Some Kind of Review Of Makeup Or Whatever

HELLO.

... I don't know why I always begin my blog with a greeting in caps...

I decided, that I.. would do a makeup review. :o
This isn't really something I normally do but that's because I've never really had any make up that I felt was really worth telling any one about - good or bad.
BUT, luckily for... me?... you?... for Rimmel? - I have found something that I think is definitely worth talking about!
Which is this!

That's right, Rimmel BB Cream. - If you don't know BB means Beauty Balm and cream means.. well.. cream. Duh.
Anyway, I not long ago purchased Rimmel's Stay Matte Foundation which I also love. I have the matching pressed powder. While I was at the shops I also saw this BB Cream. Now, if you watch a whole bunch of Beauty Guru kind of people on YouTube like I do (I actually think I have a problem...), you'll know that there's a whole lot of hype recently or.. for a long time there has been.. about BB Cream. If you don't know, well now you do.

Anyway, BB Creams where originally invented-  if I remember correctly - by a German man. However, they first became popular in many parts of Asia and amongst Asian brands. A lot of people say they prefer the Asian brand BB Creams to the western brands. - Unfortunately I can't really compare them as this is the only BB Cream I have ever tried, I picked it up because I was curious about trying a BB Cream and my current foundation (Rimmel Stay Matte that I mentioned earlier) has no SPF in it so I was planning to wear it underneath.

For those of you who aren't really familiar with what a BB cream is, basically it's supposed to be like foundation but better for your skin. Often people will use it instead of foundation when they don't really feel like wearing makeup or underneath their foundation in place of primer or for extra coverage or whatever.

So, from many reviews I've watched most people prefer Asian BB Creams over western ones because the texture is nicer and not runny and it has much better coverage, whereas (from what I've heard) a lot of western BB creams are more like a tinted moisturiser, providing very light coverage.

Well, I'd like to think from that description of what is classified as a good BB Cream, I've found one! :D
First of all, Rimmel claims that instead of using their BB cream as a base for makeup that it's so good it can replace your old makeup.
I'll be honest, I don't really pay attention to a whole lot of what most packaging on make up says, so while I wasn't sceptical I wasn't drawn in by the description either, honestly I was just curious. I didn't really have any expectations at all when I bought it. Basically, I like Rimmel's stuff so I thought "Why not try their BB Cream before I try anyone else's?"

On the bottle it says that the BB Cream is a "9 in 1 skin perfecting super makeup" - like seriously, I took that right of the bottle just now - It claims to prime, moisturise, minimise pores, conceal, cover, smooth, mattify, brighten and help protect your skin.

Those are some pretty big claims for one little BB Cream.
However, I'd be lying if I said I didn't fall in love with this stuff the instant I put it on.
The consistency is sort of like... a mousse I guess? That's the best way I can describe it.
It is SUPER easy to apply, it takes me about a quarter of the amount of time as my foundation does, because the texture is so nice and easy to spread and blend and it's not as runny as my foundation.

I'd say it has about equal coverage to my foundation? I wouldn't say that it covers everything but I need quite a high coverage make up anyway as I have a few acne scars and my skin occasionally breaks out and stuff and what not.

Having said that though, when I wear it, I don't really feel the need to put on concealer every time, even if the coverage isn't 100% perfect. It works especially well under my eyes, I often wear concealer to cover a little bit of darkness that I can get under my eyes and lighten it up a bit but this cream pretty much does that for me. If you have pretty clear skin I'd say that this would have perfect coverage for you. - It's probably a medium coverage if I had to class it in that way.

I also, don't feel the need to wear any moisturiser with it at all. It seems to do for my skin what my moisturiser does, and it has sunscreen in it so, yay! - But seriously, as far as saying it's a primer and moisturiser in a BB Cream, I would agree there. I don't feel any need to wear anything else underneath it. Which is nice for me cause sometimes I am so lazy about applying moisturiser before my foundation.. and waiting for it to setttt so your makeup doesn't slide all over your faaaace. Guh.

I can't really speak for the minimising pores claim because I've never really had a problem with large pores or anything on my skin. So someone else will have to figure that one out.

I'd say mattify and brighten is a fair claim. I do use Rimmel Stay Matte pressed poweder to set it though, because I like a really matte finish to my make up, so I can't say I've ever just worn the BB Cream alone without a matte finish powder. However, It looks almost equally as matte under my powder as my Stay Matte liquid foundation. It's not quite as matte but that foundation is a very matte finish so... that's okay, I can forgive them for that.

I wouldn't say I have any extremely dark spots on my skin.. like, in the way of uneven complexion but I'd still say that the cream does a good job of evening out my complexion, especially around my cheeks, sometimes it gets a bit weird round there.. haha.

There's no claim for how long it's supposed to last but I wear it about... 6-8 hours during the day? I'd say.. ish. It lasts pretty well, I haven't noticed the need to reapply or that it looks unfresh or anything. I wouldn't say it looks exactly like it did when I just applied it but I definitely don't feel like I get to the end of the day and it's all gone or anything. :)

I think those are all the claims I can really go into detail about.. like, protect my skin? Well.. it has sunscreen so I'd hope so... lolol.

Oh, one more thing!
One problem some people might have with this BB Cream is that, like most BB Creams it only comes in a limited about of shades. I picked it up in "Light"(because I'm a ghost :D) and that is a perfect match for me.
I think the only others are "Medium" and "Dark". So, as usual with most BB Creams, there isn't a lot of shade options. :(

All in all however, I am extremely impressed with this BB Cream~ Yay~!
I hope you enjoyed this review, I certainly enjoyed writing it!
Hopefully, I'll find some more exciting make up to tell you about! - Unless you find make up reviews boring, then I'll just write these kind of entries for me! :'(

Anyway!
I have a few ideas for blogs that I'll write soon. A few ideas especially about my trip to Japan I took at the beginning of the year! - The only reason I haven't posted anything about it yet is cause there's so much I don't even know where to start!

Thanks for reading! Seeyoubai~ <3 nbsp="" p="">

Today's Class Shall Be About Oil Spills

GREETINGS! 

... caps.


So I totally changed my blog theme! Yay! - I thought it needed a bit of brightening up.
It's just a theme I made on the blogger theme making thingy cause I couldn't find one I actually liked on any website.
Anyway.. Hello!
As anyone who read my previous post will know that I am now studying Sustainability Management at university! Yay!
Well, in my Environmental Management class last week, we learnt about oil spills and why they're bad for the environment.
I know what you're thinking "Duh, of course they're bad for the environment " Oh yeah, smarty pants? Well do you know why? "Because oil is bad" is not an acceptable answer.
Well, I didn't know why either until I did this class so now, I'm going to tell you why! (Also, it helps me study.)

Now, the properties of oil it self are what make it so incredibly horrifyingly bad. Before I did this subject I knew that oil was bad but after learning about it in detail I now know just how bad. 

So, the properties of oil. 

source: eoearth.org

Oil is extremely flammable. Which most people obviously would be aware of. And this should make oil spills easy to clean up right? Let's burn it off, Yay! WRONG, SIR. The problem is, when burned, oil releases toxic chemicals which would be just as detrimental if not more to the environment. So if an oil spill was to catch on fire somehow that would be very bad. 

Oil is hydrophobic. This means that it does not dissolve in water, at all. That's one of the reasons why you can do that cool thing with cooking oil where you poor it into a glass of water and it just sits on top. Plus, I'm sure you've seen an oil spill before the oil is literally spread out on top of the water.
This is advantages in one way, as it makes it pretty easy to just scoop back up... if you can stop it from spreading all over the place. 

Oil spreads very readily. So once it's spilt it can be extremely hard to contain. Which is why people need to act quickly in order to stop it from taking up the whole damn ocean. That's often why even when an oil spill is quite new you'll find that the oil has already spread a considerable distance.

As if oil wasn't already annoying enough it is also both adhesive (meaning, it sticks to other objects) and cohesive (it sticks to itself). Can you see why it's so annoying? This is why it's so incredibly difficult to clean off of animals who've been effected by oil spills.This is also why oil causes such a problem to animals and to the whole ecology of the ocean environment. 

source: boston.com/bigpicture

You see, being cohesive, the oil does not let things penetrate the service it is spreading across. For example, if the oil is spreading across the ocean, oxygen cannot get through to the water underneath and carbon dioxide can't get out. A similar effect occurs on the skin of animals when they are covered in oil. Their skin is literally unable to breath. 

So anyway, we have this oil spreading across the ocean just being a douche. Because air (and sunlight) cannot penetrate the ocean's surface basically everything in the ocean starts dying. Obviously it's a little bit more complicated than just everything instantly dying but basically there is a snowball effect on the environment; Fish begin dying because there's no oxygen for them to breath, then those decaying fish get eaten by algae who don't need as much oxygen to survive, those algae start to multiply and suddenly they're taking up more oxygen than the fish originally needed to breath, then those algae are eaten by other algae who need less oxygen to breath and - do you see where I'm going with this? Basically, it becomes like the environment is aging prematurely. Instead of this happening over years on a small scale it happens over a very short space of time on a large scale. It can take years for the environment to recover after being affected by an oil spill.

So now you know why oil is such a pain in the ass for the environment and everyone involved in cleaning up an oil spill. =D
Hopefully you found it as interesting as I did! 

This actually didn't take as long to write as I thought it would... I was worried this would become some long entry about oil spills and you'd all get bored and what not but it didn't so yay! - Unless you're already bored in which case I don't want to be your friend anymore. 

A Post About Journalism That Ended Up Being About Different Journalism Things To What I Was Going to Write About

Greetings, my readers! If I even have any... when was the last time I updated this blog? I don't even know.
I always think about doing it, I really enjoy writing but I have so many ideas of things to write about that when I actually try I can't choose one thing and so I just give up all together. It's a little embarrassing actually... 

HOWEVER, I am writing an entry now. Yay!

So, this year, I started uni as a mature age student, which I'm glad I did because I feel like I'm much more mature now than when I was in year 12 and that having time off education has let me think about what it is I really want to do. What is that you may ask? Well, the title of this post probably leads you to believe that it's a Journalist, however not technically. I am studying, Sustainability Management. Anyone who's read my post about Carbon Tax probably won't be surprised. So yes, I am studying a Bachelor of Arts majoring in Sustainability Managment.
But, this year I am actually doing a Journalism class! GASP.
Because, yasee, I have always enjoyed writing and I have been interested in doing Journalism. So I thought, I have a spare unit, why not fill it up with a Journalism class? If I like it, maybe I can minor in it or co-major in it or something. Yay!
I still haven't decided what I want to do on that level but then again it's only the second week.

SO, what is this blog entry actually about? WELL. Since I started my Journalism course, I have become even more interested in the media and their doings (or wrong doings as I will later discuss) than I previously was. 
As part of my class my lecturer suggested we watch the ABC's (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for anyone who may not know) Media Watch, which is on Monday nights at 9:20pm. (They also have their own ABC website where you can watch the episodes which is what I have just finished doing.) Now in case you haven't heard of Media Watch, which I hadn't until now, basically it's a show that points out mistakes and false accusations the media has made. (From TV to papers to online news). As my lecturer said it "holds the media accountable" for their actions.

In our last Journalism lecture the discussion was basically about the duties that Journalists have to the public that stems from their position of power as both a representative of the general public and the person with access to all the sources and knowledge. Basically we were discussing the ethics of Journalism. 
Well, after watching Media Watch I've gone from disliking a few news media outlets to quite a few more.

I 'spose a lot of people already think that most journalists are slimey or sketchy kinds of people who are only interested in a good story, regardless of how true it is. But since I was young I've felt like the definition of a Journalist should be someone who is a dedicated to presenting facts and providing the general public with the truth in an honest and professional way. Often Journalist were people I looked up to.
However, lately I feel like when I read a lot of news stories there is some kind of bias behind it or something is missing I guess. I look through the paper and I wouldn't even consider half the stories in their to be real news. (Then again, I'm not their only audience so I guess that's not for me to decide)
And then there's those current affairs shows like Today Tonight and A Current Affair where every day is a slow news day.
I find it amazing that people as a whole settle for so many crappy news outlets. DOES NOBODY CARE ABOUT THE NEWS ANYMORE?
Due to lack of readers The Age has turned into a tabloid paper. *shudder* They're trying to get more readers by compacting their paper. I sincerely hope they don't reduce the quality of their news as well. The Age used to be my favourite paper and now I'm not sure what I think. I definitely wouldn't consider myself a fan of the new layout but I also love The Age and I don't want to stop supporting it. But people just don't want big news papers any more. Their attention span isn't long enough or something? I don't know.

It feels like to me that in this age of pretty much instant publishing and social media that so many news publishers are too concerned with being the first to the story rather than actually having a story that's correct. But surely more people are less concerned about how fast they get the story and more concerned about the facts within it?
Obviously their are some exceptions I mean, nobody wants a breaking news story about a hurricane in their home town the day after it's already happened. That's just retarded.
But being first to the finish line in a swimming race is no good if... - I didn't completely think this metaphor through... I was going for sharks and.. being eaten or something? NEVERMIND. The point is that there's no point getting your story out first if you give the wrong story or leave out integral facts anyway.

What frustrates me more than publishers with unreliable news or pretend news is that people seem to just take it all as gospel. "Hm, that seems ridiculously melodramatic. But oh well, must be true!" Really everyone? But I suppose that comes back to what I said earlier that people rely on journalists to bring them truthful, honest, factual news. So really, I think it's everyone involved's fault. Certain journalists for scraping up whatever random crap and serving it as news and certain people for accepting the terrible crap as news without question. Everyone needs to raise their standards.

In many ways I want to give news publishers the benefit of the doubt. I like to think of journalists as intelligent individuals. Maybe all their mistakes are honest mistakes. (Except you, Today Tonight and A Current Affair. You should be ashamed of yourselves.) I mean, hopefully it's just a matter of them finding a balance between fast publication and fact checking. I'm sure most news publishers find it excessively embarrassing when they find out a story they published was incorrect, I know I would.
I wouldn't just disregard a news publisher as a bad source of reliable news if they make one mistake. Everyone makes mistakes.
But some mistakes I've seen on Media Watch or discussed generally around the Internet (such as on Twitter, Reddit, Facebook etc.) could have easily been avoided with one simple phone call or email or any single act of minor investigation. Instead of not checking anything before deciding a story must be true because it would make such good news.

You know, this isn't originally what I was going to talk about. I was just going to briefly mention Media Watch and how interesting it is and then go on to talk about how Journalism is changing and the discussion we had in our lecture about who these days could actually be considered a Journalist. But, I kind of got stuck on this one topic... and paragraphs later realised this is probably enough as a single topic for this blog entry. So I suppose that my next post can be about who Journalists are. - Unless I think of something more interesting to write about.
Also, I feel like I was switching a lot between talking about the publishing of news as text and the presentation of news on TV. So just to clarify when I say "publishing" I mean both video and text.

That's the end of my rant about news and what have you so you can leave now if you haven't already. 

Carbon Tax? Yes, we need that!

I hope you enjoyed my terrible rhyming title.
Okay, I always say that I'm going to write all this stuff in my blog and that I'll update more. But I never do. I'M SORRY FOR LYING.

Anyway, I do have lots of things to blog about and I thought while I had the idea I would actually do it instead of just thinking to myself "Hey, I should write a blog about that..." and then never doing it. Lol. 


So this week sometime, we received our Carbon Price booklet.. thing. Geography was one of my favourite subjects at school and in year 11 and 12 we studied Climate Change and Global Warming, so I'm really interested in sustainability and climate change and everything like that so I thought, hey! I'll write a blog about it! - For my non-Australian readers in case you didn't know, Australia has just introduced Carbon Tax to reduce our carbon emissions.
Now, I am a big supporter of Carbon Tax (or pricing or whatever you want to call it.) I mean, if Global Warming isn't real, then who actually cares? We'll still be improving our future and the environment and being more sustainable. 


I've heard a lot of people complaining about how the carbon tax is a horrible idea and "We don't need more tax, I don't have enough money." etc.
You know, I've never really understood people being so against tax anyway. I mean, think of it this way; if you don't pay tax, then the government has no money to do anything. If we never paid tax ever then there would be no roads, no hospitals, no schools. Tax money is what pays for things. It's like saying "Why do I have to pay for this car? I don't have enough money, I just want a car." - That's a bad example, but it's kind of late so I'm a little tired. 


Anyway, I've heard a lot of people complaining about the carbon tax and it baffled me to realise that so many people didn't actually know what the carbon tax was. They just heard the dreaded word "Tax" and freaked the hell out. Settle down everyone, educate yourself on the matter before you have a rage at the government for "taking all your money." 


Australia is the biggest generator of pollution per person of all first world countries. That's right guys. We are throwing more gross out there than The United States, India and China. While it isn't the only cause, it is mostly because we have such terrible sources of electricity generation. That being the burning of coal. Not only that but we are a large exporter of coal and petrol.

There have been many international conferences to try and reach an agreement on reducing carbon emissions and set targets for individual countries to meet. Now I don't mean to be harsh, but Australia has done less than their fair share of reducing. In fact, in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, targets were set for each country to reduce their emissions between 2008 and 2012. The United States agreed to a 7% reduction. European Nations; Germany, the UK and Portugal agreed to a 8% reduction and Japan agreed to a 6% reduction.
Australia negotiated a 7% increase. Our argument was that we export a lot of coal and we're clearing land and stuff. I mean, not to say we were the only country to not negotiate a decrease but really, Australia? Really? Those are horrible excuses.
Japan agreed to a decrease in emissions even though they need to increase their carbon emissions to allow for their population growth.


Australia has now agreed to try and reduce our carbon emissions by 5% compared to 2000 levels by 2020. While that's still not that much, it's a start and I don't know about you but I'm proud we're finally at least trying to do something about being more sustainable as a nation. 


Of course there's always the easy to go to argument that changing our energy to more sustainable kinds will cause a loss of employment. No. No it won't. Employment will simply shift to a different area. Someone has to work at the new places. The real "problem" is that oil companies and any other holders of high carbon emitting energy sources, would lose money changing to more sustainable energy - even more so if they did not change. Yes, heaven forbid we should take money away from those big companies because they're too cheap to change... 


A price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and the cheapest way to cut pollution. That's not just me saying that, that's economists, those guys that know stuff about money and economy and such. I've heard people say that they don't have the money to pay carbon tax. Well, whatayaknow the government thought of that too! It has been mentioned on many occasions and yet somehow heaps of people don't know. The price on carbon isn't just being added on to everything else, it is replacing some other taxing and whatayaknow, it's also being used to do something with! No way!
For example;

• The carbon tax will not affect small businesses, it is only for 'big polluter' companies. 
• The profit from the carbon tax will be used to assist low income  households with the cost of living by at least 20% more than the expected impact of carbon pricing.
• Households will also receive assistance though tax cuts and payment increases.
• 7.5 Million people with an annual income of under $80,000 will receive a tax cut.
• There will be pension increases for well.. pensioners.

There's more. But basically, the government isn't just going "Oh heyyy, we're going to start putting a price on carbon. Oh, that cost you money? Oh well! =D" So I'm not sure where everybody is getting that from. 

Not to mention they are also promoting the use of more sustainable and renewable energy sources.

With carbon pricing Australia's carbon emissions will reduce by 160 million tonnes per year. The equivalent of taking 45 million cars of the road.
We still need to do more, but this is better than going along with our eyes closed and our hands over our ears. 

So basically, as far as I am concerned this is a step forward in the right direction for us as a nation. It's easy for everyone to just freak out and accuse the government of taking all our money or whatever but really it's not even a little bit like that.
If you're still not convinced, think of it this way. We are making a little sacrifice so that the generations of the future can be better off. Why should we care about the future generations? Well.. do you want to have kids? If you don't, well I don't and I still care so you just go sit over there in the 'I don't care' corner. If you do, do you want your kids to live in a future were energy is sustainable and they are all together better off or do you want them to live in a future were oil prices are so high they can't afford to drive car and there's no renewable energy? I'm going to assume it's the first one. If it's the latter, YOU ARE A HORRIBLE PERSON.

Are you still with me? Cause I'm done now. I mean, I could ramble on about this forever, but I think I've basically made my point.

I hope you enjoyed my entry and I will try and post another one soon!

Until then, have a lovely day.. night.. afternoon... or whatever else in between. :) 

Marathons For Horses? Hell yes, I want to do that!

Wow, I'm so sorry to anyone who actually reads my blog that I have not updated it in a bazillion years. I may or may not.. have forgotten my password and therefore was unable to log in... 

SO, I have been trying to think of something I can rant to you about, that is a decent sized topic, and not something I'll get half way through and realise I have nothing to say. For example, I was going to rant to you about Rebecca Black and how amusing, terrible and embarrassing the whole situation is all at once, but I figure enough people have ranted about her and her terrible song and I don't think I need to add to the giant mass of giant ness.Everyone who has access to the internet has an opinion on Rebecca Black, even if they haven't seen or heard her terrible song/music video. (By the way, if you haven't. Get on that. - Or don't up to you.) 

ANYWAY, What I actually decided I would rant about today, is something that I've been thinking about for a while, kind of off and on. You know, those things you think of every now and then, forget about and continue living your life, until you remember them again and then think about how awesome it would be and then forget about them again and so on an so forth... 

That subject is Endurance Riding! - For those of you who aren't horsey people or affiliated with the horsey industry as obsessively as I am, Endurance riding, is pretty much a marathon on horse back. There are shortish rides and rides that can go on for multiple days. Horses need to be super fit and healthy to do these kinds of rides and so do their riders. 

Now, coming from a family of people who actually ran marathons, like.. not on horse back. I find this interesting.. I enjoy running to an extent but I enjoy horse riding endlessly. This is possibly the perfect Equestrian sport for me! 

I've always thought endurance riding would be pretty cool. But I've never really looked into it that much. I've only ever gotten as far as seeing photos from it, reading a tiny bit about it in horse encyclopaedic and reading about recent competitions in The Australian Arabian Horse News magazine. 

Part of the reason I've never really looked into it that much is because I don't own my own horse, let alone a pure/part bred Arabian that can go for days. 

BUT, yesterday I was looking through one of my issues of Arabain Horse News magazine and I decided that I want to look into this area of Equestrian competition. 

Endurance riding is not as mainstream as some other Equestrian sports such as Eventing, Show Jumping or Dressage. Because of that, it isn't as common knowledge of how to enter or start out in  Endurance riding. But, via a quick Google search, I found the website for the Australian Endurance Riders Association (AERA).  Of course, on their website, there is a special section for people who want to start out in Endurance riding. This section includes information on feeding and training a horse correctly to enter it's first Endurance ride while being equally prepared yourself as a rider. Though the article is not exessively detailed, it does have a Further Information section, which gives you some general information to help you start out your training for endurance riding.

Other things included in the Starting Out section are the history of the AERA and information on Vetting, Strapping and other general information. 

Okay, I don't want to simply be a guide to you people on how to go about starting out in Endurance riding. I'm sure some of you don't even want to start endurance riding! So, now I'm just going to talk to you about Endurance riding in general, and show you how incredibly awesome it is! Are you excited? You should be. 

So, I thought I'd outline some of the basic rules of Endurance Riding for you. There is a link on the AERA website, that brings up an index of all National rules of Endurance riding. (So if you don't live in Australia in and you're reading this, the rules in your country may differ from the rules outlined in my blog.) 

There are a lot of rules, so I'll try and sum them up as briefly as I can without losing to much detail. 

Obviously, not only do the AERA rules apply to Endurance riding, but there are also FEI (Federation Equstre Internationale - that's French. So, they're The International Federation of Equestrian) rules and regulations that outline the rules of Endurance Riding in Australia, just like any other Equestrian sport. 

Okay, first of all there are different 'types of rides' in Endurance riding outlined in the Rules and Guidelines of the AERA. Here's a brief description of each of the different types of ride:

• Endurance ride; a competitive horse ride of at least 80 kilometres. Successful riders in each section of the competition receive awards and points. 
• Marathon ride; a competitive ride where 80 kilometres or more are ridden each day over three or more consecutive days. It is conducted as a single event, there are no sections.
• Mini-marathon ride; a non-competitive ride where less than 80 kilometres are ridden each day over three or more consecutive days. It is conducted as a single event.
• Training ride; a non-competitive training ride for both horses and riders over less than 80 kilometres in one day. Some rules are different from those of normal non-training rides.
• Introductory ride; a non-competitive ride over a distance of less than 40 kilometres which provides an introduction for horse and rider into the sport of Endurance riding. Like training rides, there are some rules that apply specifically to introductory rides.

Interestingly, the AERA and FEI do not allow price money to be given in competitive rides in Australia, instead winning riders of each section are awarded trophies. Trophies must not be over the value of $2,500 and if a prize is above that value, it must be approved by the State Management Committee of the AERA.

Obviously, like any other Equestrian event, all horses must pass a strict veterinary inspection, before, during and after competing to ensure they are in an appropriate condition to compete. 

If the ride goes over multiple days, each horse must have a veterinary inspection before and after each day of riding including a  temperature, pulse-rate and respiration check (Commonly known as TPRs). Each horse is monitored for recovery time and their temperature, pulse-rate and respiration must be below the maximum set for the ride by officials . Understandably, such excessive distances of exercise can be strenuous on horses and therefore the veterinary standards are very high in these kinds of competitions.

Because Endurance riding obviously requires a lot of.. well.. endurance. Most riders choose to compete on Arabian bred horses. Either pure-breds, part-breds or sometimes Anglo-Arabians. However, there are no rules against any breed competing in endurance rides.  

There are basic rules for the identification of different riders i.e. novice riders must be identified, so must training riders in training rides. Because stallions are allowed to compete in Endurance rides, they must be identified as well, usually with a blue ribbon in their tail.  

Similar to marathons for people, horses and riders have a time limit in which they have to complete each leg of the ride. Therefore, riders need to pace their horses so they don't get too tired, but also keep them at a speed steady enough to come in under the time. (Similar to Cross Country in Eventing.)

Most riders choose to either walk or trot majority of the way of the ride. In some cases riders have to get off and lead their horses, either to navigate rough terrain or to give their horse a break from carrying them over such long distances. 

Something like horse racing, each rider must 'weigh-in' so they can be organised into a specific division. Either, heavy or light weight. The weight of the rider is taken into account so that time can be allowed accordingly as it is understood that a heavier rider by logic, would mean the horse moves at a slower pace.

There's some information about how points are scored and such. I don't think I really need to tell you about that. All you need to know is that winners and runners up of each sections receive FEI points, that can go towards qualifying for state and national events, like any other FEI recognised Equestrian competitions.

There's some other rules, that are more for officials, and then there is the specific rules for Training and Introductory rides. Most of it is common sense. The requirements to be able to enter a training or introductory ride are based on how many official rides both horse and rider have competed in. Obviously it needs to  be close to none for an introductory ride.

Something I thought was cute and nice, all riders who participate in a training ride receive a certificate of completion. That's a nice little thing to have after your first training ride! ^.^ 

Wow, that felt like I was doing some kind of school project on Endurance riding. - Which.. was actually fun.  If you're still reading after that huge eye-full. Congratulations! 

Now who wants to start endurance riding with me?  

Size Matters

Well, first of all I'd like to apologise for not posting in so long.. I've been very busy.. doing nothing.

Secondly, I'd like to apologise in advanced if I make a ridiculous amount of typos.. it's so cold right now in my house that I'm surprised I can type at all... see it's winter and our amazing heater broke. >.> 

Now, onto the topic of my rant for today.. or.. tonight as it were. 

A while ago now.. like.. a long while ago - I've been meaning to post about this for SO long - I was reading an article in The Age (I'd like to give you the issue and date and such.. but I lost the paper it's been so long.. seriously, I read this article at like... the start of June) called Size Matters. It was just a short article, and it was talking about a fashion show called "Real Women" or something? I don't actually remember now that I think about it.. anyway, the point is, it was a fashion show for plus size women, and someone in the article was talking about how it's a clothing line for "real women" etc. 

So.. here is my beef with this article...

I know that generally, models are too skinny and they present an "unrealistic" image of what women should look like. There's been a lot of talk especially recently about how that unrealistic image needs to be gotten rid of, and how people should be comfortable with who they are etc. 

I do not disagree with this.. however.. it is possible people, believe it or not, to go too far the other way. 

There's a lot more catering now, for people who are different shapes and sizes, etc. This is good, people should be comfortable with who they are and their bodies.

BUT..  people also need to realise.. that being excessively overweight isn't healthy.

I know some people have quite a bit of trouble losing weight, but the way we're going, people are going to think there's nothing wrong with being overweight.. well THERE IS.

I know some people cannot be super duper thin anyway, and I'm not encouraging anyone to be deathly thin.. people naturally have different body shapes.. some people are naturally very curvy and even if they are a healthy weight, they will still be "bigger" than people of a different body shape. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But people.. there's a difference between being "big" and being just plain fat. We should be encouraged to be a healthy weight for our body type.. and encouraged to have a healthy life style.. so we can be happy with our bodies. Rather than just saying "IT'S OKAY TO BE REALLY FAT." because really.. it isn't. 

Like my wise friend Siobhan so wisely said:

  "I think they are trying to put the point across so much that they have actually lost the original message. Like, they started with "Its okay to be yourself kiddies!" but now they ended up saying "fat is cool" well not exactly fat is cool.. but you get the point."

I completely agree with what Siobhan said. Like so many other "movements" and such, some  people have just gone too far with this. I think it's great that a lot of companies, magazines etc are encouraging a more realistic image of what women look like but they have to make sure they don't take it too far or we'll end up with some other warped sense of what's 'realistic'.

Another thing.. I've noticed a lot of people having a go at people who are very skinny and saying that real women are curvy etc.

I'd like to point out firstly, that some people are naturally thin.

As a person who is naturally skinny myself, I actually find myself feeling self conscious about how thin and "un-curvy" I am when people talk about stuff like I mentioned before. I can't help being thin, it's who I am. When I hear some people talk about how women should be curvy and being "un-curvy" is unnatural blah, blah, blah, I in all honesty feel uncomfortable and a little self conscious. I get over it pretty quick, cause I'm generally happy with my body, but still.. not cool.

I cannot change my body shape, I have been very thin my whole life, I've never had a huge appetite, but I definitely do not have some kind of eating disorder, I in all honesty love food!

Is society going to go so far the other way that naturally thin people have some kind of reverse eating disorder because being naturally thin is no longer acceptable? 

I think the world of modelling and the media have given thin people a bad reputation in many people's eyes. I've had people think I have some kind of eating disorder and heaps of other obscure things. Guys.. I'm just skinny. I'm perfectly healthy, just thin. 
Oh and I don't mean people joking about how I should eat more and stuff, no.. I can take a joke. I don't mind people stirring, I don't mind if it's all in good fun! But I'm talking about people seriously thinking there's something wrong with me.

I know a lot of people who are overweight often have trouble finding clothing that fits them? WELL, I have the opposite problem. The more the industry allows for people who are overweight, the more they seem to make allowances for people who are not over weight. I sometimes find it difficult to find clothes that fit me, because they are all massively too big for me. 

I'm not saying sizes should be smaller and not allow for bigger people.. but is the industry trying to encourage people to be unhealthily overweight? 

I think it's very important for people to be happy with who they are, imperfect is the real perfect. But I think it's important we don't go too far the other way as far as being comfortable with whatever weight you are. 

I really feel like people are getting a bit carried away with this "it's okay to be curvy" thing. Yes it is okay to be curvy, but does that mean it's not okay to not be curvy? Is it okay to be unhealthily overweight?
We need to encourage being healthy, not being overweight. 


P.s Did I use the word curvy too much? Lololol. 

Just because you read it in a a magazine..

Wow, I have not made an entry in a while.

Not because I've had nothing to rant to you about, oh no. Of course not!

I've had things to rant to you about, it's just that they're a lot of little things, and I didn't think they'd be enough to make up much of an entry.

I was trying to wait until I had a good enough topic that I could write a decent entry about it.

I couldn't think of anything... so I'm going to start a rant and maybe, I'll have more to say about one thing then I think I do and it'll make a big entry! Are you excited?

I was at the hairdresser what would've been a little while ago now, getting my hair done. (I have black hair with red all through it that I need to get redone about every month or so for those of you who don't know.) For those who don't get foils or their hair dyed and may have been living under a rock, when you get your hair dyed you have to wait around for a while to let the colour take to your hair. While you're doing this, you generally read magazines or something like that, ANYWAY.. I was reading some crappy tabloid magazine, I generally just look at the pictures.. cause well... they lie more than politicians.

In the back of said magazine, there's like an extra kinda gossipy section.. or something.. I don't know. But there was a picture of Lindsay Lohan, and the caption was pretty much saying "ZOMG LINDSAY IS GOING BALD."

I really wish I had the photo they put up with me.. because this would be a lot easier to explain. But basically, in the picture Lindsay was putting her hand through her hair, and like pushing it back. Her hair is dyed a lot darker colour than it naturally is, and you could see the regrowth in her hair. There wasn't any hair missing at all, her hair was lighter, and it was simply parting in a way that you could see her scalp. SHOCK HORROR. Infact, I urge you to play around with your own hair, there are ways you can push it and part it, so it looks like you have no hair in a certain place. It happens to me sometimes when I wake up in the morning and I assure you, I am not going bald.

While I was looking at this photo thinking "Are you kidding me?" It occurred to me that many people would read this magazine and take this and every other piece of crap they dish out as gospel. Not even questioning anything that the magazine says, not even thinking about what they're reading and how outrageous it actually sounds. If they took a second to think.. they might realise how stupid and gullible they're being.
I don't know how many people read these magazines, but they're definitely evidence of how gullible people are. 

Not to mention, how pathetic people are. I mean.. the paparazzi really get to me. They spend all their time pestering other people. Following celebrities with cameras getting up in their faces, making up stupid stories, twisting the truth.. they spend their whole lives following somebody else's life.. or ruining it. Don't they have their own lives? Maybe they should do something more constructive with them. Contribute to society? 

Gossiping about celebrities is not contributing to society, sorry to break it to anyone that wanted to do that for a living. 

Being a dedicated Michael Jackson fan my whole life, I've seen how far from the truth tabloids go with their stories, and how much damage it can do. It's easy to manipulate stories, photos, quotes.. anything, to make it sound somewhat plausible. Then again, it doesn't even have to sound half true for people to believe it I've noticed.

I've made a point to make sure I don't believe any rumours I hear or read about the people I like - or even am not a fan of. I don't consider things a fact until I've heard something from the person themselves.

Have you noticed in so many magazines they get their information from "a source" or "a friend of a friend of a friend" or anything really vague and to that effect? 

Even if the person the got the "Facts" from did actually say they knew said famous person.. the fact that they believed the source without even checking it is just proof of either how gullible they are.. or how unconcerned they are with whether something is factual or not.

A lot of stories I've read in tabloids are so transparent you'd only need to trace them back a short way to discover that they are very far from the truth. 

I remember seeing a story about Michael, that said he was anorexic and so weak he couldn't walk. Of course, as evidence, they had a photo of Michael in a wheel chair...

Now, if anyone who read this story about Michael being oh so weak did some research, they would learn that this photo is from the 1993 Soul Train Awards. Where Michael performed Remember The Time. 

If they did a little more research, they'd find out that Michael hurt himself in rehearsals for said performance, and so had to sit down for the whole performance, and afterwards, sat in a wheel chair because he couldn't walk on his injured leg. 

Michael wasn't weak, or anorexic, he was injured. That's why there's no other photos of him in a wheelchair. Not to mention that story was published sometime last year and that photo is from 1993. Could you be more retarded? 

"Well we haven't had a story on Michael Jackson for a while.. let's see what ancient things we can dig up and write absolute crap about." 

Now, I did some googling to try and find that picture of Lindsay Lohan where they said she was going bald. I didn't find the picture, but I did find this article  that claims Lindsay is going bald. I wouldn't have even mentioned it, except I wanted to point out something about the photos included in the article. The photo in the article isn't even close to evidence that Lindsay Lohan is somehow going bald.. it's just a photo of her with blonde hair. I don't' see any hair missing from her head... is it just me?

It also mentions an unnamed source, who says that Lindsay get's "too many" extensions and that's why her hair is falling out. I'm sorry but uh.. extensions don't damage your natural hair as far as I know..If they're crappy quality, they will pretty much fall apart in your hair.. but I'm sure Lindsay Lohan is more than capable of buying extensions that are quality rather than crap.

Regardless of any of that, my point is, this source doesn't even have a name.. we don't know who he is, but he must know everything about Lindsay and her hair... 

All I'm really trying to tell you guys, is don't take everything you read or see on TV or hear from someone or whatever as fact. If you want to know, do your own research, find out. Get the facts before you believe everything. Don't take everything as gospel, because the truth doesn't sell.

♫ Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on a TV screen don't make it factual. ♪ - Tabloid Junkie, Michael Jackson

xoxo.