Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for January 22nd, 2013

Two GOPMs: One with red quinoa, one with pearled barley

leave a comment »

A friend from Victoria, BC has been visiting, so I made a couple of GOPMs: each was made in the 2.25-qt Staub round cocotte. Layers are listed from the bottom up:

Red Quinoa GOPM

Wipe out cocotte with olive oil. Layers:

1/2 c red quinoa (no rinsing required)
2 Tbsp Sherry vinegar
3 good-sized shallots, chopped
8 cloves garlic, minced
2 stalks celery, chopped
3/4 lb chicken breast, cut into chunks
1/2 c Kalamata olives, halved
1 Japanese eggplant, diced
1 medium zucchini, diced
3 Roma tomatoes, diced
8 brussels sprouts, sliced thinly
1 Meyer lemon, not peeled but diced

Pour-over:

2 Tbsp French Vineaigrette
1 Tbsp soy sauce
1 Tbsp Amontillado sherry
1 Tbsp Dijon mustard
1 Tbsp Worcestershire sauce
Squirt of gochujang sauce

Cover and cook for 45 minutes in 450ºF oven.

Pearled Barley GOPM

1/2 c pearled barley
2 Tbps apple cider vinegar
2 monstro scallions, sliced thinly (see second photo in this post)
8 cloves garlic, minced
3 stalks celery, chopped
6″ length of monstro carrot (see same post as above0, diced
1 pork tenderloin, 3/4-lb, cut into thick slices
Dijon mustard brushed onto pork
1/4 red cabbage, chopped
3 Tbsp dried currants

Pour-over:

2 Tbsp French vinaigrette
1.5 Tbsp Ponzu sauce
1.5 Tbsp sherry
1.5 Tbsp sweet vermouth
1 Tbsp Worcestershire sauce

Cover and cook for 45 minutes in 450ºF oven.

Written by LeisureGuy

22 January 2013 at 8:41 pm

Posted in Food, GOPM, Recipes

Democrats fumbling

leave a comment »

Ben Popper has a very interesting article at The Verge:

The tech team behind the 2012 Obama campaign has probably received more attention than any political programmers in history. A so-called “dream team of engineers from Facebook, Google and Twitter [who] built the software that drove Barack Obama’s reelection” were extolled in the press for bringing Silicon Valley strategies like Agile development to the normally hidebound process of a political campaign. In the post mortems that followed Obama’s victory, many credited the superiority of the Democrats’ tech team and its famous Narwhal platform, in contrast to the failure of Mitt Romney’s digital efforts, with mobilizing the vote and winning crucial swing states.

But in the aftermath of the election, a stark divide has emerged between political operatives and the techies who worked side-by-side. At issue is the code created during the Obama for America (OFA) 2012 campaign: the digital architecture behind the campaign’s website, its system for collecting donations, its email operation, and its mobile app. When the campaign ended, these programmers wanted to put their work back into the coding community for other developers to study and improve upon. Politicians in the Democratic party felt otherwise, arguing that sharing the tech would give away a key advantage to the Republicans. Three months after the election, the data and software is still tightly controlled by the president and his campaign staff, with the fate of the code still largely undecided. It’s a choice the OFA developers warn could not only squander the digital advantage the Democrats now hold, but also severely impact their ability to recruit top tech talent in the future.

“The software itself, much of it will be mothballed,” believes Daniel Ryan, who worked as a director of front-end engineering at OFA. To the techies who supported the campaign, this would be a travesty. The historic work the campaign was able to achieve in such a short time was made possible, Ryan and others argue, because the Obama tech team built on top of open source code — code that has been shared publicly and can be “forked,” essentially edited, by anyone. “The things we built off of open source should go back to the public,” says Manik Rathee, who worked as a user experience engineer with OFA. The team relied on open source frameworks like Rails, Flask, Jekyll and Django. “We wouldn’t have been able to accomplish what we did in one year if we hadn’t been working off open source projects,” says Rathee.

In this sense, the decision to mothball the tech would be a violation of the developers’ ethical principles. But the argument is about more than whether putting the tech back in the hands of the public is the right thing to do. “The biggest issue we saw with all of the commercial election software we used was that it’s only updated every four years,” says Ryan. It was these outdated options that convinced team Obama to build all the campaign tech in-house. If the code OFA built was put on ice at the DNC until 2016, it would become effectively worthless. “None of that will be useful in four years, technology moves too fast,” said Ryan. “But if our work was open and people were forking it and improving it all the time, then it keeps up with changes as we go.”One argument made by the DNC against making OFA’s code open-source is privacy. The campaign collected millions of names, addresses, credit card numbers and, of course, political affiliations. But Rathee says the tech was developed with this in mind. “I understand the need to keep the data sets private, but not the codebase. The work was meant to be modular, so it could go from site to site and be applied to different campaigns without sharing sensitive information.”

Members of the tech team suspect that the real rationale for keeping the code private is much less high-minded. “The gist of it is, they’re concerned that with the superior funding of the Republicans, if they had our software, they’d be unstoppable,” says Ryan.

OFA’s top engineers believe that keeping the code base private would actually do more harm than good to Democrats. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

22 January 2013 at 1:36 pm

A psychologist looks at shooting sprees

leave a comment »

Joe Scott-Coe has an interesting post at NervousBreakdown.com:

On  Friday, November 30, after driving himself from Connecticut to Wyoming, Christopher Krumm used a bow and arrow to kill his professor father at the front of a classroom filled with community college students, and then stabbed himself to death. But before he did that, he stabbed his father’s 42 year-old girlfriend at home two miles away.

On Friday, December 14, Adam Lanza went on a shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School and killed twenty children and six adults. But before he did that, he shot and killed his mother at home.

On Christmas Eve, William Spengler lured first responders to his neighborhood by setting a fire and then shooting four firemen, killing two of them, then committing suicide. Before he did that, he likely caused the death of his sister, whose remains were later found in the ashes. Way before that, in 1980, he killed his grandmother with a hammer.

 

On August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman rolled a trunk of weapons up to the observation deck of the UT Tower in Austin and began shooting, killing thirteen and wounding thirty-one. But before he did that, he stabbed his wife, asleep in their bed at home. And before he did that, he attacked, bludgeoned, and stabbed his mother in her apartment.

Female bodies are often discovered at “secondary crime scenes,” so labeled because they contribute evidence and insight into the scene of the primary investigation, where the maximum public performance of horror has occurred. Secondary may seem to connote collateral or less important damage, but from a narrative and perhaps a psychological point of view, these scenes can be viewed as primary, not only in chronological but social significance.

On a practical level, these female victims represent potential barriers to commission of the crime—people who could talk down the perpetrator, contact authorities, or otherwise interfere. In the mind of the killer, these women also may have posed a symbolic barrier to a conscious or subconscious self-image as the perpetually wronged party, a man with No Other Options, the prodigal avenger called to teach the world a drastic lesson.

Unfortunately, whether racking up points for piles of bodies in a videogame or assassinating terrorists with drones, to kill in the West is to win. And in order to win, on some level, regardless of biological sex, a person must purge barriers to winning by suppressing characteristics perceived as culturally feminine: softness and gentleness, submission and openness, sympathy, mercy, or hesitation.

You know: Shoot first and ask questions later. Make my day. Don’t be a pussy.

The private killing of particular women who could stand in the way of multiple public murders embodies an extreme and ultimately violent suppression of . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

22 January 2013 at 12:11 pm

Free speech and Facebook

leave a comment »

To what degree can a company control what its employees say in their own free time, given rights of free speech guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution? Good question, with answers now being worked out, as described in this NY Times story by Steven Greenhouse:

As Facebook and Twitter become as central to workplace conversation as the company cafeteria, federal regulators are ordering employers to scale back policies that limit what workers can say online.

Employers often seek to discourage comments that paint them in a negative light. Don’t discuss company matters publicly, a typical social media policy will say, and don’t disparage managers, co-workers or the company itself. Violations can be a firing offense.

But in a series of recent rulings and advisories, labor regulators have declared many such blanket restrictions illegal. The National Labor Relations Board says workers have a right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution, whether the discussion takes place at the office or on Facebook.

In addition to ordering the reinstatement of various workers fired for their posts on social networks, the agency has pushed companies nationwide, including giants like General Motors, Target and Costco, to rewrite their social media rules.

“Many view social media as the new water cooler,” said Mark G. Pearce, the board’s chairman, noting that federal law has long protected the right of employees to discuss work-related matters. “All we’re doing is applying traditional rules to a new technology.”

The decisions come amid a broader debate over what constitutes appropriate discussion on Facebook and other social networks. Schools and universities are wrestling with online bullying and student disclosures about drug use. Governments worry about what police officers and teachers say and do online on their own time. Even corporate chieftains are finding that their online comments can run afoul of securities regulators.

The labor board’s rulings, which apply to virtually all private sector employers, generally tell companies that it is illegal to adopt broad social media policies — like bans on “disrespectful” comments or posts that criticize the employer — if those policies discourage workers from exercising their right to communicate with one another with the aim of improving wages, benefits or working conditions.

But the agency has also found that it is permissible for employers to act against a lone worker ranting on the Internet.

Several cases illustrate the differing standards. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

22 January 2013 at 11:31 am

Posted in Business, Technology

How the US became a nation of torture and murder

with one comment

An excerpt from Ian Cobain’s A Secret History of Torture:

Two days after the 9/11 attacks, during a meeting of Bush’s closest advisers, Cofer Black declared the country’s enemies must be left with ‘flies walking across their eyeballs’. It was an image of death so striking that Black became known among the President’s inner circle as ‘the flies on the eyeballs guy’. Unlike its allies – the UK, France, Spain and Israel – the US had little experience of serious terrorist attacks on its own territory, nor any understanding of the need for a patient response. Bush was impressed by Black. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, could see that the President wanted to kill somebody. The problem, as successive attorneys general had warned one president after another, was that they did not enjoy unfettered powers of life and death over the nation’s enemies. The CIA had been banned from carrying out assassinations since 1976.

The President turned to his Department of Defense and found that it had no cogent, off-the-shelf plan for responding to an attack of this nature on the United States. The CIA, on the other hand, did have something in its arsenal: it had the rendition program.

Since 1987, the CIA had been quietly apprehending terrorists and ‘rendering’ them to the US for prosecution, without any regard for lawful extradition processes. In 1995, President Bill Clinton – apparently with the full encouragement of his vice-president, Al Gore – agreed that a number of terrorists could be taken to a third country, including countries known to use torture, a process that would come to be known as extraordinary rendition.

Mike Scheuer, the CIA officer who started that programme, faced few objections from Clinton’s national security advisers when he began taking prisoners to Egypt, where they could be interrogated under torture. ‘They just didn’t want to know what we were doing,’ he says.

Before 9/11, however, there were limits. In 1998, for example, the CIA had drawn up a plan to kidnap Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and take him to Egypt. A shipping container was installed inside a Hercules aircraft and inside that was bolted a dentist’s chair fitted with restraints. The CIA were all ready to go when, at the last moment, the FBI persuaded Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, that bin Laden’s inevitable death at the hands of the Egyptians would be an act of murder and that US officials would be responsible. Reno vetoed the plan.

By 13 September, with a still-unknown number of Americans dead and the President wanting action, all such legal squeamishness had vanished. President Bush and Dick Cheney both believed al-Qaida had succeeded because government lawyers had been expecting the CIA to do its job with one hand tied behind its back. Bush said as much to his attorney general, John Ashcroft, when he warned him: ‘Don’t ever let this happen again.’ So when the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, went to brief the President a few days after 9/11 and began to talk of the need to gather evidence for future prosecutions, he was promptly silenced by Ashcroft. Prosecutions were beside the point, Ashcroft said. All that mattered was stopping another attack.

That night, Cofer Black locked himself away at his office at Langley and within five days had drawn up plans for the CIA’s response. It would entail a vast expansion of the rendition programme. Hundreds of al-Qaida suspects would be tracked down and abducted from their homes and hiding places in eighty different countries. The agency would decide who was to be killed and who was to be kept alive in a network of secret prisons, outside the US, where they would be systematically tormented until every one of their secrets had been delivered up. The United States had been blindsided by al-Qaida on 9/11 and that situation would not be permitted to occur a second time.

Black’s plan was presented to the President and his war cabinet in a series of meetings during the days after the attacks. On Monday 17 September, Bush signed off the paperwork: with a stroke of his pen the CIA was granted the power of life and death over al-Qaida suspects and could arrange for men to be detained and tortured indefinitely. All this, Bush later said, was to remain invisible.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by LeisureGuy

22 January 2013 at 11:11 am

Obama’s condemnation of name-calling, with examples

leave a comment »

David Sirota writes in Salon:

In an inaugural speech stringing together the most tried, true and poll-tested applause lines, none was as appropriate yet also dissonant as President Obama’s assertion that America should not “treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

On the appropriate side of the ledger, that line could be seen as a justifiable riposte to an Angry Right-Wing Hate Machine that relies on – and makes its money from – the business of slur. Indeed, epithets like “socialist,” “fascist,” “Hitler,” “Magical Negro,”and “monkey” (among others) are now part of the conservative movement’s day-to-day vernacular in making its case against the current White House occupant, ginning up popular anger and raising money for the conservative media machine.

However, after a speech that resurrected the themes he ran on in 2008 by rhetorically celebrating a progressive agenda, the president’s rejoinder against “name calling” seems to contradict his own deportment, considering how often his administration employs such name calling to berate the progressive movement.

It was, for instance, Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who berated liberals as “fucking retarded” for daring to try to press congressional Democrats to back the health care promises Obama himself made.

It was Obama who deployed his official spokesman to tell reporters that liberals working to hold the president to his campaign promises “ought to be drug tested” because they are “crazy.”

It was Obama’s reelection campaign that sent out an email slamming Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman as a “political rookie” and hammering liberal health care activists as the “Firebagger Lefty blogosphere.”

It was a “Democrat close to Obama” who used an interview with Politico to castigate LGBT activists as “naive” for daring to push the president to support basic equality under the law.

It was an Obama adviser who . . .

Continue reading. It’s good to see Obama publicly rebuke these people who spoke in his name.

Written by LeisureGuy

22 January 2013 at 10:48 am

Improving education: Why not ask teachers for their ideas?

leave a comment »

Very interesting post by Kenneth Bernstein from Daily Kos:

We were sitting in a Starbucks in Arlington, Va. It was our first meeting. Previously, Iowa governor Tom Vilsack and I had talked by phone and exchanged blog posts on education. His campaign staff had reached out to a number of educational bloggers, as he was seriously considering running for president and thought education was a good issue for him. Since he was going to be in my neighborhood, we agreed to get together.

At one point I mentioned that the governors had just had a meeting on education, and he nodded. I remarked that each had brought a business leader to the meeting. The governor nodded again. And then I asked, “Why didn’t you bring a teacher?”

The governor was surprised, and acknowledged he had never thought of it.

That was in 2005. The nation’s governors had a meeting to talk about education and the voices of teachers had not been included.

That was not unusual, and would not be unusual today. For too long, for too many discussions when people converse about our schools and our students, somehow the voices of those who are most intimately familiar with the issues of teaching and education are not part of the process. As a result, one might argue that our plans to improve public education are flawed, perhaps even damaging.

I come to this subject from an unusual perspective. Unlike many teachers, I have been able to get my voice heard and my perspective included at levels ranging from policies in my individual school to conversations with members of the House and Senators who do not represent me.

But mine is only one voice.

There are many other voices, some of which have been included but far too many excluded in the making of the decisions driving our educational policy, nationally, within the states and in local districts. There are examples where it has been included. This includes teacher evaluation and compensation in Denver. It includes those teachers who have served as Teacher Ambassadors in the U. S. Department of Education. It includes state and local Teachers of the Year to whom the relevant departments have turned as resources.

But being included at the table may not matter if the voice is not listened to. Former National Teacher of the Year Anthony Mullen has addressed this during his tenure as the voice of the nation’s teachers. In this blog post [3] he wrote:

Teachers are being left out of the process of designing national standards and this is a recipe for disaster. Committees comprised of government officials, academics, and policy makers form an incomplete framework without the support of teachers. Teachers, after all, will be expected to implement the standards once adopted. The malformed thought that teachers should not play an integral role in helping develop national standards is just that: a malformed thought. I can feel a palpable anger when standing next to teachers who feel ignored and marginalized by the committees designing national standards. 
It’s time to let teachers help right a wobbly table.

But perhaps more pertinent is what he experienced, and about which he wrote, in the event where he begins his blog post:

I am a fly on the wall sitting at a table. Seated at a round table are three state governors, one state senator, a Harvard professor and author, and a strange little man who assumes the role of group moderator.

After he listens to them discuss for some time what needs to be done about education, he is finally asked what he thinks. Please note his words, which I quote extensively:

Where do I begin? I spent the last thirty minutes listening to a group of arrogant and condescending non-educators disrespect my colleagues and profession. I listened to a group of disingenuous people whose own self-interests guide their policies rather than the interests of children. I listened to a cabal of people who sit on national education committees that will have a profound impact on classroom teaching practices. And I heard nothing of value.“I’m thinking about the current health care debate,” I said. “And I am wondering if I will be asked to sit on a national committee charged with the task of creating a core curriculum of medical procedures to be used in hospital emergency rooms.”

The strange little man cocks his head and, suddenly, the fly on the wall has everyone’s attention.

“I realize that most people would think I am unqualified to sit on such a committee because I am not a doctor, I have never worked in an emergency room, and I have never treated a single patient. So what? Today I have listened to people who are not teachers, have never worked in a classroom, and have never taught a single student tell me how to teach.”

An uneasy silence cloaks the table. The governor from the South looks at his watch, the governor from the North bows his head, the governor from the Midwest stirs his coffee, the diminutive senator stares at me, and the strange little man grabs another strawberry. One by one the lunch guests leave the table.

I return to being a fly on a wall at a table.

I wonder how many other teachers have been treated in such a manner.

It is not that teachers cannot express, verbally or in writing, their understanding of what needs to be changed in their profession. I am far from alone in being a notable education blogger who approaches things from the perspective of the classroom.

What I – and many other teachers – would like to see happen is that the voices of teachers would become more audible, to demonstrate the difference that it makes when teachers voice is included.

It might help were there a systematic study of how teachers are included and excluded in the shaping of educational policy. Such a study would almost certainly be more qualitative than quantitative, but there are enough examples of teachers who have been allowed to participate in the policy process. Perhaps we might then better understand why the inclusion of teacher voice tends to lead to more effective policies. It would be a start if teachers who have been allowed such participation were given the opportunity to share their experiences, including the difficulties encountered.

Not all teachers want to take the responsibility for the making of policy. Some prefer to keep their heads down and simply do what they can to improve the lives of their students.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that increasingly teachers feel disrespected, as Anthony Mullen noted. As a result, they are not offering the insight and experience that might be the difference between successful educational policy reforms and simply doing more damage to our schools and especially our students.

It is not that teachers have not tried. I point to . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

22 January 2013 at 10:10 am

Posted in Education

Mitch McConnell, demagogue

leave a comment »

Mitch McConnell seems to represent the very worst in politicians. He is, you remember, the Senator who filibustered against his own proposal. It doesn’t get much worse. He explicitly stated that he would oppose everything Obama proposed, even if a GOP idea, because his sole aim as US Senator was to see that Obama did not have a second term (regardless of harm to the country).

Jed Lewison points out in Daily Kos his current campaign:

If you judge by this fundraising email sent by his campaign manager, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has lost his freaking mind:

Dear Patriot,You and I are literally surrounded.

The gun-grabbers in the Senate are about to launch an all-out-assault on the Second Amendment. On your rights.

On your freedom.

Just the other night, President Obama urged them to act. And then he went one step further, spelling out the 23 different Executive Orders he will take to get your guns.

The letter goes on from there, delivering a wild ride through the delusional fantasies of Alex Jones and Glen Beck, never once explaining how any of those 23 executive orders poses anything remotely resembling a threat gun ownership.

Even though those orders included anodyne measures like beefing up support for armed guards at schools, McConnell seems to believe they prove that President Obama is some sort of anti-gun jihadist. Of course, even if that were true, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is a constitutional right to bear arms, so McConnell’s concern is more than a bit nutty, especially given that just about every person who comes out in favor of gun control these days does so while either recognizing that right or bragging about the fact that they too are gun owners.

Instead, McConnell and his campaign seem to believe that a new era of totalitarianism is about to take hold in the United States. But if they are honestly afraid of that happening, doesn’t that kind of put the lie to their claim that their guns give them freedom? I mean, if guns give them their freedom, but the Senate can take take their freedom away simply by passing a law taking away their guns, then they never really had freedom in the first place, did they? It’s either that … or their freedom doesn’t come from their guns.

Tell the Senate: Pass the gun safety proposals outlined by President Obama

Written by LeisureGuy

22 January 2013 at 10:05 am

Posted in Congress, Daily life, GOP, Guns

Where To Be Born: 1988 v. 2013

leave a comment »

Thanks to David in Long Beach for pointing this out:

Where To Be Born: 1988 to 2013

For the same data tabulated in two charts (2013 and 1988) see this article.

 

Written by LeisureGuy

22 January 2013 at 9:46 am

Posted in Daily life, Government

Alternatives to abortion rights

leave a comment »

As the Right Wing closes down legal abortion clinics through legislation designed to make their operation too costly, we should be looking at where we’re headed once safe and legal abortions are unavailable. Kate Manning has a good summary in her op-ed in the NY Times:

WHY would a woman put a leech inside her body, in the most private of female places? Why would she put cayenne pepper there?

Why might a woman swallow lye? Gunpowder? Why would a woman hit herself about the abdomen with a meat pulverizer? A brickbat? Throw herself down the stairs?

Why would she syringe herself, internally, with turpentine? Gin? Drink laundry bluing?

Why might she probe herself with a piece of whalebone? A turkey feather? A knitting needle?

Why would she consume medicine made of pulverized Spanish fly? How about powdered ergot, a poisonous fungus? Or strychnine, a poison?

Why would she take a bath in scalding water? Or spend the night in the snow?

Because she wanted to end a pregnancy. Historically, women have chosen all those methods to induce abortion. The first known descriptions appeared around 1500 B.C. in the Ebers Papyrus, an ancient Egyptian medical text that mentioned an abortion engineered by a plant-fiber tampon coated with honey and crushed dates.

For most of history, abortion has been a dangerous procedure a woman attempted to perform on herself. In private. Without painkillers.

What is most striking about this history of probes and poisons is that throughout all recorded time, there have been women so desperate to end a pregnancy that they were willing to endure excruciating pain and considerable risk, including infection, sterility, permanent injury, puncture and hemorrhage, to say nothing of shame and ostracism. Where abortion was illegal, they risked prosecution and imprisonment. And death, of course.

The newspapers of the mid-1800s were full of advertisements for potions, pills and powders that claimed to cause miscarriage. “French Periodical Pills: Warranted to Have the Desired Effect in All Cases” was one such knowing ad that appeared in The Boston Daily Times in 1845. Those ads spoke euphemistically of “curing female complaint,” or “renovating” or “unblocking” the womb. They treated a problem that women called “suppression of the courses,” the idea being that monthly “turns” were the norm and that any cessation of normal periods meant they were “suppressed,” or that the womb was “obstructed.”

Many of the cures for these “ailments” were nothing but sugar and dust. But some of them were nonetheless quite effective. Those were the dangerous ones, containing as they commonly did, turpentine, opium, pennyroyal, aloes, snakeroot, myrrh or oil of rue. One of the most common ingredients was ergot, or claviceps purpurea, a fungus found on the stalks of grain. Women as early as the 16th century had observed that cows that consumed ergot miscarried their calves. The fungus, however, had disastrous side effects, called ergotism, also known as St. Anthony’s fire. Symptoms included a burning sensation in the limbs because of blood constriction, which led to gangrene. The poison could also cause seizures, itching, psychosis, vomiting, contractions, diarrhea and death.

Oil of tansy was another common abortifacient. Here is John Irving’s unforgettable description, from his scrupulously researched novel “The Cider House Rules,” of a doctor trying to save a woman after too many tansy-oil miscarriages: . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

22 January 2013 at 9:39 am

Smooth and Sandalwood

with 2 comments

SOTD 22 Jan 2013

A wonderful shave. The Edwin Jagger synthetic is a very nice brush indeed: lots of resilience but still a full, soft knot with excellent lather capacity. And the Sandalwood Geo. F. Trumper soap does produce a superb lather, both in texture and fragrance.

The Gillette Sheraton with a Kai blade provided a very nice shave indeed, and then a splash of TOBS Sandalwood finished the shave with just the right feeling. As you can see, I’m on a Sandalwood kick. Again tomorrow…

Written by LeisureGuy

22 January 2013 at 8:59 am

Posted in Shaving

%d bloggers like this: