Later On

Excellent article by Jack Balkin:

In 2006, Sandy Levinson and I predicted that the next president, whether Democratic or Republican, would ratify and continue many of President George W. Bush’s war on terrorism policies. The reason, we explained, had less to do with the specific events of September 11th, and more to do with the fact that the United States was in the process of expanding the National Security State created after World War II into something we called the National Surveillance State, featuring huge investments in electronic surveillance and various end runs around traditional Bill of Rights protections and expectations about procedure. These end runs included public private cooperation in surveillance and exchange of information, expansion of the state secrets doctrine, expansion of administrative warrants and national security letters, a system of preventive detention, expanded use of military prisons, extraordinary rendition to other countries, and aggressive interrogation techniques outside of those countenanced by the traditional laws of war.

The reasons for the creation of the national surveillance state were multiple; they concerned the rise of digital networks, changes in the technology of warfare, and the concomitant rise of networks of non-state actors as serious threats to national security. These problems would present themselves to any President, whether liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican.

Barack Obama has largely confirmed these expectations, much to the dismay of many liberals who supported him. After issuing a series of publicly lauded executive orders on assuming office (including a ban on torture), he has more or less systematically adopted policies consistent with the second term of the George W. Bush Administration, employing the new powers granted to the President by Congress in the Authorization of the Use of Military Force of 2001, the Patriot Act of 2001 (as amended), the Protect America Act of 2007, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 and the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009. These statutory authorizations have created a basic framework for the National Surveillance State, and have made Obama the most powerful president in history in these policy areas.

The choice we face today, therefore, is not whether we will have a National Surveillance State, but the kind of National Surveillance State we will have– one that does its best to protect privacy, civil liberties and internationally recognized human rights in changing conditions, or one that debilitates or eliminates these protections and guarantees, and brings us ever closer to emergency government as a normal condition of politics.

One might have hoped that,given his campaign pronouncements, an Obama Administration would have implemented a framework that is closer to the values of civil liberties. But his record in office has been decidedly mixed, and remarkably similar in important respects to the record of the Bush Administration (with the major difference being that, instead of making unilateral assertions of executive power, as Bush did in his first term, Obama can rely on Congressional authorization of much of what he does as a consequence of the framework statutes I mentioned above.)

In an interview with Charlie Savage of the New York Times in July of 2009, several months after Obama took office, I explained that we were witnessing a normalization of the National Surveillance State and its basic policies. Here is Charlie recounting the substance of our conversation with Glenn Greenwald:

CHARLIE SAVAGE:…You know, I had this interesting conversation when I was working on this article that came out this morning with Jack Balkin at Yale Law School, and he compares this moment to when Dwight Eisenhower took over, in 1953, and after FDR and then Truman had built up the New Deal administrative state, which Republicans hated, but then Eisenhower, instead of dismantling it, just sort of adjusted it with his own policies a little bit, and kept it going. And at that point, there was no longer any sort of partisan controversy about the fact that we were going to have this massive administrative state; it just sort of became a permanent part of the governing structure of the country.

And in the same way he said in 1969 when Richard Nixon took over from LBJ, he did some adjustments to the great society welfare state that LBJ had built up, but he didn’t scrap it. And at that point, Republicans and Democrats had both presided over the welfare state and the welfare state became part of just how government worked.

That in the same way, Obama now, by continuing the broad outlines of the various surveillance and detention and counter-terrorism programs, is draining them of plausible partisan controversy, and so they are going to become entrenched and consolidated as permanent features of American government as well, going forward.

My view, as I expressed to Charlie Savage in that interview, is that Obama has played the same role with respect to the National Surveillance State that Eisenhower played with respect to the New Deal and the administrative state, and Nixon played with respect to the Great Society and the welfare state. Each President established a bi-partisan consensus and gave bi-partisan legitimation to certain features of national state building.

After the Obama presidency, opponents of a vigorous national surveillance state will be outliers in American politics; they will have no home in either major political party. Their views will be, to use one of my favorite theoretical terms, “off the wall.”

Nor should this be surprising. The causes that led to the rise of the National Surveillance State and the bureaucratic interests that led to its continuation and expansion, have continued unabated.

Yet, one might hope that the Obama version of the National Surveillance State might turn out to be more benign and friendly to civil liberties than the Bush/Cheney version. To a certain extent this is true, but not by as much as you might think. On several fronts, Obama has continued Bush era policies of preventive detention, surveillance, and protection of state secrets. And in other respects, he has gone further.

All of which brings me to Private Bradley Manning. . .
 

Continue reading. It’s an important article that shows clearly where the country is headed.

Interesting article:

Here are two truths we’re widely familiar with when it comes to gender: Women are more likely to live longer than men. And women are more likely than men to control household finances. (Are these two truths coincidence…or causality? O, snap.)

Against this backdrop, let’s examine another truth: When it comes to retirement planning, American women lag behind men in a big way.

It’s a big gender gap and an even bigger disconnect: On a micro level, women are traditionally financial planners, managing day-to-day expenses and bookkeeping. But take a macro snapshot and it’s pretty obvious that women aren’t looking at the big picture and thus aren’t planning for the distant reality of life in retirement, a life that on average is three years longer than that of their male counterparts.

A few unsettling stats underscore this great retirement divide:

Of the 62 million wage and salaried women working in the United States, just 45 percent participated in a retirement plan.

Women overall are 71% more likely than men to live below the poverty line in retirement. When you compare unmarried women to married couples, the statistics are more shocking: Single women are four times more likely than couples to live in poverty.

A survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute shows that whereas men say they need a million bucks or more for retirement, women say they don’t know how much they need.

Our hope? That . . .

Continue reading.

Apparently, we’re more willing to take risks than the Japanese. Renee Schoof at McClatchy:

U.S. nuclear plants use the same sort of pools to cool spent nuclear-fuel rods as the ones now in danger of spewing radiation at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant, only the U.S. pools hold much more nuclear material. That’s raising the question of whether more spent fuel should be taken out of the pools at U.S. power plants to reduce risks.

Workers in Japan have been struggling for days to get water into the spent-fuel pools at the plant, so that the fuel rods won’t be exposed to the air, burst into flames and set off a large radiological release.

Experts are debating whether America’s spent fuel pools would fare as badly or worse in an accident, and whether they could be made safer.

Edwin Lyman, a physicist and nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said he has long been concerned that U.S. spent-fuel pools are too full. Lyman said that his group, which doesn’t take a position for or against nuclear power, recommends reducing risk at the spent-fuel pools by transferring some of the fuel rods to dry casks.

“I think that’s being borne out by what we’re seeing in Japan,” he said Thursday.

The Japanese plant’s pools are far from capacity, but still contain an enormous amount of radioactivity, Lyman said. A typical U.S. nuclear plant would have about 10 times as much fuel in its pools, he said.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission reaffirmed its position that . . .

Continue reading.

Somehow it reminds me of the story of a kindergarten teacher being told by a mother that her son is quite sensitive, and if he misbehaves, just slap the child next to him, and that will make him straighten up.

The NY Times strongly criticizes the Japanese press:

The technical nature of the issue perhaps compounded the Japanese news media’s tendency to shield the government. Reporters who cover agencies and ministries are organized in press clubs that have cozy ties with officials and decide what to report — and what not to. The lack of attention received by Mr. Jaczko’s comments was consistent in the news media.

That attitude, of course, exactly describes the attitude of the American press in general—and the NY Times in particular, since Bill Keller, the editor, routinely withholds critical stories upon request from the Administration in power at the time and publishes only what the government wants him to. He freely admits this and even seems proud of it, as it proves that he is a “responsible” person. He has gone on the record about this. So the American press is increasingly an organ of the US government.

As Greenwald points out:

I wonder what it’s like to be a citizen of a country plagued by the “news media’s tendency to shield the government” due to “cozy ties with officials” on the part of “reporters who cover agencies” and other government departments.  That must be awful.  Fortunately, the U.S. has a free press and we’ll therefore never have to find out.  After some of his fellow journalists attacked The Rolling Stone‘s Michael Hastings for publishing Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s statements that led to his dismissal, Politico helpfully explained:

McChrystal, an expert on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, has long been thought to be uniquely qualified to lead in Afghanistan. But he is not known for being media savvy. Hastings, who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for two years, according to the magazine, is not well-known within the Defense Department.

And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.

Shortly after Politico published its article with those two paragraphs of rarely spoken truth, it quickly deleted them, so we can just pretend that never happened.  But unfortunately for our efforts to forget, The New York Times‘ John Burns, while on right-wing talk radio, also criticized Hastings’ reporting on the ground that “it has impacted, and will impact so adversely, on what had been pretty good military/media relations”; that Hastings’ reporting contradicted “a kind of trust” which war reporters “build up” with military officials that is “not explicit, it’s just there”; and that this touching reporter/General relationship should guide decisions about “what it is necessary to report.”  Anyway, as The New York Times was saying, important events are being suppressed in Japanese political discourse because — over there — “reporters who cover agencies and ministries. . .  have cozy ties with officials and decide what to report — and what not to.”

Interesting insight from Steve of Kafeneio, who points out that Elizabeth Yarnell’s Glorious One-Pot Meal technique (which she calls “infusion cooking”) is quite similar to:

… the cooking style endemic to Indonesia, Polynesia, Hawaii, and even Greece, where food is buried in a pit of hot coals, in successive layers of starch (root vegetables), meat, and vegetables, covered with fronds and earth to keep in the heat. The main difference is the cooking time, but the clay pot simulates the earth, and the food comes out exactly the same way; each layer intact but infused with the flavor of the other layers.

That immediately seemed right to me, and also resolved a hovering question I had: given that this cooking method produces such good results, why doesn’t it appear in any culture’s cuisine? The answer, as Steve points out, is that it does. I am happy, because that supports my belief that any good method of cooking has long since been discovered and incorporated into at least some cultures’ cuisine.

The reference in the quotation to the “clay pot” is because Steve uses an Emil Henry pot instead of an enameled cast-iron dutch oven, but no difference in technique. The Emil Henry pot is pretty cool. The first step on getting one is to bring some milk to the boil, then let that cool, toss it out, wash the pot, and it’s ready for use. (I would expect the manufacturer to do this instead of off-loading the task to the customer, but this is a French manufacturer.) If you get one, be sure to keep stirring the milk as it heats so that it doesn’t stick to the bottom and burn: it’s almost impossible to get off, and of course you cannot use a steel-wool scratchy pad.

I think that Yarnell’s “infusion cooking” was invented independently. She describes how she and her husband got a 2-quart enameled cast-iron dutch oven as a wedding gift. I can just see a new bride eying the thing and thinking that it would hold an entire meal for two, and if she could figure out how to cook such a thing—and then trying it: top of stove…, doesn’t work; in the oven…, works but takes too long; in the oven and crank it up to 450ºF…, eureka!

At any rate, here’s her patent (thanks also to Steve for the link). Click the link: it’s pretty cool and includes a substantial list of advantages and benefits:

Read the rest of this entry »

The familiar vs. formal “you” is common to many languages, though English has generally abandoned the familiar “you”, which is “thou” (“thee” when used as an object, “thy” and “thine” the possessive forms), though the familiar form is still frequently used in addressing the Deity. (“Be Thou our Guide and Refuge,” and so on).

I sort of had a vague impression of all this, but then yesterday I read this article, which explains quite a bit about “thou” and the “you” usage in English. This apparently is a specific example of the “T-V Distinction”, discussed briefly in this note.

Our substitute instructor for yesterday’s class helped a lot by pointing out several common affixes. “Des”, for example: cansar = to tire, descansar = to rest; ayunar = to fast, desayunar = to breakfast. That sort of knowledge greatly facilitates learning vocabulary. I had already stumbled onto cubrir = to cover; descubrir = to discover, but now I’m actively looking for other examples. And I found partir = to cut, break, split open; and compartir = to share.

She also pointed out the many Spanish names ending in -ez (Rodríguez, Sánchez, Gómez, et al.): -ez means “son of” (cf. Peterson, Anderson; Fitzpatrick, Fitzgerald; and the like). That usage, I was surprised to learn, came from a Visigoth tradition:

Etymology 1

From the Latin genitive suffix -is of the third declension (Appendix: Latin third declension), originating as a calque of surname-formation conventions of the Visigoths.

-ez

1. suffix forming many Spanish surnames: Cortez, Enríquez, Godínez, Gómez, Gutiérrez, Hernández, Ibáñez, López, Ordóñez, Pérez, Ramírez, Rodríguez, Sánchez.

Spanish patronymics are often formed by substituting “-ez” for a final “o” in the first name of the father of the person whose surname is so formed. Thus, the son of Hernando becomes Hernández, the son of Rodrigo becomes Rodríguez, and the son of Sancho becomes Sánchez. Note that since when written without an accent mark, words ending in -z are final-syllable stressed and words ending in -o are not, this means that most often an accent mark has to be added after adding this suffix to retain the stressed syllable of the original word.

For some Spanish patronymics, the suffix is not -ez but -iz or -oz, as in Ortiz, Muñiz, Muñoz.

I’m going to study Spanish affixes more systematically now, perhaps using these:

Spanish prefixes (28 c, 21 e)

I just finished watching Unstoppable, and I enjoyed it a lot. One forgets the awesome majesty of locomotives and trains.

Philip Smith reports:

A move to repeal Montana’s voter-approved 2004 medical marijuana law died in a state Senate committee Monday on a tie vote. The measure had passed the House, but members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said what was needed was regulation, not repeal.

After the vote, committee Chair Terry Murphy (D-Cardwell) appointed a three-member subcommittee to work on a bill to tighten regulations over marijuana. But another legislative committee has already crafted regulatory legislation that is working its way through the legislature.

Even as senators were debating the measure, the DEA and other federal law enforcement agencies assisted by local law enforcement conducted raids against at least 10 medical marijuana dispensaries or grow operations across the state.

One business hit was the Montana Cannabis greenhouse near Helena, where the company grows more than 1,600 plants to supply its four dispensaries across the state. DEA and FBI wearing respirators conducted the raid while sheriff’s deputies and Helena Police stood guard. The company’s four dispensaries were all hit, too.

“They came in guns drawn, got us down on the ground, and in cuffs as fast as they could,” Montana Cannabis employee Brett Thompson told the Associated Press. No arrests were made, except for one person wanted on an outstanding warrant.

A search warrant for a raid in Bozeman listed 13 items to be seized in an investigation of “drug trafficking,” including cash, plants, products, computers, and data storage devices. But the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant, which would provide some basis for alleging criminal offenses had taken place, has not been released.

The Obama Justice Department in October 2009 sent a policy memo to all US Attorneys directing them to not use their resources against medical marijuana patients and providers complying with state law in states where it is legal. But in Montana, as well as other medical marijuana states including Michigan, Nevada, and Washington, dispensaries have opened without being explicitly protected by state law. The Montana law allows caregivers to provide marijuana to patients and receive compensation, but does mention dispensaries. The fix is in the legislature, as was the case in Colorado.

Eric Holder is as true to his word as Obama is to his. He promised that the Federal government would respect state laws regarding medical marijuana, but promises don’t mean much in this administration—and, I admit, perhaps in none. It’s too bad, though, when one must automatically distrust one’s government. At any rate, Clarence Walker reports on what’s happening in California:

Federal regulators ignited a firestorm of controversy recently when they ordered banks located in the North Coast area of California to spy on transactions of customers who are suspected of making money in the marijuana business. In a bid to crack down on California’s marijuana industry, regulators have ordered banks to look out for suspicious activity by those running such operations, but that is leaving legal — under state, but not federal law — medical marijuana businesses out in the cold.

Although DEA and FBI officials are not specifically targeting medical marijuana, they say they are looking for drug traffickers and money launderers, and they regard any marijuana-related banking activities with suspicion. The banks are not being ordered to not do business with dispensaries, but are instead closing accounts rather than put up with the hassles of investigating and reporting those transactions.

Banks in the North Coast region, including Savings Bank, Wells Fargo, the Exchange Bank, and Ukiah Bank, as well as other financial institutions in the Sacramento and San Joaquin areas are scrambling to comply with the government’s order as the feds continue their onslaught against the legal marijuana trade.

The enforcement action is the result of the North Coast’s widespread reputation for marijuana production and also includes the arrest of citizens in the area operating legal medical marijuana businesses under California state law. California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing the medical use of marijuana for patients whose doctors have recommended they use it.

According to the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, the policy took effect last month when the largest bank in Mendocino County informed shareholders that federal banking regulators would now require the North Coast banks to scrutinize deposit accounts because the area had been designated a high-risk area for money laundering, particularly from those in the medical marijuana business. . .
 

Continue reading.

I do not understand the logic, if any, demonstrated by New York City. From DrugPolicy.org:

A new report released today at City Hall finds that arrests for marijuana possession cost New York City taxpayers approximately $75 million each year. The report, titled “$75 Million A Year”, documents the astronomical financial costs of marijuana possession arrests in New York City. Major findings from the report include:

• A single arrest for marijuana possession, including all police and court expenses, costs from $1,000 to $2,000 or more, conservatively estimated.

• In 2010, New York City spent approximately $75 million arresting and jailing people, mostly young people, simply for possessing small amounts of marijuana.

• During Bloomberg’s tenure – from 2002 through 2010 – the NYPD made nearly 350,000 arrests for marijuana possession – costing taxpayers $350 million to $700 million.

• Marijuana possession arrests also have serious human costs and consequences. They create permanent criminal records that can be easily found on the Internet by employers, landlords, schools, credit agencies, licensing boards, and banks.

The new report – among the first of its kind to quantify the costs of low-level marijuana possession arrests – was written by Dr. Harry Levine and Loren Siegel, JD, and outlines the financial and human costs of marijuana arrests in New York City. The report was released today at a City Hall press conference with NYC Council Member Letitia James, Council Member Jumanne Williams and Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito; Dr. Levine, Chino Hardin of the Institute for Juvenile Justice Reforms and Alternatives; Howard Josepher from Exponents, a NYC-based drug treatment center; members of the Drug Policy Alliance and VOCAL-NY, and community members directly impacted by this issue.

“More people have been arrested for marijuana possession under Mayor Bloomberg than under Mayors Koch, Dinkins, and Guiliani combined,” said report co- author Dr. Harry Levine, a sociology professor at City University of New York and a national expert on marijuana arrests. “These arrests are wildly expensive, do not improve public safety, and create permanent criminal records which seriously damage the life chances of the young people targeted and jailed,” Levine said.

Low-level marijuana possession offenses (NY State Penal Law 221.10) are the number one arrest in New York City. The NYPD makes nearly a thousand arrests and jailings a week for simple marijuana possession –  one of every seven arrests, and nearly 350,000 marijuana possession arrests since Bloomberg became mayor. At $1,000 – $2,000 per arrest, this “marijuana arrest crusade” costs $75 million or more dollars a year.

“Upwards of 75 million dollars have been used to arrest NYC residents for marijuana possession that could have legally been handled with a summons and not a criminal offense. This, as we are debating closing our senior centers. In addition, 86% of those arrests are young children of more color. I don’t believe that this represents the percentage of people who take the occasional “pull.”  It does however better reflect the communities abused by the current stop and frisk policies. Had this been 86% of our young children of a lighter shade, there would be uproar. I believe there still should be. All of our children are gifts to be nurtured; yet we are losing them to the system at an alarming rate. There must be a better way to deal with drugs in New York City. These arrests are simply about boosting arrest numbers and aren’t the answer to our problems,” said Council Member Jumaane D. Williams.

An extremely nice shave. I let the boar brush (an Omega Pro 48) soak in hot water while I showered, then worked up a good lather. The iKon bulldog open comb, with a Swedish Gillette blade, did a terrific job.

My first Pro 48 always created great, long-lasting lather. This one still produces lather that dies on the brush by the third pass. The Omega Pro 49 that I have (with the red handle) doesn’t have this problem. I will continue to use the Pro 48, but its performance is strangely at variance with the silver-handled one I gave to a friend.

A splash of Klar Seifen, and I’m ready for class.

Last night I made Mark Bittman’s recipe Roasted Carrots with Cumin. Delicious. He calls for 3 Tbsp (!) of oil, which is almost 5 days’ oil ration for me, so I ignored that advice and instead put the carrots (trimmed, washed, and dried) into a plastic bag with 1 Tbsp of oil and mashed things around until the carrots were coated. That did a fine job, so well that I wished I had used just 2 tsp, the daily oil ration. A sprinkle of Cyprus salt (thanks, Zach!), a good shake of cumin seed (wonderful!), and into the 425ºF oven for 25 minutes. I think I could have gone 30 minutes, but they were wonderful anyway: a healthful indulgence, quite tasty. As I mentioned, my sweet tooth seems to have atrophied and I really find savory foods delicious these days.

Today’s GOPM will be high-protein: quinoa for the “starch” and tempeh for the protein.

A commenter reported that a discussion on B&B had suggested that Alpa 378 is like a better version of Irisch Moos aftershave, so today I thought I’d take it out for a spin. A very pleasant shave: Irisch Moos always delivers a good lather, and the Simpson Emperor 3 Super is no slouch in that department either. Three smooth passes with the Feather holding (natch) a Feather blade, then a splash of Alpa 378—indeed very pleasant, though I lack a nose sensitive enough to confirm (or disconfirm) its Irisch-Moos-like characteristics. Still, withal, a very pleasant shave.

I’ve heard that there are guys who do NOT enjoy the morning shave. Poor bastards.

Amazon continues to sell Leisureguy’s Guide to Gourmet Shaving for $8.60. Maybe that’s their new permanent price, but I doubt it. Get ‘em while they’re cheap.

Via Open Culture:

It occurred to me this evening that with more and more portable devices (such as smartphones, tablets, and the like) working within the “cloud” more or less constantly, and delivering the results (and accepting new input) wherever we are, the cloud is now all around us, all the time: it has become a haze.

Three headlines from McClatchy that caught my eye—and the stories at the link are worth reading:

Japan’s disruption throws a wrench into world’s economic gears

Americans in Japan voice anxiety over nuclear meltdowns

Bahrain declares state of emergency

They add up to produce a sort of “world goes to hell” effect, don’t you find?

Steve of Kafeneio has high praise for Emile Henry’s clay cooking pots, which can be used on top of the stove or in the oven. I have no experience with those pots, but it sounds interesting, so I decided to get one. The package from Amazon arrived today, and… it rattled.

Yep, the Emile Henry manufacturer put a clay pot into a box with no packing at all—a nice roomy box—except for a thin piece of cardboard between pot and lid. Amazon did a fine job of packing the manufacturer’s box, but the packaging damage was already done.

I can’t believe that the manufacturer gave a second’s thought to packaging—well, the box was printed, but I’m not talking about cosmetics, I’m talking about packaging. A clay pot, loose in a cardboard box?

Now that may sound stupid to you, but of course we’re talking about a French manufacturer here, and the French have their own way of doing things, and customer-centric is not included. I feel fairly sure that the manufacturer would say, “That’s your problem.” Or not say anything, just give a Gallic shrug.

Fortunately, Amazon has a better attitude: I emailed a complaint, and in less than 15 minutes I had a reply:

Hello,

I’m sorry to hear that you have received the damaged Oven.

I’ve placed a new order for you at no charge. Here are the details:

Order Number: xxx-xxxxxxx-xxxxxxx
Shipping Speed:One-Day Shipping
Estimated Delivery Date: March 16

There is no need to return the damaged Oven. please dispose off it at your own convenience.

We look forward to seeing you again soon.

Kudos to Amazon, bad cess to Emile, and I look forward to trying the pot.

I discovered a pleasant way to work on the Spanish names for number: recite aloud the license-plate numbers (and letters: might as well work on the alphabet—you’ll be glad you did the first time you’re in a Spanish-speaking country and can’t understand someone and ask them to please spell it) you see on the other cars. In California, this means mostly 3-digit numbers, but that is really all that you need to practice: if you can recite the names for 1-digit, 2-digit, and 3-digit, numbers, you’re home free. The number 123.456.789 consists of 3-digit-number names, with “millón” and “mil” placed appropriately:

123 millones 456 mil 789 is how the number is recited, or (in full):

ciento veintitrés millones, cuatrocientos cincuenta y seis mil, setecientos ochenta y nueve.

If I recite every license plate I see, my Spanish-language number names will shortly become second nature.

I also stopped by the library and picked up a stack of children’s books in Spanish (an idea from The Son). I found an excellent selection, including an interesting looking picture book from National Geographic Nuestra Terra Violenta.

And I ordered the next textbook in the series we’re using so I can go ahead and get its vocabulary into the Anki deck.

Update: Thanks to commenter asdf for correcting the spelling: although “millón” has an accent, the accent is discarded (no longer needed) when the world adds a syllable by becoming a plural: “millones”. Excellent point, and now I’ll remember it always.

I’ve never been a particular fan of Col. Conk products, though I certainly get a fine lather from this puck of his Amber shaving soap. Maybe the packaging turns me off, though it’s practical. It created a very good lather with my Spanish horsehair brush, then the iKon smoothly shaved three passes with a Swedish Gillette blade, leaving me but to splash on some Alt Innsbruck. The menthol was noticeable today, as was the nice fragrance.

Today, 3.141592 is Pi day (pi ~ 355/113, or 3.14…). Joel Steenis sends a celebratory photo: