A knitting forum post has got my blood boiling. A knitter has been asked by a friend of a friend to knit an aran jumper. Her question: "I normally add a nominal charge for knitting but this is a complicated
pattern, what do you think would be reasonable price per ball?".
The implications in that innocent question have made me see red. In one short sentence, that knitter has summed up what is wrong with the way our mutual craft is perceived. Instead of it being seen as something that requires concentration, skill and many hours of labour, "it's only knitting"(!) and, therefore, not worth anything. Knitting is sneered at for being "home made" or "hand made". It's perceived as women's work or a hobby, something that is done for the enjoyment of the craft, but second rate because anyone can do it if they put their mind to it.
(I'm an accountant. Anyone can book-keep in their spare time and charge £20/hour for the privilege and nobody would think twice. It doesn't require as much skill as knitting. Or as much time.)
What really annoys me is that craftspeople won't charge a proper price for their work. Instead, they consistently under-charge, which adds to the reason why home-made and hand-made are so undervalued. When you're selling something crafted with your labour, you should charge for your labour and be properly rewarded. Why undervalue your time? It is as valuable as anyone-else's. You are providing a service, like any other tradesman and should charge accordingly. Minimum wage in this country is currently £6.08 an hour. My advice to the knitter was to work out how many hours it'd take to knit the jumper, multiply that by minimum wage and charge accordingly. (Adding in the cost of materials, of course.) I doubt she'll follow my advice because it will work out to many hundreds of Pounds and she won't think her work is worth that.
Charging £500 for the time it takes to knit a jumper is reasonable, in my opinion. There are plenty of women out there who'd pay £100 for a screen-printed silk scarf which can be produced in its thousands. (Hermes, anyone?) Every hand knitted garment is unique; why not charge accordingly?
"But nobody can afford to pay £500 for a jumper!", I hear you splutter. So? I can't afford to waste £500 worth of my time producing something for you that you don't value. If I give you something I've made, then you better bloody appreciate it!
- Pam
Saturday, 17 March 2012
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
The story of our lives
I'm working from home today. It's nearly 10am, so the heating has been off for a while now. Downstairs, DH is working on the laptop, sitting on the couch in a t-shirt and shorts. For him, it's pleasantly warm. Meanwhile, I'm upstairs in the study, wearing jeans, a long-sleeved t-shirt, a jumper, knee-length ugg boots and fingerless mitts, draped in a wrap, with a blanket over my lap and a hat on my head. I'm freezing but I categorically refuse to put the heating back on.
Story of our lives, really: he runs hot; I'm almost always cold.
- Pam
Story of our lives, really: he runs hot; I'm almost always cold.
- Pam
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Food security
Last week, one of my lunches was a Thai Chicken 'lunch pot' from the condemned food counter at Tesco (less than half price of course). While it was heating, I read the ingredients list and was horrified to discover that the country of origin for the chicken was Thailand!
I have nothing against the Thais exporting meat, but surely it does not make economic or environmental sense to import chicken for use in a ready meal from 9,000 miles away? Not when there are probably a million chicken farms located in between.
Anyway, it got me thinking of the issue of food security. The next World War will probably be fought over access to food and water, when Global Warming and an ever increasing population exacerbate current food shortages. Low lying areas will flood as the polar ice-caps melt, while drought zones will get even less rainfall. To avoid catastrophe, surely it is up to every country to encourage their population to grow as much food as possible in the most environmentally friendly way possible? Shouldn't they encourage supermarkets and food businesses to buy locally?
This argument isn't as straight-forward as it may initially seem. With all the best intentions in the world, can Britain feed itself? Even in the 1930's, Britain did not produce enough food to feed it's population. For more than 50 years prior to World War 2, Britain's agricultural sector was trapped in an economic depression while cheap imports kept prices low and farmers went bankrupt. Food production fell during that time. After the War, the huge push into factory farming was driven by the need for food security but, as a result, we now have green deserts of monoculture, where the soil has been depleted of nutrients because crops are no longer rotated, leaving the farms dependent on fertilisers.
Animals were confined to "factory farms", where their welfare was severely compromised in order to squeeze more chickens/pigs/cattle into smaller and smaller spaces. This is changing, but if we provide farm animals with sufficient space, fresh air, daylight and fresh food to enable a decent standard of welfare, will we produce enough food? Is the even sufficient land available?
In addition, there are things we just can't grow: rice, hard wheat suitable for bread, many fruits.
On the flip side, enterprising farmers in Africa and Asia have created businesses growing food for Britain. A large proportion of fresh produce in our supermarkets is imported from places like Kenya. Traditional British varieties of potatoes are imported from Egypt. These farmers are creating wealth for themselves and paying a living to their workers, reducing their need for international aid to survive. By buying British, will we deprive these people of the chance to better themselves and their nations? Or are the contracts placed with these farms actually driving up local food prices beyond the budgets of the locals and diverting food to Europe which would otherwise feed them? Are we exporting the worst of our current food production practices to them, in order to keep down costs? Will we damage their farming environment, like we've damaged our own?
I wonder whether the French tolerate food imports in the same way as we do, since a walk through Carrefour leaves the impression that they're rather pay more for good food that is locally produced rather than buy cheap imports. In their street markets, usually the person selling fresh produce is the farmer who grew it. They are proud of their local food producers and I understand that attitude. I know the people who grow my vegetables and where they source their eggs. I hope my butcher purchases his meat from ethical sources. Personally, I do not want my food to travel thousands of miles around the world unless it is moving under it's own power (flying, walking or swimming). I'd like to grow more of my own food, particularly the things our farmer doesn't grow (aubergine, peppers).
See what I mean? This isn't a simple argument. Where do we go from here?
- Pam
I have nothing against the Thais exporting meat, but surely it does not make economic or environmental sense to import chicken for use in a ready meal from 9,000 miles away? Not when there are probably a million chicken farms located in between.
Anyway, it got me thinking of the issue of food security. The next World War will probably be fought over access to food and water, when Global Warming and an ever increasing population exacerbate current food shortages. Low lying areas will flood as the polar ice-caps melt, while drought zones will get even less rainfall. To avoid catastrophe, surely it is up to every country to encourage their population to grow as much food as possible in the most environmentally friendly way possible? Shouldn't they encourage supermarkets and food businesses to buy locally?
This argument isn't as straight-forward as it may initially seem. With all the best intentions in the world, can Britain feed itself? Even in the 1930's, Britain did not produce enough food to feed it's population. For more than 50 years prior to World War 2, Britain's agricultural sector was trapped in an economic depression while cheap imports kept prices low and farmers went bankrupt. Food production fell during that time. After the War, the huge push into factory farming was driven by the need for food security but, as a result, we now have green deserts of monoculture, where the soil has been depleted of nutrients because crops are no longer rotated, leaving the farms dependent on fertilisers.
Animals were confined to "factory farms", where their welfare was severely compromised in order to squeeze more chickens/pigs/cattle into smaller and smaller spaces. This is changing, but if we provide farm animals with sufficient space, fresh air, daylight and fresh food to enable a decent standard of welfare, will we produce enough food? Is the even sufficient land available?
In addition, there are things we just can't grow: rice, hard wheat suitable for bread, many fruits.
On the flip side, enterprising farmers in Africa and Asia have created businesses growing food for Britain. A large proportion of fresh produce in our supermarkets is imported from places like Kenya. Traditional British varieties of potatoes are imported from Egypt. These farmers are creating wealth for themselves and paying a living to their workers, reducing their need for international aid to survive. By buying British, will we deprive these people of the chance to better themselves and their nations? Or are the contracts placed with these farms actually driving up local food prices beyond the budgets of the locals and diverting food to Europe which would otherwise feed them? Are we exporting the worst of our current food production practices to them, in order to keep down costs? Will we damage their farming environment, like we've damaged our own?
I wonder whether the French tolerate food imports in the same way as we do, since a walk through Carrefour leaves the impression that they're rather pay more for good food that is locally produced rather than buy cheap imports. In their street markets, usually the person selling fresh produce is the farmer who grew it. They are proud of their local food producers and I understand that attitude. I know the people who grow my vegetables and where they source their eggs. I hope my butcher purchases his meat from ethical sources. Personally, I do not want my food to travel thousands of miles around the world unless it is moving under it's own power (flying, walking or swimming). I'd like to grow more of my own food, particularly the things our farmer doesn't grow (aubergine, peppers).
See what I mean? This isn't a simple argument. Where do we go from here?
- Pam
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
A very un-Kosher pasta dish
Sometimes, a recipe comes from almost nowhere. That's what happened with this. A chance glance at a photograph on the BBC Good Food website, led to me dreaming up this recipe on my drive home from work a couple of weeks ago. It was so visceral, I could almost taste it. In the end, I gave into my cravings, dug out the non-kosher cookware and came up with this:
Bacon and cream cheese pasta
Serves 4 to 6
Ingredients
150g bacon trimmings
1 onion sliced
1 clove garlic, crushed
100g mushrooms, sliced
250ml dry white wine
200g cream cheese
30g or so of freshly grated Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese (real "parmesan" not that Danish fake rubbish)
500g pasta shapes (I used quills because that is what I had)
Method
Bacon and cream cheese pasta
Serves 4 to 6
Ingredients
150g bacon trimmings
1 onion sliced
1 clove garlic, crushed
100g mushrooms, sliced
250ml dry white wine
200g cream cheese
30g or so of freshly grated Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese (real "parmesan" not that Danish fake rubbish)
500g pasta shapes (I used quills because that is what I had)
Method
- Put the water on to boil for the pasta. Cook the pasta according to the packet's directions.
- Meanwhile, prepare the onion, garlic and mushrooms and proceed with the rest of the recipe.
- In a non-stick frying pan, dry fry the bacon until the fat begins to run. Stir occasionally.
- Once there is fat in the frying pan, add the onion and continue frying it until the onion becomes glassy/clear.
- Stir in the mushrooms and the garlic. Continue frying, stirring occasionally, until the mushrooms have made water and it has evaporated.
- Pour in the white wine and bring to the boil. Stir in the cream cheese and keep stirring until it has melted and the sauce is creamy. Switch off the heat and stir in the parmesan.
- Drain the pasta and return it to the saucepan. Pour over the sauce. Season with freshly ground pepper and serve.
Enjoy.
- Pam
Sunday, 26 February 2012
Free Entertainment: Kermode and Mayo's Film Review Podcast
I've mentioned before that I'm a big fan of radio. I'm also a huge fan of podcasts and audiobooks. If you look at my MP3 player, half of its 16GB is occupied by music; the other half is occupied by either podcasts or audiobooks. Of course, podcasts are the free/cheap entertainment of the affluent - you need a computer/smartphone and internet access to play.
My absolute favourite podcast is Mark Kermode's and Simon Mayo's Film Review, which is their Friday afternoon radio program edited to remove the travel and news items. Even if you aren't a huge film buff, the interplay between Simon and Mark will have you in stitches. The only problem I have with them is that I have so many knitting podcasts on my playlist that I have to make a conscious effort to move "Kermode" up to the top of the list each week, or I fall too far behind and have to spend a week catching up.
Last Friday, I caught up on the "Kermode" from 10th February, where they reviewed both the 3D release of Star Wars Phantom Menace and the new Muppet film, The Muppets. Mark was justifiably scathing about George Lucas' latest attempt to extract money from a gullible public. To summarise: the original film was poor; the retrofitted 3D version was worse. Lucas has only re-released it for the money to be made from merchandising.
What cracked me up, though, was their response to the clip he played of Yoda ("Thank you Fozzie") because Yoda did sound exactly like Fozzie Bear. Sadly, I can't find that clip but you should try Simon's Fozzie Bear impression because it's very entertaining. I'd just walked back to the car after a night out and had to lean against it to stay upright, I was laughing so hard.
I really urge you to try this podcast. It's available globally via iTunes and there is an archive of several years' worth of podcasts. Each episode lasts approximately an hour and forty five minutes. You can get a flavour from this collection of clips. I'd particularly recommend their Twelve Days of Christmas if you want a laugh.
- Pam
My absolute favourite podcast is Mark Kermode's and Simon Mayo's Film Review, which is their Friday afternoon radio program edited to remove the travel and news items. Even if you aren't a huge film buff, the interplay between Simon and Mark will have you in stitches. The only problem I have with them is that I have so many knitting podcasts on my playlist that I have to make a conscious effort to move "Kermode" up to the top of the list each week, or I fall too far behind and have to spend a week catching up.
Last Friday, I caught up on the "Kermode" from 10th February, where they reviewed both the 3D release of Star Wars Phantom Menace and the new Muppet film, The Muppets. Mark was justifiably scathing about George Lucas' latest attempt to extract money from a gullible public. To summarise: the original film was poor; the retrofitted 3D version was worse. Lucas has only re-released it for the money to be made from merchandising.
What cracked me up, though, was their response to the clip he played of Yoda ("Thank you Fozzie") because Yoda did sound exactly like Fozzie Bear. Sadly, I can't find that clip but you should try Simon's Fozzie Bear impression because it's very entertaining. I'd just walked back to the car after a night out and had to lean against it to stay upright, I was laughing so hard.
I really urge you to try this podcast. It's available globally via iTunes and there is an archive of several years' worth of podcasts. Each episode lasts approximately an hour and forty five minutes. You can get a flavour from this collection of clips. I'd particularly recommend their Twelve Days of Christmas if you want a laugh.
- Pam
Friday, 10 February 2012
The Use It Up Challenge
You may have noticed that one of my goals this year is to work my way through the small stockpile of "stuff" I have accumulated: a random collection of make-up, hotel shampoo bottles, cosmetic samples, herbs and spices, jars of jams and sauces, even clothes that don't get worn because they have committed the crime of needing to be ironed. It is an eclectic list. The only defining factor is that the item involved is something that is currently gathering dust but it is something that I use and therefore don't want to throw out, because if I did throw it out I will have to purchase a substitute. Does that make sense?
Another part of the challenge is that I don't want to waste something just so I can tell myself it is "finished". By that, I mean lipstick has to be used right to the bottom of the tube and not just to the point where you can't paint it on your lips without using a lip-brush. Ditto lip gloss and make-up base that comes in a stick. I still need to get my money's worth.
Here are the make-up stockpiles and what I propose to do with them:-
Make-up base.
I have ten in my stockpile, including two tubs of PanCake (bought because it doesn't melt off your face in humid weather), four Avon all-in-one bases for travel (bought in bulk to take advantage of an offer) and the last of my famous Boots score from 2004 (when I bought 6 bottles of base at 50p each, thinking they would last maybe 3 months each - instead they lasted 10).
What I've started with, though, are the dregs of a tube of PanStick. Like lipstick, probably the bottom third of any stick make-up is inaccessible, so I gouged it out of the tube and dumped it into a recently emptied Avon make-up compact. I now apply it in exactly the same manner, using the sponge that came from Avon.
Lipstick.
Most women probably have a stash of assorted lipsticks, at least one for every occasion. I know for a certainty that I have only bought one lipstick in the last 4 years and yet a quick count tells me that I have 34! However, that includes my stock of 9 Covergirl lipsticks in the Bistro Burgundy shade, the brand (and colour) that I wear almost daily but which is unavailable in this country. I buy them whenever I go to Australia or North America. I have two on the go at any given time: one on my dresser and one in my bag for top-ups. When the one on the dresser is completely used up, I rotate the handbag one to the dresser and pop a new lipstick in my handbag.
Although I wear lipstick every day to work, each one lasts for close to two years, partially because I use a lip brush to apply the bottom third, and partially because I've solved the problem of keeping lipstick "on" all day, so that you don't have to constantly reapply it. (There is nothing worse than having your lipstick come off on your mug or glass.) The secret: apply lipstick to dry lips, blot on a tissue and then apply a coat of Lipcoat. It will then last the whole day, unless lunch is really greasy, although the colour may fade a bit as the day goes on. If your Lipcoat peels, then you didn't blot it well enough. You have to apply it to dry lipstick.
Blusher.
I'm still using a blusher that I purchased in...... wait for it...... 1986. That's right 26 years ago. If that's not an advert for the longevity of Clinque's products, I don't know what is. Admittedly, for the first 6 years, I worked in a job where you did not wear make-up (I never wore make-up to work when I nursed - it'd come off on the masks). And twice it went into time-out when I used up other blushers, but neither of those lasted longer than a year. I have been expecting it to run out for a long time and purchased a replacement some time ago. However, a quick count reveals I have six other blushers stockpiled, which includes the replacement, a "travel" blusher, the emergency blusher from this post, and two Estee Lauder free-bees from a "gift" (one of those buy "2 items and get a free gift" things, in this case the set of bags that are my knitting bags. I was surprised to discover they held make-up).
The big secret to making your blusher last a long time is to use a proper blusher brush. I think it is because the brush covers a larger area of you face per application than the one that comes in the compact.
Mascara.
Apparently, I have seven, including three sample-sized ones and the one I'm using now. This is another product I use to the very end. I am aware that "experts" say to only use a mascara for three months because of potential contamination but I have never had an eye infection from this product. If I feel any irritation after applying a mascara, it goes straight in the bin. (I can't wear Rimmel mascara. It has something in it that irritates my eyes.) I do not share my mascara or my lipstick so consider that any bugs that might be growing in them have cousins still on me.
OK, that's my "dirty laundry". What's yours?
- Pam
Another part of the challenge is that I don't want to waste something just so I can tell myself it is "finished". By that, I mean lipstick has to be used right to the bottom of the tube and not just to the point where you can't paint it on your lips without using a lip-brush. Ditto lip gloss and make-up base that comes in a stick. I still need to get my money's worth.
Here are the make-up stockpiles and what I propose to do with them:-
Make-up base.
I have ten in my stockpile, including two tubs of PanCake (bought because it doesn't melt off your face in humid weather), four Avon all-in-one bases for travel (bought in bulk to take advantage of an offer) and the last of my famous Boots score from 2004 (when I bought 6 bottles of base at 50p each, thinking they would last maybe 3 months each - instead they lasted 10).
What I've started with, though, are the dregs of a tube of PanStick. Like lipstick, probably the bottom third of any stick make-up is inaccessible, so I gouged it out of the tube and dumped it into a recently emptied Avon make-up compact. I now apply it in exactly the same manner, using the sponge that came from Avon.
Lipstick.
Most women probably have a stash of assorted lipsticks, at least one for every occasion. I know for a certainty that I have only bought one lipstick in the last 4 years and yet a quick count tells me that I have 34! However, that includes my stock of 9 Covergirl lipsticks in the Bistro Burgundy shade, the brand (and colour) that I wear almost daily but which is unavailable in this country. I buy them whenever I go to Australia or North America. I have two on the go at any given time: one on my dresser and one in my bag for top-ups. When the one on the dresser is completely used up, I rotate the handbag one to the dresser and pop a new lipstick in my handbag.
Although I wear lipstick every day to work, each one lasts for close to two years, partially because I use a lip brush to apply the bottom third, and partially because I've solved the problem of keeping lipstick "on" all day, so that you don't have to constantly reapply it. (There is nothing worse than having your lipstick come off on your mug or glass.) The secret: apply lipstick to dry lips, blot on a tissue and then apply a coat of Lipcoat. It will then last the whole day, unless lunch is really greasy, although the colour may fade a bit as the day goes on. If your Lipcoat peels, then you didn't blot it well enough. You have to apply it to dry lipstick.
Blusher.
I'm still using a blusher that I purchased in...... wait for it...... 1986. That's right 26 years ago. If that's not an advert for the longevity of Clinque's products, I don't know what is. Admittedly, for the first 6 years, I worked in a job where you did not wear make-up (I never wore make-up to work when I nursed - it'd come off on the masks). And twice it went into time-out when I used up other blushers, but neither of those lasted longer than a year. I have been expecting it to run out for a long time and purchased a replacement some time ago. However, a quick count reveals I have six other blushers stockpiled, which includes the replacement, a "travel" blusher, the emergency blusher from this post, and two Estee Lauder free-bees from a "gift" (one of those buy "2 items and get a free gift" things, in this case the set of bags that are my knitting bags. I was surprised to discover they held make-up).
The big secret to making your blusher last a long time is to use a proper blusher brush. I think it is because the brush covers a larger area of you face per application than the one that comes in the compact.
Mascara.
Apparently, I have seven, including three sample-sized ones and the one I'm using now. This is another product I use to the very end. I am aware that "experts" say to only use a mascara for three months because of potential contamination but I have never had an eye infection from this product. If I feel any irritation after applying a mascara, it goes straight in the bin. (I can't wear Rimmel mascara. It has something in it that irritates my eyes.) I do not share my mascara or my lipstick so consider that any bugs that might be growing in them have cousins still on me.
OK, that's my "dirty laundry". What's yours?
- Pam
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Saturday, 4 February 2012
The Toy has an announcement to make:
To all those muscle cars, driven by hotheads who think they own the road, next time you're pretending speed limits don't apply to you and insisting the rest of us move out of your way, here's something you'll never be able to do:
Here, take a closer look:
Next time you come roaring up the motorway, weaving in and out of cars like you're a pin-ball, remember this is what a REAL MUSCLE CAR is all about. And that car, is me!!!
Milestone 250,000 miles 22 January 2012
Thursday, 26 January 2012
Cheap is not the only reason to buy
You will be relieved to know that my recent bout of yarn-lust didn't result in a purchase. Maybe, as Amy suggested, it was the time between receiving Lidl's email and actually visiting a branch (Lidl is a supermarket chain from Germany), that allowed it to wear off. Maybe it was because I'd spent several hours rummaging through the stash on Sunday, reacquainting myself with what I already have. Maybe it was because none of the patterns are screaming "Make me in this!", but when I popped into Lidl yesterday, I was underwhelmed by the look of the yarn and the colours on offer.
It was all quite "Meh" in the flesh. Ok, but nothing special. Even the sock yarn didn't appeal. Forget the bargain price. Cheap is no good unless you want to knit with it. And I don't.
This is one big reason I prefer to buy my yarn in person rather than via the internet - internet purchases often look far prettier on the monitor than in real life and colours are deceptive. (I do purchase yarn online, but it is usually something I've seen and touched first.)
Lesson reinforced.
Pam
It was all quite "Meh" in the flesh. Ok, but nothing special. Even the sock yarn didn't appeal. Forget the bargain price. Cheap is no good unless you want to knit with it. And I don't.
This is one big reason I prefer to buy my yarn in person rather than via the internet - internet purchases often look far prettier on the monitor than in real life and colours are deceptive. (I do purchase yarn online, but it is usually something I've seen and touched first.)
Lesson reinforced.
Pam
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Non-darning sock repair
Over Christmas, one of the things I did was repair the worn-out soles of a pair of DH's socks. These were alpaca socks that I knitted for him in 2009 and, I've just realised, I've never documented. (The closest I've got was in this post, when I ended up knitting on them in a traffic jam.) The yarn is UK Alpaca's Alpaca Sock Yarn, a 60% alpaca, 20% merino wool, 20% nylon yarn.
Anyway, last winter, DH wore the ball of one foot down to the nylon.
I don't darn socks, but after the labour-of-love it took to make them, I decided I had to do something. So I hit upon the idea of knitting a patch over the top. (The rest of the socks are in good condition.) Using a latch hook, I picked up stitches along one side of the worn section and slipped them over a DPN.
Then I knitted a row and purled back. On the next and subsequent knit rows, I picked up the stitch that was parallel to the patch and knitted it together with the end stitch from the patch. (Not sure how clearly you can see that from this photo.)
Basically, I knitted a pocket that was attached across the bottom and down both sides.
When I was satisfied that the patch covered the worn area, I Kitchener stitched the patch to the sole.
Finally, I wove in the ends, using them to invisibly tack the nylon to the patch.
And voila! Not invisible - the yarn is from a different dye lot for a start - but it's soft, doesn't rub and will last for a long time.
- Pam
Anyway, last winter, DH wore the ball of one foot down to the nylon.
I don't darn socks, but after the labour-of-love it took to make them, I decided I had to do something. So I hit upon the idea of knitting a patch over the top. (The rest of the socks are in good condition.) Using a latch hook, I picked up stitches along one side of the worn section and slipped them over a DPN.
Then I knitted a row and purled back. On the next and subsequent knit rows, I picked up the stitch that was parallel to the patch and knitted it together with the end stitch from the patch. (Not sure how clearly you can see that from this photo.)
Basically, I knitted a pocket that was attached across the bottom and down both sides.
When I was satisfied that the patch covered the worn area, I Kitchener stitched the patch to the sole.
Finally, I wove in the ends, using them to invisibly tack the nylon to the patch.
And voila! Not invisible - the yarn is from a different dye lot for a start - but it's soft, doesn't rub and will last for a long time.
- Pam
Friday, 20 January 2012
Frugal Friday - Temptations and Balancing Acts
I am having one of those days, when I want something "just because" and part of me is rationalising hard to get it. The thing is, it might turn out to be pretty ordinary when I finally get my hands on it. But I won't know that until I handle it. All I've seen are pictures and the colours are lovely...
Naturally, I'm talking about yarn. I subscribe to the Lidl newsletter, which lands in my in-box on Mondays and Thursdays. Every so often, they do knitting yarns and the odds are 70:30 in favour of their yarns being good instead of cheap, nasty acrylics. Yesterday's edition announced that, as of Monday, they'll be stocking a cotton-wool-blend sock yarn (this one with a new name), some 100% DK cotton in assorted packs (meh), and a cotton-viscose blend DK which really caught my attention (this one, I think). The colours I'm lusting after are the two at the back, the pretty pink and the aqua:
(Photo from Lidl's website.)
They'll be sold in packs of 4 skeins for £4.99 a pack. Two packs of either would be enough to make a Soleil from Knitty; three would make a Raina from the Twist Collective. And here is where my argument with myself really starts:
On the one hand, the price is totally within my self-imposed £3/ball limit.
On the other hand, purchasing enough to make the Raina would absorb a quarter of my £60 yarn budget for the year and we're only one month in; buying both colours would have me spend £25 or even £30 on something I might not knit with for 2 or 3 years. That's 40% or 50% of the budget. Can I really go 11 more months on £30? Money will be tight until DH gets a new job and I don't want to set myself up so that I'll break the budget later on. Also, if I spend this much now, what will I do if something better comes along later?
On the first hand, I'd like to encourage Lidl to keep stocking yarn, and the only way to do that is to buy some.
On the second hand, I have two separate yarns in virtually the same shade as the pink (if the photo is true to life). I don't need more.
On the first hand, I don't have anything like that aqua. I could settle for just the one colour. And while Soleil is nice, the Raina will be more flattering (especially if I modify the neck to a sweetheart one like this one in Ravelry). Or I could do the Soleil - that'd mean only spending £10.
On the other hand, I have far too much yarn as it is. I DON'T NEED MORE YARN.
God, I hope the stuff looks horrible in real life! That'd save me from trying to square the circle. Knowing I only have £xx to spend means that I want to get the best value possible and not squander it. I have to balance the "I want it now" with the "but will I want that more, later?". That is what budgeting is all about. It's a way of ensuring that sufficient money accumulated now for goodies later.
- Pam
Naturally, I'm talking about yarn. I subscribe to the Lidl newsletter, which lands in my in-box on Mondays and Thursdays. Every so often, they do knitting yarns and the odds are 70:30 in favour of their yarns being good instead of cheap, nasty acrylics. Yesterday's edition announced that, as of Monday, they'll be stocking a cotton-wool-blend sock yarn (this one with a new name), some 100% DK cotton in assorted packs (meh), and a cotton-viscose blend DK which really caught my attention (this one, I think). The colours I'm lusting after are the two at the back, the pretty pink and the aqua:
They'll be sold in packs of 4 skeins for £4.99 a pack. Two packs of either would be enough to make a Soleil from Knitty; three would make a Raina from the Twist Collective. And here is where my argument with myself really starts:
On the one hand, the price is totally within my self-imposed £3/ball limit.
On the other hand, purchasing enough to make the Raina would absorb a quarter of my £60 yarn budget for the year and we're only one month in; buying both colours would have me spend £25 or even £30 on something I might not knit with for 2 or 3 years. That's 40% or 50% of the budget. Can I really go 11 more months on £30? Money will be tight until DH gets a new job and I don't want to set myself up so that I'll break the budget later on. Also, if I spend this much now, what will I do if something better comes along later?
On the first hand, I'd like to encourage Lidl to keep stocking yarn, and the only way to do that is to buy some.
On the second hand, I have two separate yarns in virtually the same shade as the pink (if the photo is true to life). I don't need more.
On the first hand, I don't have anything like that aqua. I could settle for just the one colour. And while Soleil is nice, the Raina will be more flattering (especially if I modify the neck to a sweetheart one like this one in Ravelry). Or I could do the Soleil - that'd mean only spending £10.
On the other hand, I have far too much yarn as it is. I DON'T NEED MORE YARN.
God, I hope the stuff looks horrible in real life! That'd save me from trying to square the circle. Knowing I only have £xx to spend means that I want to get the best value possible and not squander it. I have to balance the "I want it now" with the "but will I want that more, later?". That is what budgeting is all about. It's a way of ensuring that sufficient money accumulated now for goodies later.
- Pam
Thursday, 19 January 2012
A letter to Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo:
Recently, I've been catching up on your
podcasts, having missed several weeks of live shows. One thing I've noticed is
Mark's regular disparaging remarks about so called "comedies" such as The Hangover. A few weeks ago, while
I watched Burn After
Reading (3 laughs); a
question occurred to me upon which I'd like to hear your views: is modern
American comedy predicated on the assumption that the audience is stupid and
that, as a consequence, the audience finds stupidity
funny?
I'll rant about Burn After Reading because it is the most recent example I have watched, but you could substitute any one of a hundred other films. It was impossible to connect with the characters played by Brad Pitt, George Clooney or Frances McDormand - they had no character traits other than stupidity and self-centredness. They just weren't interesting. Surely comedy works best when you have sympathy for a character? The only main character in that film who wasn't vapid, stupid and self-centred was John Malkovich's, Ossie Cox. Ditto, he was the only really interesting person. And yet, in a film which starts off about the disintegration of his life, he rapidly becomes a bit-part character because the producers/director/writers found it easier to focus on the stupid characters.
Anyway, what do you think? Is it possible for modern Hollywood to produce a comedy about well rounded characters which relies on intelligence and wit to be funny?
Love the show, Steve. Say "Hi" to Jason Isaacs for me.
- Pam
I'll rant about Burn After Reading because it is the most recent example I have watched, but you could substitute any one of a hundred other films. It was impossible to connect with the characters played by Brad Pitt, George Clooney or Frances McDormand - they had no character traits other than stupidity and self-centredness. They just weren't interesting. Surely comedy works best when you have sympathy for a character? The only main character in that film who wasn't vapid, stupid and self-centred was John Malkovich's, Ossie Cox. Ditto, he was the only really interesting person. And yet, in a film which starts off about the disintegration of his life, he rapidly becomes a bit-part character because the producers/director/writers found it easier to focus on the stupid characters.
Anyway, what do you think? Is it possible for modern Hollywood to produce a comedy about well rounded characters which relies on intelligence and wit to be funny?
Love the show, Steve. Say "Hi" to Jason Isaacs for me.
- Pam
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
Broccoli & Stilton Soup
Whenever we have broccoli, I save the stems in the freezer until I have the urge to make Broccoli and Stilton Soup. I use the stems as padding, instead of using two heads of broccoli, I'll use one head including the stem plus another stem. However, if you're feeling particularly frugal use 3 or 4 stems and no florets of broccoli. If you've only got frozen broccoli, you'll need about 500g/1lb.
If you don't have Stilton, you can use any other blue cheese. Be warned if you use Danish Blue - it gets most of its flavour from salt.
Since I decided to make soup, DH dug the bread maker out of storage. Here's proof you can make bread and cook a meal with vitually no workspace whatsover.
Broccoli & Stilton Soup - Serves 4
Ingredients
1 tablespoon of oil or butter
1 medium onion, sliced
1 clove garlic, crushed
200ml dry white wine or cider
800ml stock (or water plus 2 stock cubes)
1 head broccoli plus 1 or 2 stems
150g Stilton or other strong blue cheese, cubed
Pepper to season
Method
Enjoy!
- Pam
If you don't have Stilton, you can use any other blue cheese. Be warned if you use Danish Blue - it gets most of its flavour from salt.
Since I decided to make soup, DH dug the bread maker out of storage. Here's proof you can make bread and cook a meal with vitually no workspace whatsover.
Broccoli & Stilton Soup - Serves 4
Ingredients
1 tablespoon of oil or butter
1 medium onion, sliced
1 clove garlic, crushed
200ml dry white wine or cider
800ml stock (or water plus 2 stock cubes)
1 head broccoli plus 1 or 2 stems
150g Stilton or other strong blue cheese, cubed
Pepper to season
Method
- In a deep saucepan, melt the butter or heat the oil. Stir in the onion and garlic and fry until soft.
- Meanwhile, cut the broccoli into florets and slice the stems.
- When the onion is soft, pour over the wine or cider together with stock, then gently add the broccoli. Bring to the boil and simmer for 20 minutes or until the stems are soft.
- Stir in the cheese and keep stirring while it melts.
- Using a hand blender, blend until smooth. Alternatively, if you have a food processor or stand-alone blender, carefully ladle the hot soup into the blender and process until smooth, then return to cooking pot or decant into a soup terrine. Do not over process - I once made a soup so smooth and textureless that it was horrible to eat. It had the mouth-feel of water.
- Season with freshly ground pepper. You won't need salt because the cheese is salty enough.
- Serve with fresh bread.
Enjoy!
- Pam
Friday, 6 January 2012
Frugal Friday - the "M" word
M is for money.
It seems that, every where I looked before Christmas, people were talking about budgets and budgeting. The BBC ran a series of the Money Programme looking at people and money. Channel 4 ran a Christmas Special episode of Superscrimpers as well as The Ultimate Guide to Pennypinching. We recorded most of the episodes and have caught up over the last week.
The BBC Money Programme series started with an episode about people paying hundreds/thousands of pounds to attend wealth seminars, in the blind hope that they'll discover some big "secret" that'll make them rich overnight without putting in some hard graft first. The people profiled missed the big irony - that the real secret behind wealth seminars is in the income they generate for the organisers a.k.a. "wealth counsellors" and not in the information they're presenting to their audience. (That is a rant for another day.)
What was more interesting to me were the second and third episodes: the second episode was about couples and the conflicts money (or lack of it) causes; the third profiled several families where their combined, after-tax income was £40,000. In each, the couples talked about their budgets and their attitudes to money. The couples episode, in particular, included questions about whether they ever talked about money to each other, how they rated the other person's attitude to money, etc.
Some really stuck in the memory. For example, I don't rate the longevity of the marriage of the legal secretary who despised her NHS-employed, research scientist husband's income for being too low at approximately £31k. He has a PhD and is working on potentially life-saving research but science doesn't pay in this country (frankly, if he was married to me, I'd be really proud of him for the work that he does and not care about his salary). Her opinion, though, was that he is failing as a husband because he would not keep her and her children in the manner to which she'd liked to be accustomed. According to her, he was "tight" with money. It was obvious that she compared him to the lawyers for whom she worked, who earn a lot more than he does and who probably have stay at home wives, kids at private school, etc. They only married because she got pregnant within 6 weeks of their first date and didn't have a "money conversation" until long afterwards.
(Incidentally, the obvious money-earner has never seemed to occur to her: studying law and persuading her employers to back her. Or as DH put it, "Stop moaning about your husband's income and work out a way to earn some more yourself".)
One of the eye-opening points of the show, of all these shows really, is that many couples never talk about money. Oh, they grumble about each other's spending and how much things cost, but they never really talk about money. Or about what they want it to do for them. That is what a real money conversation should be all about: goals. It's about determining what you want out of life and how you will get there. It's also about working out how you will pay for it. For a couple, it's about give-and-take, determining what is jointly a priority and what they'll sacrifice to get there. It shouldn't be about one person giving all, while another take-take-takes. Both partners need to pull their weight.
Really, that is what budgeting should be all about. Sitting down with your partner and determining what you want out of life, what it's going to cost, how long it will take to get there and how much you'll need to set aside from each pay-cheque in order to pay for it in the long run. Then when the priorities are settled, you need to work out together how you're going to have a good quality of life from the money that remains. The aim is to have a champagne life-style on a beer budget without going into debt to support it, while setting money aside to work towards your goals.
- Pam
It seems that, every where I looked before Christmas, people were talking about budgets and budgeting. The BBC ran a series of the Money Programme looking at people and money. Channel 4 ran a Christmas Special episode of Superscrimpers as well as The Ultimate Guide to Pennypinching. We recorded most of the episodes and have caught up over the last week.
The BBC Money Programme series started with an episode about people paying hundreds/thousands of pounds to attend wealth seminars, in the blind hope that they'll discover some big "secret" that'll make them rich overnight without putting in some hard graft first. The people profiled missed the big irony - that the real secret behind wealth seminars is in the income they generate for the organisers a.k.a. "wealth counsellors" and not in the information they're presenting to their audience. (That is a rant for another day.)
What was more interesting to me were the second and third episodes: the second episode was about couples and the conflicts money (or lack of it) causes; the third profiled several families where their combined, after-tax income was £40,000. In each, the couples talked about their budgets and their attitudes to money. The couples episode, in particular, included questions about whether they ever talked about money to each other, how they rated the other person's attitude to money, etc.
Some really stuck in the memory. For example, I don't rate the longevity of the marriage of the legal secretary who despised her NHS-employed, research scientist husband's income for being too low at approximately £31k. He has a PhD and is working on potentially life-saving research but science doesn't pay in this country (frankly, if he was married to me, I'd be really proud of him for the work that he does and not care about his salary). Her opinion, though, was that he is failing as a husband because he would not keep her and her children in the manner to which she'd liked to be accustomed. According to her, he was "tight" with money. It was obvious that she compared him to the lawyers for whom she worked, who earn a lot more than he does and who probably have stay at home wives, kids at private school, etc. They only married because she got pregnant within 6 weeks of their first date and didn't have a "money conversation" until long afterwards.
(Incidentally, the obvious money-earner has never seemed to occur to her: studying law and persuading her employers to back her. Or as DH put it, "Stop moaning about your husband's income and work out a way to earn some more yourself".)
One of the eye-opening points of the show, of all these shows really, is that many couples never talk about money. Oh, they grumble about each other's spending and how much things cost, but they never really talk about money. Or about what they want it to do for them. That is what a real money conversation should be all about: goals. It's about determining what you want out of life and how you will get there. It's also about working out how you will pay for it. For a couple, it's about give-and-take, determining what is jointly a priority and what they'll sacrifice to get there. It shouldn't be about one person giving all, while another take-take-takes. Both partners need to pull their weight.
Really, that is what budgeting should be all about. Sitting down with your partner and determining what you want out of life, what it's going to cost, how long it will take to get there and how much you'll need to set aside from each pay-cheque in order to pay for it in the long run. Then when the priorities are settled, you need to work out together how you're going to have a good quality of life from the money that remains. The aim is to have a champagne life-style on a beer budget without going into debt to support it, while setting money aside to work towards your goals.
- Pam
Thursday, 5 January 2012
I'm with lurgy
I don't think I've had more than a minor cold since 2008 but, this year, one has really hit me. This one started with the sneezes last Thursday and appears to be progressing one symptom at a time. (I really hate it when that happens.) Naturally, it started when I was already on leave - I'm sure there are statistics about that somewhere, people getting sick when they finally have time to relax. However, I know that since it's a cold, I would have become infected in the first or second week of December. That's when the lurgy was going around the office.
I phoned in sick on Tuesday, with my tonsils pretending to be golf-balls. By yesterday night, they were down so I thought "Yes, I can cope with work. I'll go into work tomorrow". Set the alarm for 6am this morning. It went off, I got up had my shower, etc, sat down with my breakfast coffee and realised that I felt more tired than I did when I went to bed last night. Breathing was harder, too. So I phoned the office and told my team that I won't be in for the rest of the week.
I do hope this damn thing isn't escalating.
- Pam
PS: Yes, I've had my flu jab. I've been having flu jabsreligiously annually since I developed a secondary chest infection after having the flu in 2000. My GP recommended it, which means I get it for free on the NHS. I'd have paid for it, prior to that, but it was almost impossible to find somewhere to obtain it. (One year, my employer organised flu jabs for everyone who wanted one. We paid £5 each towards them.) Now, of course, you can buy a flu jab in Boots.
I phoned in sick on Tuesday, with my tonsils pretending to be golf-balls. By yesterday night, they were down so I thought "Yes, I can cope with work. I'll go into work tomorrow". Set the alarm for 6am this morning. It went off, I got up had my shower, etc, sat down with my breakfast coffee and realised that I felt more tired than I did when I went to bed last night. Breathing was harder, too. So I phoned the office and told my team that I won't be in for the rest of the week.
I do hope this damn thing isn't escalating.
- Pam
PS: Yes, I've had my flu jab. I've been having flu jabs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
