Hmph. Hmph. Now I do appreciate that I have been genetically programmed to complain about everything England does with regard to Scotland, but I'm irked by the attitude to us that has irked me all my life. Many "British" things count Scotland as one area, with England divided into umpteen areas by county.
The Olympic Torch spent one week in Scotland, out of its 70 day tour. For most of this week it was on a lorry. Fair? Not so for Fife, which it did not pass through, stopping only at the extremities to fulfil the "one hour" promise of it being accessible to 95% of the general population.
Except if you take into consideration that children have to be at their own school, so any school hour appearances of the torch were not possible for children outwith the town in question. So by bypassing our town and neighbouring towns, our children missed out. Some children whose parents have more money, patience and no babies, did travel to see it. How well they succeeded I don't know, other than the sensible sorts that took out a mortgage on a train fare.
Sadly the central belt got cherry picked for inclusion on the route, unlike Orkney and Shetland which were included. Was the flame itself more interested in a pleasant tourist trail? Or perhaps it enjoys sailing?
Marco Pierre White sought couples from around the UK for his Kitchen Wars programme. While he set up his kitchen van in various cities around England, (and Cardiff in Wales) to test out numerous couples, he didn't bother taking his van to Scotland, merely driving his 4x4 to visit just the one restaurant in Perthshire. He did stop for fish and chips, which at least acknowledges that we do them better than anyone else.
Scotland only accounts for a small percentage of the entire UK population, most of whom live in the central belt, with Glasgow and Edinburgh being the third and eighth most populated cities in the UK respectively.
But if you consider that the South East contains two thirds of the population, that only leaves 33% for the entire rest of the UK.
Scotland accounts for 8.4%, Wales for 4.8% and Northern Ireland 3%. So the rest of England - excluding the South East - only accounts for 16.8% of the population.
Taking up nearly a third of the land mass, I think it's time we stopped being treated as a remote outpost.
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
Thursday, 14 June 2012
Formula for defence
Yet again, I read about breastfeeding and how "good" mothers do it. Formula bad, yada yada.
I have breast fed none of my children. The twins appeared to lack the instinct to breastfeed and did not latch on, or ever look for breast milk. They needed formula to thrive.
My baby girl was keen to try, although not at first, but she latched on and had some colostrum. And then her mother (me, using the third person unnecessarily) nearly died and decided that a live mother was more important than breast milk and so had to take medication that wasn't compatible with breastfeeding.
So am I a bad mother? It seems so. I feel entirely persecuted by the insinuation that formula is the lazy option. Reports that examine the relationship between duration of breastfeeding and anything the child does always conclude that breastfed babies do best. The one that's got my back up today concerns academic ability.
I've learned that mothers who breastfeed tend to be in better socio-economic groups, with higher levels of education and (grrrrrr) increased incidences of reading to children and general language skills development.
The insinuation being that the sort of mother who breastfeeds is a better sort of mother and is more likely to interact with and stimulate their children.
The underlying sentiment there is that mothers who do not breastfeed also don't bother reading to their children or generally attempting to educate them in their early years at all. Only the uneducated could fail to breastfeed!
This sentiment I vehemently oppose, mostly on account of being educated, older and damned hands on as a mother, as well as having phenomenally clever twins. One twin is way better than average, the other is constantly praised for his abilities. A doctor commended his vocabulary at the age of two; at the age of six he is far ahead of most peers at mathematics and reading. Books are important in our house, as are maps, languages, counting and measuring and other things that supposedly I shouldn't think of because I didn't breastfeed.
Furthermore, many other educated, older, brilliant mothers I know were unable to breastfeed for whatever reason, and yet still manage to read to their children.
Now breastfeeding may be better for baby, assuming mother eats an exemplary diet and baby thrives, but it is woefully inaccurate to suggest that not breastfeeding means you're a less good mother. Deciding to let your baby thrive is surely the most elemental aspect of mothering?
It would be good to see a study that properly demonstrates breastfeeding v non breastfeeding in like for like families, instead of making insulting guesses at what socio-economic group you belong to based on your ability to produce milk.
I'd like to put forward the hypothesis that clever parents have clever children. No?
I have breast fed none of my children. The twins appeared to lack the instinct to breastfeed and did not latch on, or ever look for breast milk. They needed formula to thrive.
My baby girl was keen to try, although not at first, but she latched on and had some colostrum. And then her mother (me, using the third person unnecessarily) nearly died and decided that a live mother was more important than breast milk and so had to take medication that wasn't compatible with breastfeeding.
So am I a bad mother? It seems so. I feel entirely persecuted by the insinuation that formula is the lazy option. Reports that examine the relationship between duration of breastfeeding and anything the child does always conclude that breastfed babies do best. The one that's got my back up today concerns academic ability.
I've learned that mothers who breastfeed tend to be in better socio-economic groups, with higher levels of education and (grrrrrr) increased incidences of reading to children and general language skills development.
The insinuation being that the sort of mother who breastfeeds is a better sort of mother and is more likely to interact with and stimulate their children.
The underlying sentiment there is that mothers who do not breastfeed also don't bother reading to their children or generally attempting to educate them in their early years at all. Only the uneducated could fail to breastfeed!
This sentiment I vehemently oppose, mostly on account of being educated, older and damned hands on as a mother, as well as having phenomenally clever twins. One twin is way better than average, the other is constantly praised for his abilities. A doctor commended his vocabulary at the age of two; at the age of six he is far ahead of most peers at mathematics and reading. Books are important in our house, as are maps, languages, counting and measuring and other things that supposedly I shouldn't think of because I didn't breastfeed.
Furthermore, many other educated, older, brilliant mothers I know were unable to breastfeed for whatever reason, and yet still manage to read to their children.
Now breastfeeding may be better for baby, assuming mother eats an exemplary diet and baby thrives, but it is woefully inaccurate to suggest that not breastfeeding means you're a less good mother. Deciding to let your baby thrive is surely the most elemental aspect of mothering?
It would be good to see a study that properly demonstrates breastfeeding v non breastfeeding in like for like families, instead of making insulting guesses at what socio-economic group you belong to based on your ability to produce milk.
I'd like to put forward the hypothesis that clever parents have clever children. No?
Thursday, 7 June 2012
Euro 2012 is practically here
Ooh, I do love a good football tournament. Far more exciting than old people not dying and Britain funding athletics by cutting payments to everyone.
Due to the aforementioned, it is time for my patriotism to arise and show my full support for France. And Sweden, but not Ukraine as "we" don't like them just now.
Euro 2012 starts tomorrow. Woop woop. England are in group D with Sweden, France and Ukraine, which is an amazing coincidence that these are the same countries I seem to be supporting.
Group B - Germany, Denmark, Netherlands and Portugal - is my favourite and I'm a bit gutted those countries are in the same group so they can't all progress.
Germany are my favourites, obviously, and in the unpleasant situation that England qualify for the quarter finals, it is down to Germany to beat them on penalties because that is always fun.
I usually support the Netherlands because they have the best fans.
Denmark have a special place in my loyalties as I have Danish relatives and because of Schmeichel and the Laudrups.
And I like the Portugese because they're generally good and I like the Portugese people (based on one holiday and their general fitness).
So that's me pledged my allegiance and stamped the kiss of malfortune on the above teams.
One year it would be nice to support MY country. IF we ever qualified.
Incidentally, I do get that it would be courteous to support the home nations, but England produced David Cameron and that is unforgivable.
And R. Ireland isn't a home nation even if that's oft forgotten.
Due to the aforementioned, it is time for my patriotism to arise and show my full support for France. And Sweden, but not Ukraine as "we" don't like them just now.
Euro 2012 starts tomorrow. Woop woop. England are in group D with Sweden, France and Ukraine, which is an amazing coincidence that these are the same countries I seem to be supporting.
Group B - Germany, Denmark, Netherlands and Portugal - is my favourite and I'm a bit gutted those countries are in the same group so they can't all progress.
Germany are my favourites, obviously, and in the unpleasant situation that England qualify for the quarter finals, it is down to Germany to beat them on penalties because that is always fun.
I usually support the Netherlands because they have the best fans.
Denmark have a special place in my loyalties as I have Danish relatives and because of Schmeichel and the Laudrups.
And I like the Portugese because they're generally good and I like the Portugese people (based on one holiday and their general fitness).
So that's me pledged my allegiance and stamped the kiss of malfortune on the above teams.
One year it would be nice to support MY country. IF we ever qualified.
Incidentally, I do get that it would be courteous to support the home nations, but England produced David Cameron and that is unforgivable.
And R. Ireland isn't a home nation even if that's oft forgotten.
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Whatever happened to every day?
A long, long time ago, but I can still remember...
I said that I would write every day. I thought I'd have something to say. I thought that my old followers would still be there.
I didn't think I'd be looking at stats from bots. Bots that live where my old followers live and made me think they're real.
But it matters not who reads it.
Ha.
Why write a blog if not to be read?
I could consider that I don't have much to say. Babies aren't all that interesting to people uninvolved in said babies.
Or I could admit to myself that I'm just feeling sorry for myself. I always have lots to say. Sometimes it comes out tedious, sometimes it amuses, very occasionally it is interesting.
Shall I pick up for the second half of the year? Can I? Should I?
BTW: American Pie. You knew that.
I said that I would write every day. I thought I'd have something to say. I thought that my old followers would still be there.
I didn't think I'd be looking at stats from bots. Bots that live where my old followers live and made me think they're real.
But it matters not who reads it.
Ha.
Why write a blog if not to be read?
I could consider that I don't have much to say. Babies aren't all that interesting to people uninvolved in said babies.
Or I could admit to myself that I'm just feeling sorry for myself. I always have lots to say. Sometimes it comes out tedious, sometimes it amuses, very occasionally it is interesting.
Shall I pick up for the second half of the year? Can I? Should I?
BTW: American Pie. You knew that.
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Fire fire.
Having been given a 3DS, I now spend a lot of time playing Brain Training, a game I already had on the DS lite. Don't ask.
One of the games on either Brain Training or More Brain Training is a syllable counting game. Easy enough, you'd think.
I make typos, and annoyingly at the moment (baby brain, or so I tell myself as that's preferable to ageing as a concept) I forget a lot or say/do entirely differently to that which I had planned. So mistakes are a-plenty. But woe betide anyone who suggests I am incorrect when I am not. (I'm likely to cry).
Dr Kawashima marked me incorrect when I was not. And so I hate him.
The word we disagree on was "fire". I say one syllable, he says two.
So I ask my boys how to say it. They dutifully answer "fy-a" and I curse Fireman Sam. Love the Welsh; have been way over subjected to Fireman Sanctimonious Sam.
This is what great uncle google says:
fire/fī(ə)r/
Which I think means that you can add in the extra syllable if you like and is entirely non committal of uncle googs.
The Free Dictionary agrees with me. One syllable.
Oxford dictionary gives this:
ˈfʌɪə
which I don't understand. I think that may be the Welsh way.
One of the games on either Brain Training or More Brain Training is a syllable counting game. Easy enough, you'd think.
I make typos, and annoyingly at the moment (baby brain, or so I tell myself as that's preferable to ageing as a concept) I forget a lot or say/do entirely differently to that which I had planned. So mistakes are a-plenty. But woe betide anyone who suggests I am incorrect when I am not. (I'm likely to cry).
Dr Kawashima marked me incorrect when I was not. And so I hate him.
The word we disagree on was "fire". I say one syllable, he says two.
So I ask my boys how to say it. They dutifully answer "fy-a" and I curse Fireman Sam. Love the Welsh; have been way over subjected to Fireman Sanctimonious Sam.
This is what great uncle google says:
fire/fī(ə)r/
Which I think means that you can add in the extra syllable if you like and is entirely non committal of uncle googs.
The Free Dictionary agrees with me. One syllable.
Oxford dictionary gives this:
ˈfʌɪə
which I don't understand. I think that may be the Welsh way.
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
CBeebies 0 - 1 me
Ha! CBeebies can't defeat me with their obscure song.
The new (May 2012) CBeebies weekend trailer features "Good Times" by Gene Chandler.
Oh how long that took to find, so I'm double blogging it in case anyone else cares.
Shush.
The new (May 2012) CBeebies weekend trailer features "Good Times" by Gene Chandler.
Oh how long that took to find, so I'm double blogging it in case anyone else cares.
Shush.
Monday, 7 May 2012
Diddy politics
So last week we had our council elections. Woo.
Now, I feel people should vote, especially women, as other people* worked rather hard in the past to ensure that we can. So I always vote regardless of the election's importance.
*Mr Pankhurst especially. Yes. Much more than his wife or daughters.
And so, on such a day as last Thursday, I find myself at the polling station. Sadly this time with not one clue what I'm voting for. I'm not sure why, I do normally find out. I think this may be due to not caring much because councils are pretty much useless regardless.
Outside polling stations there are usually candidates seeking your vote. This time there were two. So I told these two young men outside that I didn't know what I was voting for and that they had one minute to convince me.
They spoke. I listened. I asked idiotic questions. They answered. The SNP chap gave me a card with his name on and told me to copy it, which impressed me more than the non-answers they gave me.
Bloke two was the second Labour candidate, he had no card and so made less impression. But in light of the other parties being respectively hateful and hated, those are the two parties that don't hurt.
Results were good, even if nice SNP bloke didn't get in, his SNP colleague did. Bye bye 94 LibDems in Scotland, including one in my area. We don't forgive easily.
Which reminds me, I must buy the local paper so I can get a simplistic explanation of the implications.
Now, I feel people should vote, especially women, as other people* worked rather hard in the past to ensure that we can. So I always vote regardless of the election's importance.
*Mr Pankhurst especially. Yes. Much more than his wife or daughters.
And so, on such a day as last Thursday, I find myself at the polling station. Sadly this time with not one clue what I'm voting for. I'm not sure why, I do normally find out. I think this may be due to not caring much because councils are pretty much useless regardless.
Outside polling stations there are usually candidates seeking your vote. This time there were two. So I told these two young men outside that I didn't know what I was voting for and that they had one minute to convince me.
They spoke. I listened. I asked idiotic questions. They answered. The SNP chap gave me a card with his name on and told me to copy it, which impressed me more than the non-answers they gave me.
Bloke two was the second Labour candidate, he had no card and so made less impression. But in light of the other parties being respectively hateful and hated, those are the two parties that don't hurt.
Results were good, even if nice SNP bloke didn't get in, his SNP colleague did. Bye bye 94 LibDems in Scotland, including one in my area. We don't forgive easily.
Which reminds me, I must buy the local paper so I can get a simplistic explanation of the implications.
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Music solving
As I seem to get more (genuine) hits for the CBeebies music blog than any other, I've dedicated a new blog to it here.
I spend a lot of time searching for songs I think I recognise. This is the result, shared.
I spend a lot of time searching for songs I think I recognise. This is the result, shared.
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
CBeebies music
Update 8 May 2012
The new weekend music is "Good Times" by Gene Chandler.
Update 1 May 2012
The new bedtime music is "(Go to Sleep) My Little Sleepyhead by Nat King Cole.
Update: the latest Spring trailer features Spring Fever by Elvis. But you knew that anyway.
Cbeebies have begun playing old songs alongside their trailers.
They've been playing "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" by Fredrika Stahl for the bedtime trailer, which is brilliant. I bought that after I heard it on the Nissan Joke, sorry, Juke advert.
Next one that caught my ear was "Imagination" by Belouis Some, which was used for the Charley Bear trailer. Good song, but ruined by the fact that the unpleasantly voiced James Corden narrates the programme.
The "woh oh oh-oh oh-oh oh-ohhh ohhh-oh" that is used in the trailer for Raa Raa the Noisy Lion drove me potty for a while; it is really catchy and sounds immensely familiar. The song it is from is "Tarzan Boy" by Baltimora, which I don't think I knew before, but it sounds so very much like I did.
And then it went hideously wrong. "Love Train" by the O'Jays is used for Driver Dan's Story Train, and is one of my most hated songs.
As is "ABC" by the Jackson 5, which is used for a generic CBeebies advert and which makes me feel mildly homicidal.
The trailer for Big Fun Time currently has another immensely irritating tune that I am reasonably convinced is "Big Fun" by the Gab Band.
Me no like. If they add "Carwash" by Rose Royce into their playlist I will cry and cry and end up watching Loose Women.
The new weekend music is "Good Times" by Gene Chandler.
Update 1 May 2012
The new bedtime music is "(Go to Sleep) My Little Sleepyhead by Nat King Cole.
Update: the latest Spring trailer features Spring Fever by Elvis. But you knew that anyway.
Cbeebies have begun playing old songs alongside their trailers.
They've been playing "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" by Fredrika Stahl for the bedtime trailer, which is brilliant. I bought that after I heard it on the Nissan Joke, sorry, Juke advert.
Next one that caught my ear was "Imagination" by Belouis Some, which was used for the Charley Bear trailer. Good song, but ruined by the fact that the unpleasantly voiced James Corden narrates the programme.
The "woh oh oh-oh oh-oh oh-ohhh ohhh-oh" that is used in the trailer for Raa Raa the Noisy Lion drove me potty for a while; it is really catchy and sounds immensely familiar. The song it is from is "Tarzan Boy" by Baltimora, which I don't think I knew before, but it sounds so very much like I did.
And then it went hideously wrong. "Love Train" by the O'Jays is used for Driver Dan's Story Train, and is one of my most hated songs.
As is "ABC" by the Jackson 5, which is used for a generic CBeebies advert and which makes me feel mildly homicidal.
The trailer for Big Fun Time currently has another immensely irritating tune that I am reasonably convinced is "Big Fun" by the Gab Band.
Me no like. If they add "Carwash" by Rose Royce into their playlist I will cry and cry and end up watching Loose Women.
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
Me, Myself or I
Watching the Apprentice annoys me every single week.
Apart from the obvious.
When Lord Sugar asks "who was the project manager on this task?" the person in question always answers "that was myself".
I think to myself, "don't they mean me?" and so I looked it up.
Yes. It should be me. Not me on the Apprentice, perish the thought, but the word "me" instead of "myself".
Basically, "me" is always correct in the me/myself choice except in one condition. That condition is when the person speaking is both subject and object of the sentence.
I saw myself in the mirror.
I chose it myself.
I doubt myself.
"Me" or "I" is simple to know. If in doubt, take out the other people/things involved and think how it would sound:
Bananas and me are often seen in Tesco.
or
Bananas and I are often seen in Tesco.
Me is often seen in Tesco.
or
I am often seen in Tesco.
Obviously, it's "I".
Tesco is fed up of bananas and me.
or
Tesco is fed up of bananas and I.
Tesco is fed up of me.
or
Tesco is fed up of I.
"Me" this time.
Easy.
If you are the subject of a sentence, the correct way to address yourself is "I". If you are the object, then it is "me". If you are both, then use "I" and "myself".
I upset myself by looking at other common grammar errors.
Affect/effect. Duh. One is a verb and one is a noun.
Allusion/illusion. They're different words!
There's lots of them. Ugh. Think people, think.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Apart from the obvious.
When Lord Sugar asks "who was the project manager on this task?" the person in question always answers "that was myself".
I think to myself, "don't they mean me?" and so I looked it up.
Yes. It should be me. Not me on the Apprentice, perish the thought, but the word "me" instead of "myself".
Basically, "me" is always correct in the me/myself choice except in one condition. That condition is when the person speaking is both subject and object of the sentence.
I saw myself in the mirror.
I chose it myself.
I doubt myself.
"Me" or "I" is simple to know. If in doubt, take out the other people/things involved and think how it would sound:
Bananas and me are often seen in Tesco.
or
Bananas and I are often seen in Tesco.
Me is often seen in Tesco.
or
I am often seen in Tesco.
Obviously, it's "I".
Tesco is fed up of bananas and me.
or
Tesco is fed up of bananas and I.
Tesco is fed up of me.
or
Tesco is fed up of I.
"Me" this time.
Easy.
If you are the subject of a sentence, the correct way to address yourself is "I". If you are the object, then it is "me". If you are both, then use "I" and "myself".
I upset myself by looking at other common grammar errors.
Affect/effect. Duh. One is a verb and one is a noun.
Allusion/illusion. They're different words!
There's lots of them. Ugh. Think people, think.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Monday, 16 April 2012
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
Titanic
There's not a lot I can say that hasn't been said already, everywhere, constantly. But I've always been kind of fascinated by Titanic and today marked the 100th anniversary of her sailing from Southampton.
That's pretty momentous. I'd have been on the memorial cruise if I'd known about it in advance, had the money and all sorts of other things.
Actually, no, I probably wouldn't have been. I'm no sailor. Possibly due to a lifelong obsession with Titanic, but I don't fully trust boats not to sink; I seriously don't like rocky crossings. And I get very seasick.
For the record, should the memorial cruise, in a truly unlikely manner, hit an iceberg and sink, I'm guessing that there will definitely be enough lifeboats for everyone on board and then some.
It is possible that had the passengers on the Titanic not been sending telegrams that they could have received and heeded warnings. 100 years on and every minute of every hour of every passenger will be tweeted/facebooked/blogged, not to mention the media coverage. Any iceberg sightings will be known to everyone in the world and any mishaps responded to with haste never before recorded.
So no, I don't think it's going to sink. I'm not sure what it will do when it gets to the site of the crash. Will it stop and sit for three hours and then come home? Will it carry on to New York?
Pause to Google.
Ah. The itinery, which I misread as Titanery and think they missed a trick there.
The plan is to arrive at the site of the Titanic wreck - along with Memorial Titanic II, which is going the other direction - and have a memorial service there at the exact time the Titanic sank. Which is either touching and apt, or weirdly macabre. One of those.
The period costumed people alarm me somewhat. Literal reenactment is probably unwise.
Instead of transferring some of the passengers to lifeboats and sinking the rest, the boat is to travel onto Halifax and then New York, tracing the rest of the journey for the survivors (New York) and the recovered bodies of the victims (Halifax).
Who said macabre?
I think on the night of the 14 April I shall watch the film in my own safely on land manner of tribute. Yes, that film. Not the good one, the shiny one.
That's pretty momentous. I'd have been on the memorial cruise if I'd known about it in advance, had the money and all sorts of other things.
Actually, no, I probably wouldn't have been. I'm no sailor. Possibly due to a lifelong obsession with Titanic, but I don't fully trust boats not to sink; I seriously don't like rocky crossings. And I get very seasick.
For the record, should the memorial cruise, in a truly unlikely manner, hit an iceberg and sink, I'm guessing that there will definitely be enough lifeboats for everyone on board and then some.
It is possible that had the passengers on the Titanic not been sending telegrams that they could have received and heeded warnings. 100 years on and every minute of every hour of every passenger will be tweeted/facebooked/blogged, not to mention the media coverage. Any iceberg sightings will be known to everyone in the world and any mishaps responded to with haste never before recorded.
So no, I don't think it's going to sink. I'm not sure what it will do when it gets to the site of the crash. Will it stop and sit for three hours and then come home? Will it carry on to New York?
Pause to Google.
Ah. The itinery, which I misread as Titanery and think they missed a trick there.
The plan is to arrive at the site of the Titanic wreck - along with Memorial Titanic II, which is going the other direction - and have a memorial service there at the exact time the Titanic sank. Which is either touching and apt, or weirdly macabre. One of those.
The period costumed people alarm me somewhat. Literal reenactment is probably unwise.
Instead of transferring some of the passengers to lifeboats and sinking the rest, the boat is to travel onto Halifax and then New York, tracing the rest of the journey for the survivors (New York) and the recovered bodies of the victims (Halifax).
Who said macabre?
I think on the night of the 14 April I shall watch the film in my own safely on land manner of tribute. Yes, that film. Not the good one, the shiny one.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Yummy, mummy
This should probably go on my mummy blog but I want to tell anyone I can and this blog does occasionally get read.
I have discovered the most wonderful product for parents of babies. It is a necklace from a company called
Gumigem.
The necklace is beautiful, just the sort of necklace I would wear anyway.
Mine is identical to the above picture, it is the Lightning necklace in Fury. It looks like it is made from a pretty stone.
But it is amazing. It is made of silicon which is entirely baby friendly and free of parabens and BPA. Baby can chew away without any worry as to whether they may ingest anything harmful. As it hangs round your neck, it is always there for baby to play with whenever you pick her up or lean over her.
I am blown away by the simplicity yet genius of this idea. Babies are instinctively drawn to necklaces and this one is safe for baby so mummy doesn't have to fret about keeping necklaces off while baby is small. Best of all it is an excellent teether and seems to provide genuine soothing for aching baby gums.
Gumigem also offer different styles of necklace as well as bangles - a safe toy for baby that's just there on your wrist looking pretty. I intend to buy more, for these products are not at all expensive unlike other teething necklaces available.
One very happy customer that wants to share this with every mother out there.
I have discovered the most wonderful product for parents of babies. It is a necklace from a company called
Gumigem.
The necklace is beautiful, just the sort of necklace I would wear anyway.
Mine is identical to the above picture, it is the Lightning necklace in Fury. It looks like it is made from a pretty stone.
But it is amazing. It is made of silicon which is entirely baby friendly and free of parabens and BPA. Baby can chew away without any worry as to whether they may ingest anything harmful. As it hangs round your neck, it is always there for baby to play with whenever you pick her up or lean over her.
I am blown away by the simplicity yet genius of this idea. Babies are instinctively drawn to necklaces and this one is safe for baby so mummy doesn't have to fret about keeping necklaces off while baby is small. Best of all it is an excellent teether and seems to provide genuine soothing for aching baby gums.
Gumigem also offer different styles of necklace as well as bangles - a safe toy for baby that's just there on your wrist looking pretty. I intend to buy more, for these products are not at all expensive unlike other teething necklaces available.
One very happy customer that wants to share this with every mother out there.
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
Reasons not to smoke
So I'm an ex smoker. Which means I shall have to become evangelical about not smoking, have the ability forever more to sniff out a cigarette at 100 yards (sorry kids) and will always slightly lean towards smokers when drunk.
Unless I start again. This has happened before, and has also happened with meat, fish and doughnuts so I can't discount that possibility.
But for now, I haven't smoked for a while and have got to the point where I don't need to remind myself every time I go to the shop that I don't buy them any more.
And if I should falter, the reasons not to smoke are many.
1) They cost something approaching 40p for each single cigarette. That's ridiculous.
2) It is nice being able to breathe. Having been in possession of a particularly virulent cough for the last few weeks, the thought of anything unavoidable ever irritating my fragile lungs is anathemic.
3) Cigarettes reek, they don't half stink. It is pleasant to be able to enjoy things like perfume.
4) Having been a closet smoker (as a manner of speech; I'm pretty sure I didn't ever smoke in a closet, not least because I call it a wardrobe) it is pleasant not to have to formulate plans to sneak off and have one.
And then we get onto
5) I'd like to live long enough to see my children grow up and ideally their children too. Smoking would mean that this would become considerably less likely.
I'll still always find affinity with those that have smoked. It's a rite of passage, or lasagne if autocorrect insists.
Unless I start again. This has happened before, and has also happened with meat, fish and doughnuts so I can't discount that possibility.
But for now, I haven't smoked for a while and have got to the point where I don't need to remind myself every time I go to the shop that I don't buy them any more.
And if I should falter, the reasons not to smoke are many.
1) They cost something approaching 40p for each single cigarette. That's ridiculous.
2) It is nice being able to breathe. Having been in possession of a particularly virulent cough for the last few weeks, the thought of anything unavoidable ever irritating my fragile lungs is anathemic.
3) Cigarettes reek, they don't half stink. It is pleasant to be able to enjoy things like perfume.
4) Having been a closet smoker (as a manner of speech; I'm pretty sure I didn't ever smoke in a closet, not least because I call it a wardrobe) it is pleasant not to have to formulate plans to sneak off and have one.
And then we get onto
5) I'd like to live long enough to see my children grow up and ideally their children too. Smoking would mean that this would become considerably less likely.
I'll still always find affinity with those that have smoked. It's a rite of passage, or lasagne if autocorrect insists.
Monday, 2 April 2012
Food for thought
Breakfast this morning did not cause any particular thoughts.
Lunch was momentarily irksome while being made. Sainsburys roasted beef slices claim to be cooked and roasted. Confusion: would the roasting not do plenty enough cooking to ensure additional cooking unnecessary? Par boiling, which I've not heard of with beef, doesn't equate to cooking.
Tea was most definitely annoying on account of it being ordered for 17.15, being collected at 17.15 and being discovered to be past its best on account of actually being ready at 17.03.
If that sounds overly pedantic, it was a pizza from Pizza Hut. Why have a fantouche online ordering system if the kitchen staff can't estimate cooking time of a pizza? I mean, it's a pizza from a pizza place, not a complex or unusual dish.
I have emailed them. They have not replied. Shockeronie.
Lunch was momentarily irksome while being made. Sainsburys roasted beef slices claim to be cooked and roasted. Confusion: would the roasting not do plenty enough cooking to ensure additional cooking unnecessary? Par boiling, which I've not heard of with beef, doesn't equate to cooking.
Tea was most definitely annoying on account of it being ordered for 17.15, being collected at 17.15 and being discovered to be past its best on account of actually being ready at 17.03.
If that sounds overly pedantic, it was a pizza from Pizza Hut. Why have a fantouche online ordering system if the kitchen staff can't estimate cooking time of a pizza? I mean, it's a pizza from a pizza place, not a complex or unusual dish.
I have emailed them. They have not replied. Shockeronie.
Saturday, 31 March 2012
Don't be stupid then
I think I love Shea Gunther, not least for having a really cool name.
I'm not sure how old the news is, and I've read lots about it elsewhere, but he purportedly massively offended lots and lots of people by sending a BCC'd email to 900 or so applicants for a job explaining what was wrong with the unsuccessful applicants.
Naturally, the illiterati (a word that I seem to spell differently every time I use it - how many t's do I give it?) are up in arms about being chastised. Which makes me immediate warm to him.
Right, first off if you care, you may wish to read the text of the actual email. You can do this here
And read his response to the outrage
here.
If he'd picked out individuals, then yes, that would have been wrong. Or if he had failed to BCC them and merely CC'd instead, which is a particular bugbear of mine and something many, many people fail to consider. Including, incidentally and digressionally, my children's primary school.
It's good advice, and nobody makes you read emails. It's not like a curtly concise letter of unsuccessfulness makes you happy. Even a gushingly polite and apologetic rejection letter is still a rejection letter. A rejection letter produces the following emotion: rejection.
If it invokes other emotions that's down to the individual.
So if it also gives you some useful tips, where's the harm?
Oh yes, I remember. It's the old elitist element of caring about how things are written.
Note: elitist there is an illiterati term. It usually comes shortly before/after some reference to tyranny.
I ranted recently about the lack of caring about writing properly in those who write for a living. I can't help but admire someone picking them up on it. Sorry, but it's all common sense.
I'm not sure how old the news is, and I've read lots about it elsewhere, but he purportedly massively offended lots and lots of people by sending a BCC'd email to 900 or so applicants for a job explaining what was wrong with the unsuccessful applicants.
Naturally, the illiterati (a word that I seem to spell differently every time I use it - how many t's do I give it?) are up in arms about being chastised. Which makes me immediate warm to him.
Right, first off if you care, you may wish to read the text of the actual email. You can do this here
And read his response to the outrage
here.
If he'd picked out individuals, then yes, that would have been wrong. Or if he had failed to BCC them and merely CC'd instead, which is a particular bugbear of mine and something many, many people fail to consider. Including, incidentally and digressionally, my children's primary school.
It's good advice, and nobody makes you read emails. It's not like a curtly concise letter of unsuccessfulness makes you happy. Even a gushingly polite and apologetic rejection letter is still a rejection letter. A rejection letter produces the following emotion: rejection.
If it invokes other emotions that's down to the individual.
So if it also gives you some useful tips, where's the harm?
Oh yes, I remember. It's the old elitist element of caring about how things are written.
Note: elitist there is an illiterati term. It usually comes shortly before/after some reference to tyranny.
I ranted recently about the lack of caring about writing properly in those who write for a living. I can't help but admire someone picking them up on it. Sorry, but it's all common sense.
Thursday, 29 March 2012
Kindling
Hmph. Today is the publication date for Jenny Colgan's latest book, "Welcome to Rosie Hopkins' Sweetshop of Dreams". I have pre-ordered it, which means it will arrive on my Kindle automatically. It's not arrived yet and it is 1 hour into today. Shocking.
Edit: it arrived before 2am.
I adore the pre-order feature. There are certain authors whose books I will purchase as close to publication as possible and so to have them just arrive is marvellous. Amazon do this with actual books also, but you are then at the mercy of the postal system. I prefer instant results.
I also have this wistful thought that I will forget a pre-order and just find a book arriving on my Kindle one day. This hasn't happened yet due to overexcitement about publication dates. I'm hoping it happens in June with Freya North's "Rumours" but this is extremely unlikely.
Kindle news: the Kindle touch is to be released in the UK on April 27. Although I am unlikely to get one unless some money comes out of my umpteen attempted money making schemes, I am excited about this. The lack of touchscreen is the one thing I don't like about my Kindle, which is the 2010 one that is now called Kindle keyboard.
Perpetual use of my iPhone means non touch screens seem useless. I have on more than one occasion uselessly pressed monitors screens in anticipation of a response. Incidentally, I have tried touchscreen laptops and been distinctly underwhelmed.
In short, I prefer touchscreens and having to press a physical clicky button instead of swiping to turn a page doesn't please me. Admittedly, a click is infinitely easier than turning a page in a real book, but that is irrelevant now in light of the Kindle.
Other Kindle news: I wholeheartedly recommend "I'd Sooner Starve" by Mark Sinclair, which is an astute and very funny account of a man's experience of establishing and running a delicatessen. I got this for free, I'd have happily paid. It is reassuring, after my last unfunny foray into free literature, to discover that my sense of humour is not missing, I can still chortle at well written observational wit.
And finally: you can just upload your own book to Amazon and start selling it via the Kindle store. Just like that. How very exciting! One day. One day.
Edit: it arrived before 2am.
I adore the pre-order feature. There are certain authors whose books I will purchase as close to publication as possible and so to have them just arrive is marvellous. Amazon do this with actual books also, but you are then at the mercy of the postal system. I prefer instant results.
I also have this wistful thought that I will forget a pre-order and just find a book arriving on my Kindle one day. This hasn't happened yet due to overexcitement about publication dates. I'm hoping it happens in June with Freya North's "Rumours" but this is extremely unlikely.
Kindle news: the Kindle touch is to be released in the UK on April 27. Although I am unlikely to get one unless some money comes out of my umpteen attempted money making schemes, I am excited about this. The lack of touchscreen is the one thing I don't like about my Kindle, which is the 2010 one that is now called Kindle keyboard.
Perpetual use of my iPhone means non touch screens seem useless. I have on more than one occasion uselessly pressed monitors screens in anticipation of a response. Incidentally, I have tried touchscreen laptops and been distinctly underwhelmed.
In short, I prefer touchscreens and having to press a physical clicky button instead of swiping to turn a page doesn't please me. Admittedly, a click is infinitely easier than turning a page in a real book, but that is irrelevant now in light of the Kindle.
Other Kindle news: I wholeheartedly recommend "I'd Sooner Starve" by Mark Sinclair, which is an astute and very funny account of a man's experience of establishing and running a delicatessen. I got this for free, I'd have happily paid. It is reassuring, after my last unfunny foray into free literature, to discover that my sense of humour is not missing, I can still chortle at well written observational wit.
And finally: you can just upload your own book to Amazon and start selling it via the Kindle store. Just like that. How very exciting! One day. One day.
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Summertime blues
Summer appears to have arrived, which means everyone has gone potty and I'm a grumpy cow.
The two refrains all around are:
1) isn't this FANTASTIC???
2) this will be it of course, we only ever get two weeks of summer.
The former I don't agree with, the latter irks me as it gets said on each sunny day each year, thus proving its inaccuracy simply by its frequency.
I can see how summer can be lovely when you can throw on your lightweight summer clothes and eat and play al fresco. Eating meals outside is a real pleasure, if you excuse the flies and you don't feel compelled to cook the food outside as well.
Summer is not lovely when you have nothing to wear due to inexplicably attempting to recreate the baby bump post pregnancy.
Most pertinently, summer is not pleasant in the absence of a garden. No garden to eat out in or let the children let off steam in, and the joy of summer means that should we go to the park or beach to get outdoors, everyone else is there at the same time.
So we're indoors, with the windows open in order to cope, and the resulting cacophony of stereophonic lawnmowers mingled with shrieking children renders me nearly insane.
The one saving grace is that there aren't many insects yet as it is only March.
The two refrains all around are:
1) isn't this FANTASTIC???
2) this will be it of course, we only ever get two weeks of summer.
The former I don't agree with, the latter irks me as it gets said on each sunny day each year, thus proving its inaccuracy simply by its frequency.
I can see how summer can be lovely when you can throw on your lightweight summer clothes and eat and play al fresco. Eating meals outside is a real pleasure, if you excuse the flies and you don't feel compelled to cook the food outside as well.
Summer is not lovely when you have nothing to wear due to inexplicably attempting to recreate the baby bump post pregnancy.
Most pertinently, summer is not pleasant in the absence of a garden. No garden to eat out in or let the children let off steam in, and the joy of summer means that should we go to the park or beach to get outdoors, everyone else is there at the same time.
So we're indoors, with the windows open in order to cope, and the resulting cacophony of stereophonic lawnmowers mingled with shrieking children renders me nearly insane.
The one saving grace is that there aren't many insects yet as it is only March.
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Stamping out
In true fickle style, I find myself agreeing with the government once in a while and console myself that the pleasing outcomes must be entirely down to the LibDems, because otherwise I feel a little queasy.
We, as a country and most definitely not representing me, appear to have taken against our government very early on in their power. So we, as represented by the media and probably not representative of Joe Public*, have to hate everything they say or do.
*aside from the fact that Joe Public tends to think what the media tells him to think, but that's another gripe for another day.
So, we had a budget, boohoo, we HATE everything, what utter rubbish rich loving nonsense etc etc.
Except I don't think that. It seems quite reasonable. I don't hate it. I get to keep my child benefit - woo! - and everything else seems kinda sensible from a fiscal point of view. Hot food providing people may feel differently, as might dedicated drinkers and smokers.
Today the sheep are up in arms about the new cost of a first class stamp. It's going up to 60p from 46p, which is a huge increase - 30% to be precise - because Royal Mail can now set their own prices within set maximums.
60p. Woo. 60p can buy you one bar of chocolate, or two cooking apples, or one local newspaper, or a can of juice. In other words, it's not a lot of money.
Furthermore, there are other options. You never actually have to send a first class letter by Royal Mail. You have options, you have choice. You don't have to ever buy a stamp.
According to Ofcom, the household average spend on postage is 50p a week. So that's £26 a year, which would now be increased to £32.50 a year, or 65p a week.
That's how much we use it. We will be out of pocket by precisely £6.50 a year. I can fritter that amount away on absolutely nothing in a matter of milliseconds.
The government may be vile and hate worthy, but that doesn't mean we have to automatically hate it all. There's lots to hate, target your hatred wisely.
We, as a country and most definitely not representing me, appear to have taken against our government very early on in their power. So we, as represented by the media and probably not representative of Joe Public*, have to hate everything they say or do.
*aside from the fact that Joe Public tends to think what the media tells him to think, but that's another gripe for another day.
So, we had a budget, boohoo, we HATE everything, what utter rubbish rich loving nonsense etc etc.
Except I don't think that. It seems quite reasonable. I don't hate it. I get to keep my child benefit - woo! - and everything else seems kinda sensible from a fiscal point of view. Hot food providing people may feel differently, as might dedicated drinkers and smokers.
Today the sheep are up in arms about the new cost of a first class stamp. It's going up to 60p from 46p, which is a huge increase - 30% to be precise - because Royal Mail can now set their own prices within set maximums.
60p. Woo. 60p can buy you one bar of chocolate, or two cooking apples, or one local newspaper, or a can of juice. In other words, it's not a lot of money.
Furthermore, there are other options. You never actually have to send a first class letter by Royal Mail. You have options, you have choice. You don't have to ever buy a stamp.
According to Ofcom, the household average spend on postage is 50p a week. So that's £26 a year, which would now be increased to £32.50 a year, or 65p a week.
That's how much we use it. We will be out of pocket by precisely £6.50 a year. I can fritter that amount away on absolutely nothing in a matter of milliseconds.
The government may be vile and hate worthy, but that doesn't mean we have to automatically hate it all. There's lots to hate, target your hatred wisely.
Sunday, 25 March 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
