Later On

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

Archive for November 9th, 2013

The problem with “Redskins” as a team name is that it’s racist.

with 2 comments

Think not? Then why does the question, “How many current state governors are redskins?” sound like something you wouldn’t want to say in a televised discussion?

Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 9:07 pm

Posted in Daily life

Made another of the bibimbaps

leave a comment »

This one:

Millet Polenta With Tomato Sauce, Eggplant and Chickpeas: A comforting dish that works equally well with canned or fresh tomatoes.


1. The time the polenta cooks in the over was too long. Chcck frequently after the first 25 minutes.

2. The tomato sauce would also be good with:

  • Fresh tarragon (I did add that, along with the thyme)
  • Red pepper flakes
  • Anchovies (2-3)
  • Pitted Kalamata olives
  • Capers (The Wife said no, but I would use them)
  • Lemon juice

It’s very tasty and, except for the length of cooking of the various parts, pretty easy. I’ll make again.

So far as I’m concerned, the millet could be added directly to the tomato sauce and stirred up, so they combined (like pasta).


Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 6:22 pm

GOP Senator In 2005: ‘I Would Never Filibuster Any President’s Judicial Nominee, Period’

leave a comment »

And guess what?

Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 5:03 pm

Posted in Congress, GOP

Leaderless decision-making

with 2 comments

The evidence of group decisions made in real time is seen in many places: the movements of schools of fish, flocks of birds, herds of animals. In each case the group moves to some extent as a unit, though obviously each individual member is making independent decisions, yet those sum to a coordinated group behavior. Slime molds would be another example, so the phenomenon is not limited to vertebrates.

I think that is how we came to invade Iraq: that exact same phenomenon, with a group finding itself coordinated and purposeful—of one mind, as it were—each individual member of the group makes his/her own decisions, but like a group decision, those individual decisions are coordinated and add up to movement together in a particular direction. Each member of the group feels as though s/he is simply taking the appropriate steps, in the light of the situation, and yet all those appropriate steps are marching in formation into war.

It seems easy to understand, given the psychological state of the White House (and, indeed, the nation) at the time. From Ezra Klein’s interview with Peter Baker at Wonkblog:

. . . EK: But it wasn’t hijacked by Iraq. The Bush administration chose that war. And, to be honest, that’s what I read the book to understand. I’ve never felt like I understood the reason the Bush administration decided to go to war in Iraq. Once that decision was made, I feel like I can track the arguments for and against it. But the fundamental choice to make that the project is a mystery to me. Now that you’ve written the book, do you feel like you understand it?

PB: I have a better understanding, but I think it’s one of these questions that will be revisited and re-debated for decades to come. My guess is 20 years from now we’ll still be seeing more books on that question. It is the essence of this presidency: Why go to war in Iraq? Some mention Bush’s father. Some mention Cheney’s sense of unfinished business in the Gulf War. There’s the false intelligence.

And overlaying all that is what it felt like in that moment. They were operating in an atmosphere of fear and anger and uncertainty. They were seeing these threat reports every day — including episodes we didn’t even know about, like the botulism scare. When they come into office, they had thought, at the time, that Iraq was a top threat. Then once 9/11 happens it sort of removes all constraints that they might have had prior to that in their interest and inclination to use force. There’s a quote in the book from a senior administration official who was really involved in the decision to invade Iraq and who regrets it now who says we went into Iraq because Afghanistan was so easy. We needed someone harder to beat; 9/11 felt like such a signal event that it required action and response beyond simply toppling the Taliban.

EK: That quote is amazing. But it sounds like he also doesn’t know why they went into Iraq. And he was there! That’s less an explanation of the policy than of the psychology. And that’s something the book details really well. I think people can remember what it felt like to be scared after 9/11. But the amount of fear there is in the White House and the degree to which fear of a worse attack drives the decisions after 9/11 — it’s a really psychologically unusual administration.

PB: That’s absolutely right. Every day they receive a briefing telling them 100 ways bad guys around the world are trying to kill Americans, Some are real, and some are fanciful. But in that moment the intelligence agencies, having missed the dots on 9/11, begin throwing everything they have at the White House.

Cheney has this history in continuity-of-government issues. He has for years contemplated the notion of an apocalyptic attack on the United States — 9/11 convinces him his fears are real. Nineteen guys with box cutters, to him, are only a scratch on the surface compared to what could have happened. And that makes a lot of things seem more reasonable. Eventually, Frances Townsend becomes head of the Homeland Security Advisor and begins taking some of these threats out of the briefings because she felt it was so skewed towards danger and it was warping everyone’s mindset to be so exposed to every piece of raw data like that. . .

Read the whole thing.

And they were undoubtedly working around the clock, and sleep deprivation has its own significant psychological effects.

I will add that it strikes me that the reason the guy gave (“We went into Iraq because Afghanistan was so easy.”) is the sort of reason you think up after the fact because you really don’t have a reason, as such. You can only honestly say, “It seemed like a good idea at the time,” and in this sort of group decision/action mode, I would think that is indeed the feeling of each individual. It in fact doesn’t seem all that unusual, on a limited individual scale, to encounter that mode of “decision-making”, when any reason you offer for a decision you made in the past, one that turned out poorly, is made up afterwards, because in fact at the time you were just doing what seemed like a good idea. This unconscious decision-making mode often leads to behaviors that trigger, “What on earth were you thinking?”

Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 3:17 pm

No-till farming turns out to be a lot more interesting than it sounds

leave a comment »

Check out this article by Brad Plumer in the Washington Post.

Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 2:48 pm

Is our future austere?

leave a comment »

Extremely interesting post by Andrew O’Hehir in Salon:

How long will it take us to understand that the entire neoliberal project – the puritanical mania for cutting taxes, cutting social services and cutting budget deficits that has dominated the Western world’s economy for more than 30 years – has been a disaster? And guess what, liberals: You don’t get to point the finger at Ronald Reagan, Maggie Thatcher and Milton Friedman and claim it was all their fault. The reformist center-left, whether it took the form of Bill Clinton and the “New Democrats,” Tony Blair and “New Labor” or the watered-down social-democratic parties of Europe, has enthusiastically rebranded itself as a servant of global capital. If you were genuinely surprised that the Obama administration loaded itself up with Wall Street insiders, or that it failed to punish anyone for the massive criminal scheme that resulted in the 2008 financial collapse, you haven’t been paying attention.

I make that point because it’s almost impossible to have a serious discussion about this country’s economic problems without getting trapped into partisan political bickering, which is almost irrelevant in this context. The activist Tea Party right (at least in its populist, non-elite form) and the activist Occupy left are essentially reacting to the same phenomenon – worsening inequality, and the long-term economic and psychic decay of the United States – but interpreting it in different ways. Working-class whites who feel an immense loss of relative privilege and social status are not wrong, for example – but it doesn’t have much to do with the Kenyan socialist Muslim in the White House, or his namby-pamby and admittedly screwed-up healthcare law. As Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz recently noted, census data reveals that men with high-school diplomas but without college degrees earn about 40 percent less today (in real terms) than they did in the 1970s. Obama didn’t do that; capitalism did.

Stiglitz concluded his essay on inequality – which argued that it was a political choice, rather than the inevitable result of macroeconomic forces – by writing that he saw us “entering a world divided not just between the haves and have-nots, but also between those countries that do nothing about it, and those that do. Some countries will be successful in creating shared prosperity — the only kind of prosperity that I believe is truly sustainable. Others will let inequality run amok.” Which kind of country do we live in? That was the question that ran through my mind this week while I was watching Frederick Wiseman’s magisterial documentary “At Berkeley,” a portrait of America’s most prestigious public university as it wrestles with piecemeal privatization and the near-total abandonment of its historic mission.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, Stiglitz’s tag-team partner on the economic left, chimed in this week with a related argument. When the ideologues of austerity piously refuse to invest in jobs, infrastructure or education while wrapping themselves in the mantle of fiscal responsibility, he wrote, they’re actually inflicting irreparable long-term damage on the economy. Krugman’s focus in that column was primarily on job creation, but his lesson clearly applies to Wiseman’s depiction of a legendary state university that has long been considered on the same level as Harvard and Oxford and MIT and Stanford but that also, within living memory, charged no tuition at all to California high school graduates who qualified for admission.

Appropriately enough, it was Ronald Reagan who did away with all that. The onetime B-movie icon ran for governor of California in 1966 promising to “clean up the mess at Berkeley,” and I can’t help wondering whether Wiseman’s title is a sly reference to that famous slogan. Reagan of course meant the Free Speech Movement and organized student opposition to the Vietnam War, which was still widely popular among the public. Once he took office in Sacramento (after defeating Democratic incumbent Pat Brown, a godfather of the University of California system and the father of current Gov. Jerry Brown), Reagan demanded that the UC regents start charging student fees for the first time. (The word “tuition” was initially avoided.) He also proposed cutting the university budget by 10 percent across the board – a sequester, as we might say today – and suggested that the regents could make up the shortfall by selling off the rare books collection in Berkeley’s Bancroft Library.

No Gutenberg Bibles or first-edition Shakespeare folios were auctioned off to pay the bills at Berkeley, but that sounds an awful lot like Tea Party anti-government rhetoric circa 2013, doesn’t it? Of course Gov. Reagan presented his idea as hard-headed realism, but it’s difficult to miss the vindictiveness, or the clear ideological content: Why the hell do those eggheads need a bunch of dusty old books in languages no normal person can read, anyway? If we flash-forward to the present, . . .

Continue reading.

Related articles well worth reading:

Paul Krugman: The Mutilated Economy – a cogent bummer

Brad Plumer: The US labor force is still shrinking: Here’s Why – ditto

Brad Plumer: Unemployment benefits for 2.1 million workers are set to expire early next year – the frosting on the cake ,,  no, wait: that would be the big cut to SNAP to hit just now.

Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 2:44 pm

Beyond Film And TV: How Video Games Can Tell Unique Stories

leave a comment »

Very interesting post at ThinkProgress by Harris O’Malley:

Like many geeks, I have two life-long loves: reading and video games. And while I enjoy first-person shooters and action games, I will always have a deep and abiding affection for the way that video games transform a narrative in ways that other mediums can’t match. Recently I stumbled across the IOS gameDevice 6, a groundbreaking mix of text and interactivity. For people who haven’t played it, it plays with interactivity and the physical aspect of the narrative in unique and unusual ways. Scrolling through the narrative literally moves the character back and forth through the setting. You’re not just flipping back and forth so much as physically traversing through the castle.

But while I’m an avid gamer, I’m not as deeply involved in the video game scene as others, especially for games that push the narrative and scope of storytelling. So I reached out to IGN editor Mitch Dyer to talk about the power of video games to tell new stories in ways that simply can’t be replicated in books, movies or film.

Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity and contains in-depth discussions of the plots of Gone Home and Brothers.

So let’s start off with a little bit about Device 6, because this is an astounding app. It’s an interesting mix of ebook and puzzle game.

Simogo is a fascinating developer. Everything it does is different than the last in every conceivable way. Tone, input, structure, story, aesthetic. It’s unique in a way that you’d never know it was the same team.

Device 6 is one of the weirdest, most daring little things I have ever played. It has this reckless disregard for how video game stories are told, and how mobile games should function. The text creates a sense of space separate from the prose’s description. Geographically, you understand where you are, where you’re going, and how to navigate based on the layout of the story. It’s written as a story, and structured like a map.

And the prose takes the shape of the environment.

More subtly in some places than others; ascending a spiral staircase made of spiraling words is a little more on the nose than descending clauses in the shape of stairs.
 It’s a way to play with your perception. Forcing you to rotate the device gives you a sense of physicality that connects to the place described in text that’s literally rotated sideways.

It kind of reminds me of The House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski in that way — bringing a physical connection to the way you relate to the story.

Yes! House of Leaves was the first thing that came to mind for me, too. Not just in the way it’s weird, but in the way . . .

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 12:30 pm

Posted in Games

Switzerland tackles runaway (and unjustified) executive compensation

leave a comment »

Just think about this when CEOs try to justify their exorbitant pay:

The disconnect between CEO and worker pay helps reinforce and worsen economic inequality, but the current state of executive compensation has consequences beyond the unfairness of a new Gilded AgeTaxpayers subsidize CEO pay, which means less funding is available for public programs. The way pay packages are structured creates incentives for executives to cut corners, commit fraud, and take excessive risks like those that brought about the Great Recession. There is no meaningful connection at present between performance and pay, and a full third of the best-paid CEOs over the past two decades have ended up getting fired, busted for fraud, or begging the government for bailouts. [And, BTW, they keep their ill-gotten gains, for the most part. – LG]

The paragraph is from an intriguing post by Alan Pyke at ThinkProgress, who describes some steps Switzerland is taking. Read the whole thing, but from the post:

A referendum is set for November 24 on a law called the “1:12 Initiative” that would impose a flexible cap on top employee compensation at Swiss companies. If approved, the highest-paid employee of any given Swiss firm could not earn more in a month than its lowest-paid employee makes in a year. By using a ratio rather than a dollar figure cap, the 1:12 Initiative would both shrink the salaries of top executives and raise the pay of underlings. “You shouldn’t just say a maximum salary, because what we really want is a relationship between the lowest and the highest,” said David Roth, one of the plan’s architects, in an interview with Business Insider. In March, Swiss votersoverwhelmingly approved a package of CEO pay reforms, including an outright ban on so-called “golden parachute” payouts for fired executives.

Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 12:25 pm

Posted in Business, Government

Interesting: Alcohol industry furious about ads saying marijuana is safer than booze

leave a comment »

And yet, the statement is perfectly true—big-time true, since alcohol is much more addictive and much more dangerous. People regularly die of alcohol poisoning (hazing incidents, for example), and alcoholics find their body severely damaged by alcohol. None of that happens with marijuana. And people are not supposed to know this? It’s supposed to be kept secret so the alcohol industry can make more money? From an AlterNet article:

Chris Thorne at the Beer Institute told National Journal that it’s a red herring to compare alcohol to pot. “We believe it’s misleading to compare marijuana to beer,” he said, “Beer is distinctly different both as a product and an industry.  Factually speaking beer has been a welcome part of American life for a long time.  The vast majority drinks responsibly, so having caricatures won’t really influence people,” he said.

There are no caricatures in comparing the harm, to the individual and to society, from alcohol and from marijuana. (This is not to comment on the damage to society from the war on marijuana, which has been enormous.) And even the slightest investigation reveals that marijuana is much more benign than alcohol. (I do use alcohol, BTW, so I am not speaking as a teetotaler.)

Still, I understand their fear: it’s highly likely that legalized marijuana will lead to a significant decline in alcohol sales. Certainly that’s been the experience in California, just with making medical marijuana available.

Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 12:18 pm

Posted in Drug laws, Health, Science

Hazing – Incognito and Martin, et al.

leave a comment »

I confess I totally do not understand the idea of hazing, particularly the brutal hazing employed (apparently) in professional sport, university bands (in Florida, hazing resulted in the death of a band member), military units, and so on. Why would anyone want to belong to a group that treats him or her or anyone else with such brutality?

I think people in general learn to know when they’re not wanted, and they decide that based on how they’re treated. Hazing seems designed to drive people away, and so far as I’m concerned, it works.

OTOH, Lydon Murtha, another former Miami Dolphins player, wrote:

 From the beginning, when he was drafted in April 2012, Martin did not seem to want to be one of the group. He came off as standoffish and shy to the rest of the offensive linemen. He couldn’t look anyone in the eye, which was puzzling for a football player at this level on a team full of grown-ass men. We all asked the same question: Why won’t he be open with us? What’s with the wall being put up? I never really figured it out. He did something I’d never seen before by balking at the idea of paying for a rookie dinner, which is a meal for a position group paid for by rookies. (For example, I paid $9,600 for one my rookie year.) I

… Playing football is a man’s job, and if there’s any weak link, it gets weeded out. It’s the leaders’ job on the team to take care of it.

Perhaps “grown men” is a little different from “grown-ass men”, with the latter group expected to act like 15-year-olds on an out-of-town trip, but somehow my own idea of a grown man—someone who acts with reasonable maturity—doesn’t include tormenting others.

Certainly some in professional football seem to agree. Travis Waldron writes at ThinkProgress that Martin’s response is exactly what a man would do:

Many Miami Dolphins players have rallied around offensive lineman Richie Incognito, the player suspended for allegedly bullying fellow lineman Jonathan Martin, defending the former under the notion that Martin broke the bro-culture code that says disputes between teammates should be kept in-house and settled in the locker room. “[A]ll over the league, problems are hashed out in house. Either you talk about it or you get physical. But at the end of the day, you handle it indoors,” former Dolphins lineman Lydon Murtha wrote in defending Incognito Thursday. “Playing football is a man’s job, and if there’s any weak link, it gets weeded out,” Murtha wrote.

Stick to the code. Don’t go to others. Be a man. Handle it yourself. Do it any other way, Murtha and others are saying, and you’re weak, soft, not a man.

That’s not how Terrelle Pryor sees it, though. Asked about the Dolphins’ situation Thursday, the second-year Oakland Raiders quarterback applauded Martin’s courage to stand up against the bullies, even if he didn’t do it with his fists.

“I hope that we see [Jonathan] Martin playing again soon – I’ve watched some tape of him, he’s a good player,” Pryor said, according to “Hats off to him for standing up and being a man.”

But that wasn’t all. Pryor also insinuated that there should have been leaders — men — in the locker room who stood up for Martin and spoke out about Incognito’s problems (which are only looking worse with each passing day).

“There are some situations where sometimes you have to do that, it’s minor things, but you want to cut things off,” Pryor said. “There are so many situations that pop up – your teammate has one drink or something like that and you want to say, ‘Hey, maybe you should take a cab, come take a cab with me,’ something small like that you just get so much respect from your teammate that you stopped and helped him. It’s just little things like that, it matters and that definitely comes in on a leadership role.”

The NFL could use a few more players with Terrelle Pryor’s definition of manhood. It’s a shame the Dolphins don’t seem to have any.

And when “hazing” destroys a player’s eye because he was struck hard in the face with a sock filled with coins—how does that help the team?

I think I simply do not understand professional sports and the things that drive it.

Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 12:09 pm

Posted in Daily life

Polywater revisited

leave a comment »

I remember polywater vividly. It appeared, it caught everyone’s attention because of the fictional ice-9 in Cat’s Cradle, and then it disappeared as quickly. Here’s a little look back, thanks to TYD. As the author points out, science works: a new idea or process appears, a lot of people test it, and if it doesn’t survive, we continue, in a process quite similar to evolution.

Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 11:22 am

Obama’s war on marijuana

leave a comment »

The Nation seems to have devoted their current issue to the growing move toward marijuana legalization. Beyond the article mentioned in the the title are these:

Katrina vanden Heuvel: “Why Its Always Been Time to Legalize Marijuana

Carl L. Hart: “Pot Reform’s Race Problem

Harry Levine: “The Scandal of Racist Marijuana Possession Arrests—and Why We Must Stop Them

Martin A. Lee: “Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom: The Populist Politics of Cannabis Reform

Martin A. Lee: “The Marijuana Miracle: Why a Single Compound in Cannabis May Revolutionize Modern Medicine

Kristen Gwynne: “Can Medical Marijuana Survive in Washington State?

Atossa Araxia Abrahamian: “Baking Bad: A Potted History of High Times

Various Contributors: “The Drug War Touched My Life: Why I’m Fighting Back

And only online…

J. Hoberman: “The Cineaste’s Guide to Watching Movies While Stoned

Harmon Leon: “Pot Block! Trapped in the Marijuana Rescheduling Maze

Seth Zuckerman: “Is Pot-Growing Bad for the Environment?

The article about Obama’s antipathy to making marijuana legal, even for medical purposes, was written by Mike Riggs and begins:

In February 2013, three months after Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana, a sullen Gil Kerlikowske, head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), shared his regrets with the Canadian magazine Maclean’s. “The administration has not done a particularly good job,” he said, “of, one, talking about marijuana as a public health issue, and number two, talking about what can be done and where we should be headed on our drug policy.” People in mourning are given to melodrama, but Kerlikowske’s attempt to blame marijuana legalization on poor messaging was evidence of psychosis.

From day one of Obama’s presidency, the press—from local outfits to the major networks—had hailed his administration’s promise to treat drugs as a “public health issue” as if it were a novel idea. It wasn’t. White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs,’ the headline of a 2009 Wall Street Journal profile of Kerlikowske, could just as easily have been written in 1996 about Gen. Barry McCaffrey, drug czar under Bill Clinton. Another popular Kerlikowske line—“You can’t arrest your way out of the drug problem”—similarly echoed McCaffrey’s statement that “the solution to our drug problem is not in incarceration.”

This tradition of critiquing the drug war while continuing to wage it was similarly evident in the 2012 claim by the ONDCP that marijuana’s potency has “almost tripled over the past 20 years”—a statement only slightly less hysterical than its warning to parents, ten years earlier, describing today’s marijuana as having “potency levels ten to twenty times stronger” than the pot of their generation. Anti-legalization advocate Kevin Sabet, who worked on drug policy under both George W. Bush and Obama, has described the potency of today’s marijuana as “five-to-six times greater” than the pot that baby boomers smoked in their youth. (While it’s true that you can buy stronger pot today, you can also—thanks to the botanical tinkering of the medical marijuana community—find strains that are milder. If boomers can’t find the pot of their youth these days—stuff grown and sold before the Controlled Substances Act—it’s because prohibition historically encourages a disproportionately high potency-to-volume ratio. See: bathtub gin.)

Nevertheless, Obama’s drug policy was hailed as revolutionary by the press even as the Drug Enforcement Administration wreaked havoc on medical marijuana communities in California, Colorado and Montana during his first term. On September 25, 2012, in the midst of re-election season, the DEA tried to shut down more than seventy medical marijuana dispensaries in and around Los Angeles. According to LA Weekly’s reporting at the time, “Federal authorities sent warning letters—which tell operators to shut down—to 68 stores. Additionally, three shops were hit with asset-forfeiture lawsuits and another three were raided via search warrant.”

Yet the next day, CNN ran a segment titled “The ‘War on Drugs’ Withdrawal: Administration Focusing on Prevention.”

Ineffective messaging was clearly not the problem. By November 2012, Americans likely knew as much as an average person could be expected to know about Obama’s supposed public-health-centered approach to drug policy. Yet in Colorado, Washington and Massachusetts (states where medical marijuana was on the ballot), voters still pulled the lever in favor of liberalization. In Arkansas—a state that Mitt Romney won by a landslide—a medical marijuana initiative received more votes than Obama.

Support for legalization has only increased in the last year. A Gallup poll released in late October found that 58 percent of Americans think recreational marijuana should be legal. A Public Policy Polling survey conducted weeks earlier found majority support for legalizing pot in deep-red Texas. A legalization initiative in Portland, Maine, had majority support as of late October, and studies suggest that if Californians voted on the issue today, they’d legalize pot despite refusing to do so in 2010. As with so many issues, the federal government is lagging behind the rest of the country.

* * *

The disconnect between narrative and reality when it comes to the Obama administration’s drug policy can be partly traced to a memo released by the Justice Department in October 2009. Raids on dispensaries and growers had already picked up following Obama’s inauguration, despite his campaign promise to cease targeting state-legal pot clubs. But this memo, colloquially referred to as the Ogden memo, was supposed to change that. It stated that medical marijuana would not be a priority for federal law enforcement unless it was being grown or sold in conjunction with a larger criminal enterprise.

The memo inspired celebration among medical marijuana advocates, and a sense of relief in state and local lawmakers. Yet less than a year later, DEA agents raided the home of 68-year-old Joy Greenfield, a Mendocino County, California, resident who grew marijuana with the blessing of her local sheriff. Agents destroyed Greenfield’s plants and seized her money and computer. As they have many times since, the DEA and US Attorneys then had the records sealed—a common practice in cases where releasing information might reveal the identity of a tipster or jeopardize an investigation, but hard to understand in the case of Greenfield, whom officers didn’t even bother to arrest. If the real goal is to conceal the extent to which agents have targeted small-time growers with no ties to cartels or interstate trafficking operations, however, sealing such records is an effective way to do so.

A June 2013 report issued by Americans for Safe Access found that . . .

Continue reading. (And note that it’s a two-page article.)

Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 9:35 am

BBS with Eros Slant—and Taconic Bay Rum Shaving Cream

leave a comment »

SOTD 9 Nov 2013

A reader strongly advised me to try Taconic Bay Rum shaving cream, so I did. It makes a very nice lather. The cream is stiff enough so that I could load my brush much as I do with soap, though of course it was easier: brushing the cream with a wet brush until the lather indicates the brush is loaded.

The bay rum fragrance was nice but light, and the shave was quite good: the cream offers excellent slickness and cushion. With the Eros Slant still holding its original Gillette 7 O’Clock SharpEdge blade, I easily achieved BBS in three passes.

A good splash of Saint Charles Shave Refined aftershave, and the weekend begins.

Written by Leisureguy

9 November 2013 at 9:12 am

Posted in Shaving

%d bloggers like this: