area of the North Suburban YMCA after starting to breast-feed her three-month old son earlier this week.

“She said there is no eating or drinking within the (babysitting) area,” Gomez, 36, said in an interview Thursday. “She told me I had to go out into the hallway . . . I said ‘I have a lawful right to be here.”

I’m… well, not sure if ‘appalled’ is the right word. ‘Flabbergasted’? Yeah, I’m flabbergasted that:

A) anyone would use that against a breast-feeding mother. This was the baby-sitting area. Would it have been okay to give a baby a bottle? Rules against eating and drinking target unwrapped food and open beverages for sanitary reasons. I’ve never heard such rules used against baby bottles or, in this case, breasts.

B) “I have a lawful right to be here.” True and sad. Massachusetts actually had to pass a law to allow women to breast-feed? That’s sad. Just because breasts have a secondary use as play toys for boys doesn’t mean there’s anything immoral about breast-feeding in a public place.

A state law protects mothers who breast-feed in public. It states that a mother, “may breastfeed her child in any public place which is open to . . . the general public,” and where the mother and child are lawfully present.

A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Breastfeeding Coalition, which pushed for passage of the state law, said the Y incident is an example of how employers don’t understand the state law, which has been on the books since April, 2009.

“Breastfeeding is not the same as opening up a lunch box with apples, bananas, and crumbs that are going to fall onto the floor,” said Marsha Walker, a board member of the nonprofit coalition based in Weston. “Breastfeeding is nutrition, but it’s a little different because a mother has to provide it.”

Q.E.D. I’m not actually shilling for breast-feeding, but I do wish people wouldn’t go nuts over a natural mother-child interaction.

Posted by Christopher     on 08/01/2010 at 08:48 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Family • Insanity •  
• Comments (14) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - May 15, 2010

Waldo Spotting

Jay Jay
PeiperD PeiperD
Weatherby George Dupree
Took great care of his missus
Though he was seventy three
Jay Jay said to his missus,
“Missus” he said, said he;
“You must never go down
To that hot desert town
If you don’t go down with me!”



The Peiper has resurfaced. The two of them are out in Palm Desert CA for an extended vacation. He is doing his best to make up for time lost while living abroad by watching several baseball games a day ("The Dodgers” he writes, “Da Bums!!") and stuffing his face with local food. Screw the waistline, it’s time to eat.

He is living without a computer, without internet, and feeling it badly. BWS. Blog Withdrawal Syndrome. It’s like quitting smoking. Worse. Says he might be forced to get some basic PC just to be in touch with the world.

So he sent me an “analog post” - a handwritten letter, in which he worries about the elections in Britain, that fink Cameron who blew a 20 point lead which let too many from Labour in, what atrocity the EU is up to today, and he’s right POed that the USA (via the IMF) is bailing out Greece. 20% of Greece works for the government, he says, and many of those jobs are sinecures - no show jobs that come with a paycheck and a pension!! - while having an actual job on the side. With the gravy train derailed, The Peasants Are Revolting. [you can say that again!]

On the other hand he is joyfully agog at having an American washing machine and an American clothes dryer once again. I gather that in England both devices are built into the same machine, and not only is it half the size, it does neither task very well at all. Go figure.

Desert life is forcing the two of them to get up and about extra early, so that they can have their errands out of the way before the heat gets too intense. Smart move.

If I read between the lines properly, I think it’s their plan to be there until the fall. He writes that it’s going to be hard to go back to England in a few months ... my guess is that it will be harder than he thinks, as I’m sure that the gyppos moved into their place the moment they drove away. Probably 3 caravans on pads in his backyard already, and a basement hockshop selling stolen goods. But at least this time he’s going back with a proper frying pan for making proper American breakfast pancakes [not the English after dinner kind], and a whole case of Bisquick too I hope.

And of course he’s angry at everyone who is angry at Arizona. Good. Just because he’s taking a trip to the Left side of the country doesn’t mean he’s lost what is Right.

So I’m going to get a card off to the two of them very soon ... probably Tuesday ... and will add in any comments or messages y’all have.

Posted by Drew458     on 05/15/2010 at 03:43 PM   
Filed Under: • Blog Stuff • Family •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - May 09, 2010

Happy Mother’s Day

Yeah, I stole this from The Jawa Report. Sue me.

Somebody had to do it…

Meanwhile. somebody’s mother is doing this…

Go Mom!!!

Posted by Christopher     on 05/09/2010 at 07:23 PM   
Filed Under: • Family • Holidays •  
• Comments (11) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - April 11, 2010

Honey, I’m Home!

If you can watch this and not shed a tear or two, you’re an Obamaite.

Posted by Christopher     on 04/11/2010 at 06:49 PM   
Filed Under: • Family • Patriotism •  
• Comments (11) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - December 03, 2009

Name and shame offenders – but not if it upsets family, says Government

Nobody wants to upset a family of innocents, and they do exist here and there. But this just seems another case of lopsided support for the criminal class.  For example, there’s another story in the paper of three brothers with looooong criminal records who are finally goin go to jail for various offenses.  They are known as The ASBROS.  One of them received three ASBOS (Anti Social Behavior Orders) in one month.  Now wouldn’t you think someone in city hall would see and understand that these things just don’t work. And anyway, it’s not easy shaming these scum, is it?
Sorry for the family that may not be in the wrong when one of the clan goes off the rails.  But there seems to be way too much consideration for the rights of the damned then there are for their victims.

Police intending to get tough on criminals by “naming and shaming” them on websites have been told details may not be published if it upsets the offender’s family or breaches their human rights.

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
03 Dec 2009

Information on local offenders and their convictions will also only be online for a month and may not carry photographs after officers were told to consider any “"unjustifiably adverse effect” on the criminal.

First time offenders may escape be identified as could those who are undergoing drug or alcohol rehabilitation as part of their sentence.

In other cases, individuals may not be named at all while the public will simply be told that “someone” was brought to justice while in other situations the details will be handed out in leaflets locally rather than on a website.

The warnings come in fresh guidance from the Ministry of Justice and make a mockery of promises to name and shame criminals locally as part of the Government’s Justice Seen, Justice Done campaign.

Just last month the measure was strongly promoted by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, and Louise Casey, the Government’s anti-social behaviour tsar, and a number of websites, including ones from Dorset and Merseyside police forces, were heralded as shining examples.

The MoJ guidance, aimed at local authorities and police, stressed that the presumption should be to routinely publish details, such as an offender’s their name, age, where they are from and their offence, after they have been convicted in court.

But the document then listed a series of caveats where that publication may be limited or not appropriate.

Officers will need a specific reason to publish photographs, it said.

Data protection and human rights laws mean there are also restrictions on what is published, how it is made public and for how long.

Police and town halls should take into account the impact of publishing on the offenders’ family, the guidance said.

Officials should also consider whether it is “proportionate” to make the verdicts and sentences public and whether publishing personal details could have an “unjustifiably adverse effect” on the criminal.

It should only be online for a month because it is not supposed to be “an ongoing record”, the document, Publishing Sentencing Outcomes, said.

They can consider saying just that “someone” has been convicted of a crime without revealing the specific details of who, if that is enough to reassure the public.

With minor crimes they can say only the number committed and how many were dealt with and not publish any more details.

Fears about the long term “adverse consequences” of publication on criminals mean the data might be limited to people who live near where the crime is committed.

And instead of putting it on the web, forces can hand out leaflets or make information available at public meetings.

“Online publicity needs to be justified, and will not usually be appropriate for minor offences/sentences or for first time offenders,” the document states.

MORE HERE

Posted by peiper     on 12/03/2009 at 08:55 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Daily Life • Family • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - November 08, 2009

Police secretly follow mother after hearing her reprimand children.

BMEWS readers, When you were a little kid and maybe acted up or got a bit difficult, did mom ever threaten you with, “Wait till I get you home?” Or, “You’re gonna get it.” And didn’t we always know what “IT” was.  In my home “it” was never an idle or empty threat.

Well, if you live in this part of the world today mom and dad, ya better be careful where and how loud you threaten your offspring. 
It isn’t just the walls that have ears anymore. Oh no.  Off duty but officious cops have ears too.  So look around, look over your shoulder, look behind you because ...............  you will be questioned later.  You WILL be visited by .... The Plod.  (Britspeak for cops, in case you didn’t know that)

A mother who threatened to smack her children while out shopping was secretly followed home by an off duty policeman and was later questioned by officers.


By Jonathan Wynne-Jones
Published: 12:15PM GMT 08 Nov 2009

The 34-year-old woman, who has asked to remain anonymous for the sake of her family, was also warned by social services that she could face further action and that a file on the incident is being kept on record.

Last night, charities criticised the police’s action as “disproportionate” and pointed out that parents in England and Wales are allowed to smack their children.

Friends of the woman, who works in a bookstore and is married to an aeronautics expert, said that she had been left distressed by the ordeal.

Shopping in a supermarket in Woolston, Southampton, the woman’s children, aged 11 and 4, were misbehaving, provoking her to warn them that they would “get a hiding when they got home”.

She claims she did not actually smack them afterwards and says that, while smacking is used as a form of punishment in their home, it is not something she often does.

However, an off duty policemen who had been standing near her in the supermarket followed her on the 15 minute journey home and then reported the incident to Hampshire Police’s child protection team.

It was not until six weeks later that she was visited at her home by two officers and quizzed on how often she smacks her children. The pair also gave her parenting tips. They suggested that she should use a ‘naughty step’ or withdraw treats as a more effective form of punishment.

A month later, she received a letter from Southampton social services saying that her behaviour had raised concerns over the children’s welfare.

Kim Wills, information officer for Southampton council’s Children First department, wrote: “I am writing to inform you that we have received information on 24th September 2009 from Hampshire Police advising of concerns for ------- and ------ regarding an incident on 6th August 2009 where the children were chastised in public.”

The letter stated that Children’s Services would not be taking further action “at this time”, but told her that the information would be kept on record.

A spokesman for the department said that the incident would be held in their files until her children leave school, which could be up to another 13 years.

While it is a crime to smack children so hard it leaves a mark, mild smacking is allowed as “reasonable chastisement”.

Friends of the woman describe her as a good, patient mother, who is loved by her children.

They said she had been upset by the police’s questioning and shocked to learn that she and her children had been followed home.

A spokesman for Hampshire Police defended the action of its officers, arguing that the manner of her reprimand had caused alarm.

“An off-duty officer reported to our child protection team an incident involving a women in Woolston, Southampton who they saw chastising her children.

“It was not an ordinary telling off and because of what the woman said and the way her children reacted to it, it gave our officer reasonable grounds for concern for the children’s welfare and they may be at risk of physical chastisement.”

The spokesman added: “We followed this up as you would expect any police force to do, especially when it comes to the safety of children.

“Officers from the team spoke to the woman later at her home about the concerns and passed the details of the case to social services as is normal practice in such cases. No further action was deemed necessary by us.”

The mother denies that there was anything extraordinary about the way she scolded her children, and said that they were simply upset because they do not like being reprimanded.

A spokesman for Care, a social welfare charity, questioned the need for the police’s action unless there was a clear indication that she was going to beat them.

“One fears that it was a wholly disproportionate response to a threatened smack informed by the destructive and censorious views of those opinion formers who refuse to make a distinction between smacking, which can actually be very helpful, and beating which is a serious crime,” he added.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 11/08/2009 at 08:29 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Family • Outrageous • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - November 05, 2009

The Return of Daddy

Honestly, if this doesn’t bring tears to your eyes, you are a sociopathic liberal.

But then, using sociopath and liberal in the same sentence is redundant.

I’ve posted this under ‘Military’ because, for some reason, BMEWS lacks a ‘Family’ category. Hint.

H/T to Viral Footage

I’ve watched this numerous times, and I always get something in my eyes…

Posted by Christopher     on 11/05/2009 at 11:00 PM   
Filed Under: • Family •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner