Saturday, 31 August 2013

Wright's Traditional Soap

I recently purchased a bar of Wright's Traditional Soap. 

I was looking for a bar of soap that doesn't contain lots of nasty chemicals, but alas as I was in a supermarket at the time I knew this was unlikely. 

There wasn't much choice, just the usual Dove and Imperial Leather, but there was a brand I hadn't seen before, Wright's. 
So I decided to chuck a bar of Wright's soap in my shopping trolley. 

I didn't have my glasses with me so I couldn't read the ingredients properly, but I could see the list was quite long, which is rarely the sign of a good for your skin, natural product. 

The ingredients in Wright's Traditional soap, if you're interested, are ~
Sodium Tallowate
Sodium Cocoate
Sodium Palm Kernelate
Cocamide DEA
Sodium Chloride
Melaleuca Alternifolia Leaf Oil
Tetrasodium EDTA
Etidronic Acid
Amyl Cinnamal
CI 11680
CI 15510

Hmm, sounds lovely doesn't it?
Now I've got my glasses on, and I've written down all of the ingredients, I'm not sure this was such a good purchase. Haha! :/

If you're not bothered about nasty chemicals in your products, or using them on your skin, you probably don't think about what's actually in the products you use. 
I clearly don't care as much as I thought I did either. ;)

Anyway, I quite like this soap - apart from the thought of what it may be doing do my body. 

The packet is bright orange, which is one of my favourite colours :o it says 'traditional soap' which is obviously meant to make you think it's good, a tried and trusted recipe. 
It also says it was established in 1860, yet another thing that makes this soap look like a decent product. 
Last but not least, the front of the soap packet says it's, 'soothing, cleansing, antiseptic, with coal tar fragrance'. 

The first thing I did when I picked the bar of Wright's soap up from the shelf in the supermarket was sniff it. 
It definitely has a strong aroma. It smells medicinal, like hospitals in the old days. 
It smells as though it will be good for your skin. 

Once I'd got my new bar of Wright's Traditional soap home, I opened it and washed my hands with it. 
It doesn't lather up as much as some soaps do, but that's not a bad thing. Many soaps lather so well because they're full of sodium lauryl sulphate. 
This may be too, although it isn't worded as such on the packet. 

The scent of Wright's Traditional soap lingers on the skin for ages after washing. 
It does smell good, in a hygienic, safe, clinical kinda way. 
I like it!
Would I buy it again? Probably not, but only because I am determined to start using all natural products again. I have lapsed lately, and quite frankly I'm appalled at my lack of care for my skin - after all it's the bodies biggest organ and great care should be taken of it. 

Have you used Wright's Traditional Soap? Did you like it? 


Syria in crisis.

Syria is on the news, online, in the newspapers, it's on every social networking site you can think of; twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc. 

The recent chemical weapons attack in Syria has got people from all over the World talking, and many protesting. 

The West are threatening action, and not surprisingly the President of Syria,  Bashar Hafez al-Assad has said he will retaliate. 
Whatever happens, it's not going to be good, it won't help the situation. 

According to the news Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. 
The West are horrified and feel it's their job to do something about it. 

Yes, it's bad news, but should we get involved?
By we, I mean Britain. 
I say no! Not in my name! 

Thankfully at the time of writing this post, the latest news was that the UK would not be obeying America and going to war. 

Yes, I said war. 
It is war. 
And yes I said obeying America, because that's what we usually do. We do as they tell us. 

President Barack Obama says he intends to carry out a short, sharp attack against less than 50 sites on a list of targets. 

Francois Hollande the President of France is apparently eager to join the US in attacking Syria. 
At this time it doesn't look as though any other countries are willing to join the US and France. 

Germany have said they have no intention of intervening, as have many other countries. 

David Cameron must be fuming. He was clearly very keen to get moving with an attack in Syria. 
I bet he's still in shock that parliament voted against him. 
I'm quite surprised too. 
Surprised and pleased.  

War is not the answer. 
Is is quite mind-boggling that anyone would consider strikes against Syria as helpful in any way. 
How is dropping bombs on Syria helping?
How is it punishing Assad? He won't be hurt will he? 
No doubt it will be yet more innocent lives lost. 

The UN weapons inspectors have now left Syria. 
According to the news it may be as long as 2 weeks until they release their reports, their findings. 
So why is the news reporting that President Obama is ready to strike, possibly in a couple of days, or even in a couple of hours. 
Why isn't he waiting for the UN weapons inspectors reports?

According to the media the British Prime Minister, (but who knows for how much longer?) David Cameron lost the trust of parliament, because he made the mistake of wanting to rush in before he knew for certain that the chemical weapons attack near the capital city of Damascus which reportedly killed 1429 civilians, of which 426 were children, was actually carried out by President Assad. 
I don't believe that it was about timing, I don't believe the majority of British people care that Cameron was too eager to bomb Syria. I think the backbenchers, and the people of Britain just don't want yet another war. 

Everybody knows it's not really about punishing Assad, if he is responsible for the alleged attack on his own people, or even about helping the people of Syria. 
War is rarely truly about what's reported. It's usually about oil, money, power, or all three. 
It all leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. 
The British media are reporting that the 'special relationship' between the UK and the United States of America is crumbling. 
I wish that was true. But unfortunately I fear it won't be too long before we're back to being their poodle. 
It's probably only a matter of days, or worse still hours, until Barack Obama speaks to David Cameron, the conversation will go something like this, 'Jump Dave!' To which Cameron will reply 'How high?' 
Same old, same old...........

I'm trying to enjoy the good news while it lasts, I'm relishing in the fact that Britain has said 'No!' to America. 
The people, and problems, of Britain should be David Cameron's priority. 
He says we've no money for the elderly and most vulnerable members of British society, for education, the NHS, social welfare, fighting crime etc. and yet he miraculously has money for war. 

I don't know how David Cameron sleeps at night. But considering he doesn't appear to have a conscience, nor care about the people of Britain, he probably sleeps very well. 
The trouble with our politicians is that they just do not live in the real world. They are so protected from everything. They're independently wealthy, and live in a very different Britain to the rest of us. It must be nice living their lives. Shame they have no idea what life in British is really like for the average person. More importantly it's a shame they don't care. 
They work for us. They should ask our options on most things, and especially something as important as whether we declare war on another country. 

I digress, slightly, back to Syria. 
The pictures of the victims of the alleged chemical attack in Syria, that the BBC have been splashing all over the TV screen are awful. 
But the BBC are hardly impartial are they? They should be, but they're not. 
They've been fuelling the fire, warmongering for a while now. It's outrageous. 

I am all for helping people, but our Prime Minister must help his own people first, the people of Britain. 
He should listen to them, us, too. 
Some of the media is reporting that the government has listened to the will of the people. That would be great if it were true, but it's not. 
The real reason that the conservative backbenchers voted against David Cameron is because they know that if they vote for war, when they come up for re-election the British public will not vote them In. Having said that, the vote against Cameron, Britain entering in to a joint attack with the US against Syria is a good result, so I don't suppose it matters how, or why it resulted in the UK not bombing Syria. 

I am hoping, and praying that we don't attack Syria. 
I am concerned that the next time I watch the news it will all have changed, that the 'breaking news' will be that Britain has decided to support its 'friend' America in targeted attacks, dropping bombs on Syria. 
It wouldn't surprise me at all if very soon we are told there is 100% proof that President Assad is responsible for using chemical weapons on his own people. 
Whether or not that is true, is a different matter. 
It's not unlikely that if the powers-that-be think it's necessary 'evidence' will be manufactured to prove whatever they need it to prove. 

Using chemical weapons is against international law, but haven't we, Britain, and the US broken laws too? Haven't we bombed, killed innocent people? Hasn't America used chemical weapons?
I guess the US would say Vietnam was different, they were fighting against an enemy, but Assad is allegedly killing his own people. 
Unbelievable! It makes no difference. People are people. Killing is wrong. 
This blog post was not intended to be an America bashing rant, but the fact that they dropped 2 nuclear bombs on civilian targets has slightly blurred my thinking. 
Surely by bombing Syria, either to punish Assad, or to show they're serious about human rights, and protecting the innocent, makes the West hypocrites? 
Who are we to condemn anyone? Sadly our hands are not clean. 

I'm a British citizen, I live in Britain, so what America does may not seem to be any of my business, but as more or less everything they do affects me, I do take an interest. 
So, having said I think Britain is right not to get involved in Syria, I also think the US should stay out of it too. They won't, but they should. 
I think the Arab League should sort it out. 
We are not the Worlds police. It is not for us to fix everything. 
We are no doubt responsible for causing many of the problems in foreign countries. We really do need to stop! 

I do not understand people, well, some people. We are all the same, all members of the same race - the human race. 
I may sound like an old hippie, but it's 2013 so isn't it about time we stopped all the fighting?
Make love, not war!

Rant over!
What's your opinion about Syria? 

Sunday, 25 August 2013

Saturday, 24 August 2013

What do you fear losing?

I read a quote today, it said, 

'If you want to learn what someone fears losing, watch what they photograph.' 

I thought about what I mainly photograph. 
Apart from some recent shots of our house being rewired, the majority of my photos are of beer. 

I'm not sure what that says about me, but I'm thinking nothing good. Hehe! ;) :o

I'm a big fan of beer. 
I love real ale, porter, stout, call it what you will. 

I haven't always liked beer. 
In fact it's only recently that my palate has appreciated the flavour. 

It was during our recent travels in Eastern Europe that I first got a taste for proper beer. 
Lots and lots of lovely beer. ;)

My new found love of real ale may or may not explain why my clothes feel tighter than usual. ;)

The trouble is, despite there being more of me to love, I just can't ignore my love - of real ale. :)

Since we retuned from our travels to Blighty, hubby and I have been enjoying lots of British beers. 

I'm not sure exactly how many breweries the are in Britain making great beers, but I'm looking forward to finding out, and sampling their brews. :) :o

So does the fact that a lot of my photos are of beer, mean I fear losing beer? 
Hmm, probably not, although I wouldn't want to never have a beer again. 

What do you fear losing?

Friday, 23 August 2013

Judge Peter Murphy Orders Muslim Woman to Remove Burka in Court

Judge Peter Murphy reportedly ordered a Muslim woman to remove her burka in his courtroom. 

The woman, from Hackney in East London, who is charged with intimidating a witness, 'appeared' - in her burka, before Blackfriars Crown Court today. The defendant is alleged to have intimidated a witness, in Finsbury Park, in North London, in June. She can't be named for legal reasons.  

Judge Peter Murphy refused to allow the 21-year-old defendant to stand trial wearing the veil, which revealed her eyes only, because her identity could not been confirmed.

The judge said the principle of open justice overrode the religious beliefs of the woman, and she must show her face to prove that she was indeed the defendant, because a different person could go into the dock pretending to be her. 

But the woman told Blackfriars Crown Court she could not remove the veil in front of any men because of her religion.

Judge Murphy told her: “It is necessary for this court to be satisfied that they can recognise the defendant. While I obviously respect the right to dress in any way she wishes, certainly while outside the court, the interests of justice are paramount. can’t, as a circuit judge, accept a plea from a person whose identity I am unable to ascertain."

He added, "It would be easy for someone on a later occasion to appear and claim to be the defendant. The court would have no way to check on that."

Claire Burtwistle, the unnamed woman's barrister told the court that her client was not willing to lower her veil while there were men in the room. She said, "In front of women, it is not an issue, it is simply men that she will not allow to see her face."

Ms Burtwistle suggested that a female police officer, or a female prison guard, could identify the defendant and confirm to the court that she was the same person as in the police arrest photos. 

Sarah Counsell, the prosecutor, said that the police officer in charge of the case was confident that he recognised the defendant while she was wearing the burka. 

But Judge Peter Murphy dismissed the suggestions, saying, "It seems to me to be quite fundamental that the court is sure who it is the court is dealing with. Furthermore, this court, as long as I am sitting, has the highest respect for any religious tradition a person has. In my courtroom also, this sometimes conflicts with the interests of a paramount need for the administration of justice. In my courtroom, that’s going to come first."

The judge added, "There is the principle of open justice and it can’t be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not. I am not saying this because of the particular form of dress by this defendant, I apply that to any form of dress that had the same issues."

Judge Murphy adjourned the case for legal argument over whether the defendant should have to remove her veil.

It will be heard again on the 12th of September, when the defendant is expected to enter a not guilty plea and go to trial. 


Unsurprisingly this story is all over the news today, and people have a lot to say about it. 

As I've mentioned before I am contrary, but on this I'm pretty certain Judge Peter Murphy is right to expect the defendant to remove her burka. 
It's not a matter of religion, I mean you can't stand in the dock wearing a crash helmet, a balaclava, or a Halloween mask, so why should anyone be able to hide their identity underneath a burka? 

It's all quite ridiculous, this case has now been adjourned for several weeks, which increase the cost - the tax payer gets screwed again. 

The suggestion of the defendant temporarily removing her mask, in front of a woman police officer so that her identity could be confirmed, initially sounds like a good one, but what about the jury? 
The jury not only need to hear her answers when she's in the dock, but also observe her facial expressions, which help to answer the questioning just as much as her words do. 

Surely someone who potentially has something to hide, as the defendant may, has an advantage if they're also able to hide their face? 
The principle of open justice should absolutely be paramount, allowing the defendant to remain covered gives her an unfair advantage, wearing a burka must be wrong. 

Some say Judge Peter Murphy did the right thing, that the defendant should remove her veil, while others say that it's discrimination.

I've read comments posted online saying that Britain should be more like France, and ban the burka. 
I love France, and almost everything about it, which is why I lived there for a decade, but I don't agree with this. 
Banning women from wearing the burka would not help those who do not wear it purely by choice. It would imprison women in their homes, and worse. 
But that is definetly a topic for another blog post, so I'll end that train of thought now. :) 

I also read that when Muslim women go on the pilgrimage, are in the hajj, to Mecca they are forbidden to cover their faces with veils etc. they must show their faces. I am not sure if this is correct. 

The fact that this news is being veiwed as controversial surely shows just how PC mad Britain is now. 

It is of no interest to me what nationality the defendant is, or what religion, but it is of interest that the law be upheld. In Britain it is law that a person in the dock be clearly identifiable. Or maybe it's not law, and if it's not, it should be. It's simply common sense. 
If you're allowed to wear a burka in the dock, you may as well not bother attending the court. What's the point of your presence if no one actually knows it's you? 

Is the defendants claim correct, that removing her burka is against her religion?
Does the Koran say that women must cover themselves in public by wearing a burka, hijab, niqab, chador? I don't think it does. 

Anyway, I could ramble on and on about this news story for a lot longer, but don't worry, I'm tried so I'll leave it - for now. ;) 

What do you think, and why? 

Is Judge Peter Murphy right, or wrong?

Tuesday, 20 August 2013

Love is Immortality

Unable are the loved to die. 
For love is immortality. 
~ Emily Dickinson 

Emily Elizabeth Dickinson 10 December 1830 - 15 May 1886

Yes, or No?



I'm not good at making decisions. 
Actually, I'm not bad at making the actual decision. I just never know if it's what I really feel, need, want etc. 
Yep, contrary, that's me. 

As you good at making decisions? 

Saturday, 17 August 2013


I seriously love the fact that my hubby is not a slave to shaving. 
He says he intends to shave every day, but somehow it doesn't happen. I am glad he has a slack attitude to shaving his face.
I love beards. :) 
More specifically, I love my husbands beard. Although he hasn't had a 'proper' full beard for many years. 
I wish he would permanently stop shaving and grow a lovely long beard. But as he's a very hairy man he gets a pretty decent facial covering just a few minutes after he's shaved. Hahaha! 

Mmm, beards! 
Do you like your man clean shaven, or with a beard?

Monday, 12 August 2013

Benefits Britain ~ Enough Already!

Like many people in Britain, I am sick and tired of reading about 'Benefits Britain' and how people are lazy scroungers who don't want to work, but just sit down smoking, drinking, eating junk food,and  watching Jeremy Kyle on their huge flatscreen TVs all day. 

Unlike many people in Britain, I don't think the real problem is with the people who are typically portrayed in these stories in the media. 

Yes, Britain does spend a huge amount of money, tax payers money, on benefits. 

Yes, there are no doubt people who claim benefits simply because they don't want to work. 

But, why does every single newspaper report or TV programme about this topic depict the work-shy claimants as white, British people? 

What about the immigrants in Britain who claim benefits? The legal immigrants, and the illegal immigrants. Just because they are in this country illegally does not mean they can't, and don't, claim benefits. They do. They obviously cost the government a fortune. 

I read that it is possible for immigrants living in Britain to claim benefit for their children - children that are not even living in the UK. 

How crazy is that? It's almost unbelievable. 

According to reports the checks to ensure that the children even exist are not thorough, so who knows how many people are claiming for their non-existent offspring. I shudder to think. 

Maybe if the government stopped being so soft and just said, No! then the benefits bill would be substantially lower. 

I'm not a mean person, by nature I'm a charitable person, I believe in helping people, but I do not agree with giving money to people who are not British. Surely our government should help its own people before it helps foreigners?

I do not agree with giving money to people who only come to live in the UK because of the free money, housing, education, and healthcare, to name but a few of the available benefits. 

To reiterate, I think the government should take care of British people first. First. Not last, or never. First. 

Even if the typical young white British bloke, or girl, you see in the news about 'benefits Britain' has never paid any tax, or worked a single day in their lives, I still don't get as wound-up about them receiving benefits as much as I do about foreigners being given money. 

After all, it's likely that the parents of the so-called benefits scroungers, have worked and paid tax, and also likely that their grandparents may have fought for this country in the war. 

What exactly have the immigrants who come to Britain, and whi have never worked, and have never paid tax, done for our country? Nothing!

Actually, as I wrote this post, being the contrary person I am, I almost don't blame the immigrants for wanting to live in Britain. Why wouldn't they, when they are given so much for free. 

If I could go and live somewhere else, in a country of my choosing, be given free (or cheap) accommodation, money, free healthcare for myself and my family, free education for my children, and various other benefits, why wouldn't I? I would, I'd go right now. 

But alas, I think Britain is the only seriously soft country in the World. The only country who never says no to anyone holding out a begging bowl. 

Why does the media constantly bang on about this particular person or that person, whoever is the scapegoat of the day, instead of complaining about the government. It is the government who created the situation. 

The government are a big part of our obsession with consumerism. They actively encourage it as far as I can tell. That's no surprise though is it? 

We all know who truly runs this country - the big companies. The supermarkets, Tesco, Asda, Sainsburys, and let's not forget Amazon, Google etc. 

Obviously the big supermarkets and other large companies need to make a profit, but at what cost?

They want millions of immigrants in Britain, because they need the cheap labour, to ensure that their profits remain obscenely high. 

They pay peanuts, peanuts are not enough to live on, so the immigrants get extra cash by claiming benefits. 

And that's where the people who say they have to work every hour God sends, moan about never having a holiday, or any luxuries, but are just struggling to feed themselves, and heat their homes etc. need to stop and think, who is really at fault. Is it the benefit scroungers? Or is it the government, mismanaging the taxpayers money? 

I digress, slightly, I was daydreaming about living somewhere other than here, so, back to the problem of benefits Britain. 

Is too much money being spent on benefits? Not necessarily. 

The cost of living in Britain is astronomical. Even when you're very careful with every penny, and don't have any luxuries, but just buy the basics, your money does not go far. 

Yes, people who could work, don't work. 

Yes, it's out of order. 

But are they really the real cause of the problem?

I say no! 

If the government sent out a clear message that anyone coming to Britain will not receive anything, ever; no money, no housing, no education, no healthcare, I'm pretty certain there'd be a lot less people eager to come and live in Britain. 

Big business wouldn't like it though, would they. So, it's never going to happen. 

The moaners who begrudge jobless people their job seeks allowance money, which on average in £71 a week, say even that's too much cash. They justify this by saying that the unemployed have enough money for cigarettes so they're obviously being given too much money in their benefits. Don't the moaners realise that smoking is not only addictive, it's expensive, so obviously people are going without in other areas in order to buy fags, probably going without food, or paying their bills. They're not living the dream by any stretch of the imagination. 

The government is currently changing the benefits system. They say they are capping the maximum amount a claimant can receive to £26,000 a year, which is, they say, the same as the average working family in Britain. 

This news still hasn't pleased the moaners. They're saying it's still too much money because it's completely tax free, whereas they have to pay tax on their wages. 

It's hardly tax free is it because everything in Britain is taxed, and highly. Every thing we purchase is heavily taxed; petrol, food, booze, cigaretts, clothes, the air we breath...... The list goes on. 

Britain should be one of the best countries in the World to live in. It's not. It's more like a third world country. It makes me wonder where all the tax payers money goes. Maybe my maths is worse than I thought, or maybe the government gives it to the criminals. The dictators, the greedy bankers, their friends, and themselves. Well, someone has to pay for them to live in luxury, it may as well be the tax payer - thank you very much! 

One more thing, for those who moan about working all day every day, and paying tax, just so that other people can sit about doing nothing, why don't they moan as much about the millions, if not billions of pounds the government gives away in aid. 

Aid to countries that are already incredibly wealthy. Aid that will never reach the poor people who so desperately need it. Aid that will be used to buy luxuries for the rulers of those countries, luxuries like palaces, Supercars, diamonds, gold, yachts, private jets...........

The government says the benefits system in in chaos. 

What are they going to do about it?

No doubt they'll cut benefits to those who genuine need help, and give more to those who don't. 

As for the corrupt leaders of other countries they need not worry - their benefits will continue to flow. 

One more thing, as I sit writing this rant, I'm watching Jeremy Kyle on my widescreen TV. Hahaha! ;) 

Everyone has an opinion on Benefits Britain. This is mine. Well, some of it. 
What's your opinion, what are your thoughts about Benefits Britain? 

Blueberries, Superfood


I'm sure you know the wonders of the superfood that is a blueberry. 
But just in case, here's a reminder. 
For something so small the brilliant blueberry packs a seriously big punch. They are a rich source of Vitamin C and various other antioxidants. The vitamin C in blueberries is thought to boost the immune system. 
They contain anthocyanins and other antioxidants such as resveratrol, flavonoids, tannins, and proanthocyanidins, which help prevent the growth of cancer cells. 

It's the English picking season for one of the tastiest foods, the blueberry. 
If the weather continues to be as sunny and warm as it has been recently, the UK blueberry season will continue to flourish until late September, or better still the first couple of weeks in to October. 
You can pick, or buy, lots of lovely English blueberries and freeze them, as they do not spoil or lose any of their health giving benefits during the freezing process.  

It's good to see shops selling English blueberries at reasonable prices, instead of expensive foreign imports, which are not only more expensive than our delicious homegrown blueberries, but they don't taste as good. 
Our blueberries are a prefect mix of sweet and sharp, with a firm pop-in-your-mouth texture. What's not to love?

Blueberries are a rich source of antioxidants and vitamin C. They are often referred to as the super fruit because of their high concentration of antioxidants.

They're also a rich source of phytonutrients and they contain the antioxidant anthocyanadins. Anthocyanins are the pigments that give many foods their blue, red, or purple colouring. Anthocyanins not only act as antioxidants and fight free radicals, they also offer anti-inflammatory, anti-viral, and anti-cancer benefits.

Eating blueberries regularly may help protect your body against heart disease, cancer, and age-related degenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's. 

If possible, and you can afford to, eating organic blueberries is even better for your health as they reportedly have a greater amount of anthocyanin and phenolic antioxidants than non-organic blueberries. 

All of the above is just what I know, and have recently read about blueberries, not naming sources, or specific test studies etc. if you're that interested Google will tell you more than enough information to fill a book. ;)

Here's a list (in no particular order) of just 10 of the wonderful benefits of eating blueberries ~

1. Slow down the ageing process on nerve cells. 

2. Act as an anti-inflammatory. 

3. Lower blood pressure. 

4. Elevate your mood.

5. High in fibre. 

6. Rich in vitamin C. 

7. Rich source of manganese. 

8. Rich source of phytonutrients. 

9. Improve memory and motor skills. 

10. They taste good, and they're 'berry' good for you! 

If you're in England, specifically in the South, and fancy visiting a pick-your-own blueberry farm, I've read good things about Wimborne in Dorset. Fresh air, a bit of exercise, and lots of blueberries to eat, that sounds like a nice way to spend an hour or more. 

Whilst wandering up and down the fresh fruit and veg aisles in a supermarket recently I saw large punnets of blueberries for the bargain price of £1. I can't remember the weight, I was in too much of a rush to get home, wash the blueberries, and scoff them to notice. There were lots and lots of blueberries, although not for long - they were so good they vanished in a few minutes. Delicious! 

I could have used my blueberries in a recipe, they're great in smoothies, pancakes, muffins, salads, with roast meat, and many other things, but I prefer to eat them au natural. 

What's your favourite way to eat blueberries?