Both of these pictures and the one from yesterday were taken using my phone. I think these are decent images given that my phone was having some difficulty focusing while in a moving car.
Monday, 31 March 2014
In motion
In yesterday's piece, I posted a picture of a pub in Coventry. That picture was taken while my Dad's car was in motion. Here are two more pictures I took while the car was moving:
This is the Ramada hotel near the centre of Coventry; it's a fairly plain but noticeable building on the Coventry skyline. I think I might have posted a picture of it before.
This is outside Coventry along the route we take to there and back; it's at the Catthorpe Interchange, which is the junction that connects the M1 motorway (seen in the distance) with the A14 dual-carriageway and the M6 motorway. This area is currently undergoing upgrades.
Both of these pictures and the one from yesterday were taken using my phone. I think these are decent images given that my phone was having some difficulty focusing while in a moving car.
Both of these pictures and the one from yesterday were taken using my phone. I think these are decent images given that my phone was having some difficulty focusing while in a moving car.
Sunday, 30 March 2014
Coventry pub
We went to Coventry this afternoon and ate at this pub, The City Arms:
We've been to this pub a few times; it's spacious and the food there is of fairly decent quality. I've never had any problems. We went there today because I had a meetup.
Saturday, 29 March 2014
Such a sunny day
Today was too pleasant to stay indoors all day. Here are some pictures from the park as proof of that statement:
I had a lovely walk this afternoon. I'm hoping that the weather will remain like this for the next couple of weeks.
Friday, 28 March 2014
Easter egg candy (2)
Back in my recent post about Easter candy, I mentioned that I would be buying some chocolates for other people. Here is one of the eggs I bought today:
I bought four in all; there was a buy one, get one free special available and I took advantage of it; I might buy some more if the offer remains, although I might get some more chocolates, anyway. I prefer buying things for others than for myself!
Thursday, 27 March 2014
Tonie Nathan
This morning, I learnt that on March 20th, 2014, Tonie Nathan died. Nathan was the first woman and first Jewish person to win an electoral vote in a presidential election in the United States.
In the 1972 election, Nathan was the vice presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party, which was a new party at the time, serving as the running mate to John Hospers. The party was only on the ballot in two states, Colorado and Washington, but a Republican elector in Virginia chose to vote for Hospers and Nathan instead of Richard Nixon, thus making Nathan the first woman to win an electoral vote; Nathan's being of Jewish faith also made her the first Jew to win an electoral vote (in 1964, Republican candidate Barry Goldwater was of Jewish origin and he won electoral votes, but he was an Episcopalian).
The result of the election was not affected by the faithless elector; while Richard Nixon lost an electoral vote in Virginia, he still won the rest of that state's votes (11 out of 12) and secured 49 of the 50 states overall, giving him a landslide victory. It should also be noted that the 1972 election is, to date, the late time a person who wasn't a Democrat or a Republican won an electoral vote, although there have been faithless electors since then.
Nathan's achievement came more than ten years before Geraldine Ferraro won electoral votes as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984. While it will most definitely be a day to celebrate how far women have come when the United States does elect a woman president, Nathan will be almost completely forgotten to anyone who isn't familiar with US presidential elections and the non-major party candidates. She's already a footnote, given that most people haven't heard of her; as I wrote earlier, I only learnt about her today.
With Nathan's death, all six people who received electoral votes in the 1972 election - plus Roger MacBride, the faithless elector - are now deceased.
In the 1972 election, Nathan was the vice presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party, which was a new party at the time, serving as the running mate to John Hospers. The party was only on the ballot in two states, Colorado and Washington, but a Republican elector in Virginia chose to vote for Hospers and Nathan instead of Richard Nixon, thus making Nathan the first woman to win an electoral vote; Nathan's being of Jewish faith also made her the first Jew to win an electoral vote (in 1964, Republican candidate Barry Goldwater was of Jewish origin and he won electoral votes, but he was an Episcopalian).
The result of the election was not affected by the faithless elector; while Richard Nixon lost an electoral vote in Virginia, he still won the rest of that state's votes (11 out of 12) and secured 49 of the 50 states overall, giving him a landslide victory. It should also be noted that the 1972 election is, to date, the late time a person who wasn't a Democrat or a Republican won an electoral vote, although there have been faithless electors since then.
Nathan's achievement came more than ten years before Geraldine Ferraro won electoral votes as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984. While it will most definitely be a day to celebrate how far women have come when the United States does elect a woman president, Nathan will be almost completely forgotten to anyone who isn't familiar with US presidential elections and the non-major party candidates. She's already a footnote, given that most people haven't heard of her; as I wrote earlier, I only learnt about her today.
With Nathan's death, all six people who received electoral votes in the 1972 election - plus Roger MacBride, the faithless elector - are now deceased.
Wednesday, 26 March 2014
"Word Up!" - Little Mix
This song has been gaining in popularity here for the last three weeks or so:
It's "Word Up" by Little Mix, a British girl group. "Word Up" was initially recorded in 1986 by the band Cameo and Little Mix covered the song for Sport Relief 2014, a charity event. I like Cameo's original (I even heard it on Oregon radio) but I love Little Mix's cover: it's faster and contains much more energy, combined with the fact that I've always liked their voices.
Actor Chris Barrie appears in Little Mix's video for "Word Up". Barrie is notable to me because years ago I watched Red Dwarf, a sci-fi comedy series in which he starred. Melanie Chisholm of the Spice Girls appears in the video, too. Before tonight, I had no idea that they appeared in the video, as I watched it for the first time an hour ago.
It's "Word Up" by Little Mix, a British girl group. "Word Up" was initially recorded in 1986 by the band Cameo and Little Mix covered the song for Sport Relief 2014, a charity event. I like Cameo's original (I even heard it on Oregon radio) but I love Little Mix's cover: it's faster and contains much more energy, combined with the fact that I've always liked their voices.
Actor Chris Barrie appears in Little Mix's video for "Word Up". Barrie is notable to me because years ago I watched Red Dwarf, a sci-fi comedy series in which he starred. Melanie Chisholm of the Spice Girls appears in the video, too. Before tonight, I had no idea that they appeared in the video, as I watched it for the first time an hour ago.
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
Uneven level of attractiveness
I discovered this article this morning and found it extremely interesting:
It's about a man who won a radio station's "Punching Above Your Weight Champion" award, which he won for being in a relationship where the woman is massively more attractive than the man. Darren Donaghey, the man in said type of relationship, self-nominated for the award after hearing about it on the radio on the way to work one day. The radio station's listeners voted Donaghey and his fiancée, Kate Cathart, as the winners.
While Cathart and Donaghey's relationship is viewed as unusual, it shouldn't be. When I walk around my residence and when I've been to other parts of this country, it's not uncommon for me to see couples where one half is far more attractive than the other...and it's not soley beautiful woman-ugly man relationships, either! I've observed quite a few couples that would cause many people to ask "what's that [insert positive appearance adjective here] man doing with her?" Evidently, the people in these relationships didn't consider looks and money to be determining factors, as with Cathart and Donaghey. In the end, so what if they're both not on the same level of attractiveness? As long as they love each other and are happy, that's all that counts. Nobody's approval is necessary and any offence certain people might take is irrelevant; as the adage goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I like relationships such as Cathart and Donaghey's because they break the social construct that people should be of equal or similar attractiveness to be in a relationship with each other. They also help to disprove the false notion pushed by some men that most women are only interested in a man if he's hot or rich (or both). It gets boring reading comments from men who dismiss all women as gold diggers and dismiss people like Cathart and Donaghey as an anomaly or a distraction.
I also like Cathart and Donaghey's sense of humour. The fact they are able to laugh about themselves and their relationship shows good character on their part. I wish them the best of luck for their marriage.
It's about a man who won a radio station's "Punching Above Your Weight Champion" award, which he won for being in a relationship where the woman is massively more attractive than the man. Darren Donaghey, the man in said type of relationship, self-nominated for the award after hearing about it on the radio on the way to work one day. The radio station's listeners voted Donaghey and his fiancée, Kate Cathart, as the winners.
While Cathart and Donaghey's relationship is viewed as unusual, it shouldn't be. When I walk around my residence and when I've been to other parts of this country, it's not uncommon for me to see couples where one half is far more attractive than the other...and it's not soley beautiful woman-ugly man relationships, either! I've observed quite a few couples that would cause many people to ask "what's that [insert positive appearance adjective here] man doing with her?" Evidently, the people in these relationships didn't consider looks and money to be determining factors, as with Cathart and Donaghey. In the end, so what if they're both not on the same level of attractiveness? As long as they love each other and are happy, that's all that counts. Nobody's approval is necessary and any offence certain people might take is irrelevant; as the adage goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I like relationships such as Cathart and Donaghey's because they break the social construct that people should be of equal or similar attractiveness to be in a relationship with each other. They also help to disprove the false notion pushed by some men that most women are only interested in a man if he's hot or rich (or both). It gets boring reading comments from men who dismiss all women as gold diggers and dismiss people like Cathart and Donaghey as an anomaly or a distraction.
I also like Cathart and Donaghey's sense of humour. The fact they are able to laugh about themselves and their relationship shows good character on their part. I wish them the best of luck for their marriage.
Monday, 24 March 2014
Colourful reflections
Remember my previous posts about rainbow reflections being formed from sunlight passing through a red jug and by the peacock-shaped patterned glass on our front door? Well, the latter combined with today's bright and clear morning allowed me to take these pictures:
The familiar wavey rainbow pattern on the kitchen floor. This is the most common type of the rainbow reflections, given that the kitchen floor is in the direct path of the sunlight when it shines through the window.
The rainbow pattern on the kitchen, this time significantly smaller after the angle of the Sun had changed.
This is the rainbow pattern when it was diagonally streaked across the wall. It's not often that we see the reflection in this manner, mainly because we're rarely near the front door at the time of the day when this particular reflection is possible.
Similar to the above picture with the wall, except this time the reflection is streaked across the kitchen door.
This last picture, however, was not caused by sunlight shining through the glass. Instead, this pretty pattern on the wall was produced by Mum's watch reflecting the bright morning light.
All of these pictures were taken with my phone and I'm impressed with how they turned out. What a great morning for reflections it was!
All of these pictures were taken with my phone and I'm impressed with how they turned out. What a great morning for reflections it was!
Sunday, 23 March 2014
"Rather Be" - Clean Bandit featuring Jess Glynne
This is a song that is popular here in the United Kingdom:
It's "Rather Be" by British electronic group Clean Bandit, which features Jess Glynne, the latter of whom is a new artist. "Rather Be" is now declining in the charts, but it had (and is still having) a good run and is played daily at the moment; the song won't be going away entirely for the time being.
Glynne herself is not the person shown to be singing the majority of the song in the video; that would be Haruka Abe, who is a Japanese actress. I think Glynne appears in the concert segment. Glynne is featured on another song high in the British charts currently, which is "My Love" by Route 94.
It's "Rather Be" by British electronic group Clean Bandit, which features Jess Glynne, the latter of whom is a new artist. "Rather Be" is now declining in the charts, but it had (and is still having) a good run and is played daily at the moment; the song won't be going away entirely for the time being.
Glynne herself is not the person shown to be singing the majority of the song in the video; that would be Haruka Abe, who is a Japanese actress. I think Glynne appears in the concert segment. Glynne is featured on another song high in the British charts currently, which is "My Love" by Route 94.
Saturday, 22 March 2014
Wood chipping path
In the park with the daffodils, I came across this:
It's the usual path down through the park, except it's covered in wood chippings. The park has undergone a thinning of its undergrowth and some of the trees have been cut down to uncrowd other trees; evidently, those trees were then placed in a woodchipper and the chippings spread out over the path. It's a good use of the chippings, as this part of the path is barely more than a mud slide and the chippings provide effective grip for any walker.
Friday, 21 March 2014
New rainbow
Today has been one of those days with unpredictable weather: it started off clear and sunny but in the afternoon it clouded over; heavy rain then came down and later sun came back out, forming this bright rainbow:
I was fortunate to capture this, as my camera's batteries died moments later, which was extremely annoying, not to mention inconvenient. The rainbow then faded away when the rain returned.
Thursday, 20 March 2014
Orange and yellow daffodils
I went out for a walk this afternoon and went to the park. Spring is here, as evidenced by these daffodils:
I found these two daffodils fascinating, as the one on the right has an orange trumpet whereas the other has the standard yellow; there were two, possibly three other orange-trumpted daffodils among their yellow-trumpted relatives.
I love how the yellow flower is peeking around the orange one, as though the latter is looking at something interesting and the former doesn't want to miss out!
Today is also International Day of Happiness, so I hope that these two pretty flowers have made your made ever-so-slightly happier.
I love how the yellow flower is peeking around the orange one, as though the latter is looking at something interesting and the former doesn't want to miss out!
Today is also International Day of Happiness, so I hope that these two pretty flowers have made your made ever-so-slightly happier.
Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Types of friends to dump
I saw this video about seven types of friends one shouldn't feel bad about dumping:
Of the types shown in the video, the "Always-Correcting-You" friend would actually be a postive to me as long as they're not patronising; at least this type of person pays attention to what I say and cares enough to correct me. I also don't mind being corrected.
The "In a Relationship" and "Flakey" friends can both be handled. Whenever people in relationships are annoying, it's because of other traits that one or both people in the relationship have; it's not usually the relationship itself that makes them annoying until you count lovey-dovey couples, with whom I don't have a problem. Also, people in relationships do have certain priorities, but in all fairness, that doesn't mean that they should neglect their friends and family. As for the flakey types, they are annoying, but as long as you're aware of their flaking habits and know how to work around them, such as by arranging something with them at short notice so that they don't have the chance to flake, they shouldn't be too much trouble.
The rest of the types can be taken on a case-by-case basis. The downers, passive-aggressors and jealous types are not worth having as friends if these are their constant behaviours; however, most people have their down, passive-aggressive and jealous moments, and should be afforded some leeway with the caveat that the negativity doesn't become frequent. A self-absorbed person isn't always bad, either, for as long as they're otherwise a friendly individual I'm okay with them; besides, someone who enjoys talking about themselves all the time lifts the pressure off you whenever you want to hang out with someone but aren't in the mood for talking about yourself.
As people are not usually one-dimensional in personality and emotion, the aforementioned types can overlap: it's not impossible for someone to be all of the types shown in the video and it's also possible for such a person to be a good friend. Again, it's a case-by-case basis: we all have our bad moments and if we ended our friendships over trivialities, none of us would have any friends. Still, people who are a net-negative in your life should definitely be ejected from your social circles.
Fortunately for me, I don't know anyone whom I want to dump as a friend. In addition, this post is not a passive-aggressive attempt to get any of my friends reading this to examine and change their own behaviour...it's just my thoughts on something I found interesting! As always, other opinions are welcome.
Of the types shown in the video, the "Always-Correcting-You" friend would actually be a postive to me as long as they're not patronising; at least this type of person pays attention to what I say and cares enough to correct me. I also don't mind being corrected.
The "In a Relationship" and "Flakey" friends can both be handled. Whenever people in relationships are annoying, it's because of other traits that one or both people in the relationship have; it's not usually the relationship itself that makes them annoying until you count lovey-dovey couples, with whom I don't have a problem. Also, people in relationships do have certain priorities, but in all fairness, that doesn't mean that they should neglect their friends and family. As for the flakey types, they are annoying, but as long as you're aware of their flaking habits and know how to work around them, such as by arranging something with them at short notice so that they don't have the chance to flake, they shouldn't be too much trouble.
The rest of the types can be taken on a case-by-case basis. The downers, passive-aggressors and jealous types are not worth having as friends if these are their constant behaviours; however, most people have their down, passive-aggressive and jealous moments, and should be afforded some leeway with the caveat that the negativity doesn't become frequent. A self-absorbed person isn't always bad, either, for as long as they're otherwise a friendly individual I'm okay with them; besides, someone who enjoys talking about themselves all the time lifts the pressure off you whenever you want to hang out with someone but aren't in the mood for talking about yourself.
As people are not usually one-dimensional in personality and emotion, the aforementioned types can overlap: it's not impossible for someone to be all of the types shown in the video and it's also possible for such a person to be a good friend. Again, it's a case-by-case basis: we all have our bad moments and if we ended our friendships over trivialities, none of us would have any friends. Still, people who are a net-negative in your life should definitely be ejected from your social circles.
Fortunately for me, I don't know anyone whom I want to dump as a friend. In addition, this post is not a passive-aggressive attempt to get any of my friends reading this to examine and change their own behaviour...it's just my thoughts on something I found interesting! As always, other opinions are welcome.
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
About those "Nice Guys"...
Note: this is somewhat of a follow-up to the two posts I wrote rejecting the notion of the "Friend Zone"; see here and here.
Several years ago I read that women don't like nice guys. Back then I did not understand what this meant and I wrongly assumed that much of what I'd been taught and told about being a decent person was false, especially when it came to love, dating and relationships. I was baffled as to why women would be attracted to men who would be disrespectful or outright degrading towards them when people - both men and women - had taught me that women appreciate being treated with respect and politeness. Fortunately, I had misunderstood what "Nice Guy" meant and I'm pleased to say that I have now long since learnt the difference between what constitutes a "Nice Guy" versus a good man. So what is the difference?
Nice Guys are only interested in women for sex, nothing more. They appear to go at great lengths to be nice to women and specifically to women, but their "kindness" is factitious: they often go overboard to the point where their behaviour is creepy and this usually overdone niceness is just an act to manipulate women into having sex with them. A Nice Guy believes that pretending to be nice to a woman is all that's needed to bed her; he doesn't or won't understand why any woman would refuse him. In his mind, he went to all the trouble to treat her like any living and breathing human should be treated and believes that it's only fair that she reward him with sex; she wasn't supposed to be just reciprocally kind to him.
Nice Guys usually aren't interested in committed relationships; to them, women are just sexual vending machines and once the "niceness coins" have been inserted, they expect payout. Most if not all Nice Guys see sex with their target woman as the goal and once that goal has been achieved, they disassociate themselves with her, not wanting to be any more involved beyond satisfying their own selfish needs. Love and genuine caring between two people are almost always alien concepts to Nice Guys, and for them, having a friendship with a woman is a failure because there is no sex involved.
A good man, on the other hand, is kind to women because he understands that treating women respectfully is one of their fundamental rights as human beings. His demeanour is genuine, not at all a ploy just to have sex and he does not consider a friendship with a woman to be a failure. He does not view women as sex objects, nor does he regard all other men as competitors and therefore doesn't constantly overreact with aggression and excess jealousy towards them. A good man places value in relationships and doesn't view sex as the only factor that matters during them. His authenticity does not make him immune from having a broken heart and he will still experience bitterness, but his respect for women prevents him from blaming or hating all women just because one turned him down or hurt him.
Unfortunately, there are men who misunderstand the definition of a Nice Guy and they assume that women desire being degraded and/or only respect men who use their fists. What worries me here is that this misunderstanding might lead to some of these men becoming rude jerks at best or committing violence against women at worst; even during the days when I completely misunderstood what Nice Guy meant, I never believed that deliberately mistreating women was key to being attractive to them, but not all men think as I do. I sincerely hope that no man has ever misunderstood the term in this manner and ended up overreacting as such, but my concern lingers; it's imperative that men and women fully understand what separates Nice Guys from good men.
I should note that sexual desire itself does not transform a good man into a Nice Guy. A good man will still have his own romantic and sexual interests, as nearly all men (and also women) do, but it's not the only thing that's important to him during his interactions with women and he also cares about his girlfriend's/wife's sexual needs, unlike Nice Guys, who only care about their own. There is nothing shameful about wanting to have sex, but no person should ever be exploited or deceived for another person to obtain it.
Without wanting to distract or deflect from this post's main topic, I am sure that there is a female equivalent of Nice Guys (possibly called Nice Girls?); it's also likely that Nice Guys have their equivalents among the LGBT community, but I don't know enough about these counterparts to give an informed opinion about them. If they do exist, I'm sure they receive the same cold reception that Nice Guys do.
At the end of the day, people should be kind to others, men and women alike, because it's what they should do as good humans. I hold the optimistic opinion that, regardless of gender, if someone is a genuinely nice person then their attractive qualities will be noticed and they will quickly find themselves in a relationship, but if they're only nice just to trick others into having sex with them, then their attractive traits will be clouded by that veil of deception.
Several years ago I read that women don't like nice guys. Back then I did not understand what this meant and I wrongly assumed that much of what I'd been taught and told about being a decent person was false, especially when it came to love, dating and relationships. I was baffled as to why women would be attracted to men who would be disrespectful or outright degrading towards them when people - both men and women - had taught me that women appreciate being treated with respect and politeness. Fortunately, I had misunderstood what "Nice Guy" meant and I'm pleased to say that I have now long since learnt the difference between what constitutes a "Nice Guy" versus a good man. So what is the difference?
Nice Guys are only interested in women for sex, nothing more. They appear to go at great lengths to be nice to women and specifically to women, but their "kindness" is factitious: they often go overboard to the point where their behaviour is creepy and this usually overdone niceness is just an act to manipulate women into having sex with them. A Nice Guy believes that pretending to be nice to a woman is all that's needed to bed her; he doesn't or won't understand why any woman would refuse him. In his mind, he went to all the trouble to treat her like any living and breathing human should be treated and believes that it's only fair that she reward him with sex; she wasn't supposed to be just reciprocally kind to him.
Nice Guys usually aren't interested in committed relationships; to them, women are just sexual vending machines and once the "niceness coins" have been inserted, they expect payout. Most if not all Nice Guys see sex with their target woman as the goal and once that goal has been achieved, they disassociate themselves with her, not wanting to be any more involved beyond satisfying their own selfish needs. Love and genuine caring between two people are almost always alien concepts to Nice Guys, and for them, having a friendship with a woman is a failure because there is no sex involved.
A good man, on the other hand, is kind to women because he understands that treating women respectfully is one of their fundamental rights as human beings. His demeanour is genuine, not at all a ploy just to have sex and he does not consider a friendship with a woman to be a failure. He does not view women as sex objects, nor does he regard all other men as competitors and therefore doesn't constantly overreact with aggression and excess jealousy towards them. A good man places value in relationships and doesn't view sex as the only factor that matters during them. His authenticity does not make him immune from having a broken heart and he will still experience bitterness, but his respect for women prevents him from blaming or hating all women just because one turned him down or hurt him.
Unfortunately, there are men who misunderstand the definition of a Nice Guy and they assume that women desire being degraded and/or only respect men who use their fists. What worries me here is that this misunderstanding might lead to some of these men becoming rude jerks at best or committing violence against women at worst; even during the days when I completely misunderstood what Nice Guy meant, I never believed that deliberately mistreating women was key to being attractive to them, but not all men think as I do. I sincerely hope that no man has ever misunderstood the term in this manner and ended up overreacting as such, but my concern lingers; it's imperative that men and women fully understand what separates Nice Guys from good men.
I should note that sexual desire itself does not transform a good man into a Nice Guy. A good man will still have his own romantic and sexual interests, as nearly all men (and also women) do, but it's not the only thing that's important to him during his interactions with women and he also cares about his girlfriend's/wife's sexual needs, unlike Nice Guys, who only care about their own. There is nothing shameful about wanting to have sex, but no person should ever be exploited or deceived for another person to obtain it.
Without wanting to distract or deflect from this post's main topic, I am sure that there is a female equivalent of Nice Guys (possibly called Nice Girls?); it's also likely that Nice Guys have their equivalents among the LGBT community, but I don't know enough about these counterparts to give an informed opinion about them. If they do exist, I'm sure they receive the same cold reception that Nice Guys do.
At the end of the day, people should be kind to others, men and women alike, because it's what they should do as good humans. I hold the optimistic opinion that, regardless of gender, if someone is a genuinely nice person then their attractive qualities will be noticed and they will quickly find themselves in a relationship, but if they're only nice just to trick others into having sex with them, then their attractive traits will be clouded by that veil of deception.
Monday, 17 March 2014
Chocolate cream cheese icing recipe
As promised, here is the recipe for chocolate cream cheese icing:
9 ounces of plain cream cheese/soft cheese
1 half-cup of powdered sugar
1 quarter cup of chocolate powder
1 1/2 teaspoons of vanilla extract
1 blender
It's a fairly easy recipe. I usually mix the cream cheese by itself first to soften it some more and then I add the sugar, mix again, add the chocolate and the vanilla extract and then mix for the third time. In the absence of a blender or any other type of food mixer, stirring thoroughly with a spoon also works.
I double-checked with my brother to ensure that these were the correct ingredients.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)