Later On

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

Archive for September 24th, 2016

An Obsolescent Military: Bombing Everything, Gaining Nothing

leave a comment »

Fred Reed writes at

What, precisely, is the US military for, and what, precisely, can it do? In practical terms, how powerful is it? On paper, it is formidable, huge, with carrier battle groups, advanced technology, remarkable submarines, satellites, and so on. What does this translate to?

Military power does not exist independently, but only in relation to specific circumstances. Comparing technical specifications of the T-14 to those of the M1A2, or Su-34 to F-15, or numbers of this to numbers of that, is an interesting intellectual exercise. It means little without reference to specific circumstances.

For example, America is vastly superior militarily to North Korea in every category of arms–but the North has nuclear bombs. It can’t deliver them to the US, but probably can to Seoul. Even without nuclear weapons, it has a large army and large numbers of artillery tubes within range of Seoul. It has an unpredictable government. As Gordon Liddy said, if your responses to provocation are wildly out of proportion to those provocations, and unpredictable, nobody will provoke you.

An American attack by air on the North, the only attack possible short of a preemptive nuclear strike, would offer a high probability of a peninsular war, devastation of Seoul, paralysis of an important trading partner–think Samsung–and an uncertain final outcome. The United States hasn’t the means of getting troops to Korea rapidly in any numbers, and the domestic political results of lots of GIs killed by a serious enemy would be politically grave. The probable cost far exceeds any possible benefit. In practical terms, Washington’s military superiority means nothing with regard to North Korea. Pyongyang knows it.

Or consider the Ukraine. On paper, . . .

Continue reading.

The U.S. military is an excellent hammer, but the international problems we face generally are not nails.

Written by LeisureGuy

24 September 2016 at 7:31 pm

Posted in Military

Pretty cool dance moves

leave a comment »

Also by same guy, and also very cool:

Written by LeisureGuy

24 September 2016 at 5:31 pm

Posted in Video

A headline that made me laugh: “Monsanto Agrees to Use Gene-Editing Tool CRISPR Responsibly”

leave a comment »

Here’s the article.

From the article:

. . . CRISPR/Cas9 has been taking the world by storm since it was first developed in 2013by researchers at the Broad Institute. The gene-editing technology works by taking advantage of a property of DNA called clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, or small repetitions of DNA base sequences. These sequences produce an enzyme called Cas9, which essentially functions as a pair of genetic scissors which can cut the DNA sequences at certain points to add or remove small DNA segments.

Yet the ease with which researchers and companies like Monsanto could use gene-editing technology to irreversibly fuck with living things like people and plants has also raised concern that the technology might become widely deployed without understanding the consequences. This is why the “responsible use” of CRISPR/Cas9 cited by Rozen is a key stipulation in Monsanto’s latest move to corner the GMO industry (as the most recent acquisition of the chemical company Bayer, Monsanto and its affiliates now control a full 25 percent of the world’s seeds and pesticides).

Monsanto has never been a company that has been particularly lauded for doingresponsible things, and its forays into genetically modified plants have had a number of unintended consequences, such as encouraging pesticide resistant “super bugs” and weeds. In order to ensure more responsible use of this powerful gene-editing tool, the agreement prohibits Monsanto from using CRISPR/Cas9 to promote gene drives (where a genetically modified trait, such as pesticide resistance, is intentionally spread through an entire plant population), the production of sterile “terminator” seeds, or the production of tobacco to be used for smoking.

Gene drives were recently cited as a concern in a National Academy of Sciences reporton the topic since genetically modified plant traits could ravage ecosystems in ways that aren’t yet fully understood. . .

This will not end well.

Written by LeisureGuy

24 September 2016 at 1:54 pm

The cultural role of the trainwreck

leave a comment »

Marcie Bianco has an interesting column in Salon, which can also be viewed as memes interacting to define the cultural environment. The column begins:

Trainwrecks don’t make themselves. In fact, you could say that trainwrecks are projections of our worst selves—steeped in our own internalized misogyny—scapegoated onto women in the public eye, whose then very-publicized rise and fall is lapped up by media and audiences alike.

The anatomy of the trainwreck is the subject of Sady Doyle’s debut book, “Trainwreck: The Women We Love to Hate, Mock, and Fear . . . and Why, published this past Tuesday (read Salon’s interview with Doyle). “Trainwreck” is a dazzling compendium of iconic feminist figures, from Mary Wollstonecraft to Valerie Solanas, Jane Austen to Sylvia Plath. Doyle situates these women as historical anchors in order to reveal a larger historical trend about cultural misogyny and the damnation of transgressive women. They are deemed transgressive, of course, because they dared to be human, have feelings, emotions, needs and desires. The “trainwreck” is simply a woman living in the world, Doyle said in our interview (which was conducted first by phone, and after a technical malfunction, repeated over email), as “a subject, rather than anyone else’s object.”

“The trainwreck is someone who needs things, and feels things, and doesn’t pause to think about what the people around her need or want first,” said Doyle. That she does not remain mute, silent, passive, or submissive renders her “unlikable,” another defining social attribute evident in the trainwreck narrative that Doyle charts through the centuries.

The book’s genealogy of the trainwreck is one Doyle calls an “anatomy.” The use of the word is an intentional nod to Robert Burton’s Renaissance tome published nearly 400 years ago, “The Anatomy of Melancholy,” Doyle said in our interview, and that in order “to write about trainwrecks (who are, themselves, very melancholy) [she] has to sort of address every other angle of misogyny to get there.”

The use of the “anatomy” structure was also, she added, “about that quest of shifting the narrative away from individual women, and toward an examination of the pressures and stereotypes at hand.” This is why the book is a cultural history rather than a feminist hagiography. With rise of digital culture,  it is no longer only public women who are scrutinized; every woman who dares to enter any digital space faces the risk of being deemed a trainwreck.

In Doyle’s cultural history, she shows how the trainwreck is a manifestation of misogyny, and, more disturbingly, a mirror image of women’s internalized misogyny. The trainwreck, she contends, is “a signpost pointing to what ‘wrong’ is, which boundaries we’re currently placing on femininity, which stories we’ll allow women to have.” Doyle elaborates in her book:

She’s the girl who breaks the rules of the game and gets punished, which means that she’s actually the best indication of which game we’re playing, and what the rules are. And, in her consistent violation of the accepted social codes — her ability to shock, to horrify, to upset, to draw down loud and powerful condemnation — she is a tremendously powerful force of cultural subversion. And at the end of the day, despite all our praise of strong women and selfless activists and lean-inners, the trainwreck might turn out to be the most potent and perennial feminist icon of them all.

The trainwreck is a weathervane and moral compass, a public spectacle and sexist scarecrow, that instructs women on how to behave properly. “The trainwreck is the inverse of what a woman ought to be: She is demanding, sexually voracious, where women are meant to be merely sexy, and receptive to outside desire,” Doyle writes in the book. The hubris of these women is simply that of asserting selfhood, of claiming humanity and a voice, and of expressing their individuality — especially their sexuality. The ideal woman of history and literature is the silent one, the one who is obedient to a fault. The trainwreck is the inverse of this ideal; her public execution in the media — facilitated by the viral sport of the digital age — is her punishment.

Doyle’s identification of the trainwreck aligns with and finds its precedent in . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

24 September 2016 at 1:47 pm

Posted in Books, Daily life

Naked Shorts Can’t Stay Naked Forever

leave a comment »

This is the most amazing series. Today is Part 3 of David Dayen’s series on an amazing scam, with this blurb:

Who engages in massive trades in penny stocks on the industry’s own “chill list”? And what happens when you sell a stock you don’t have? Victimized investor Chris DiIorio finds the answers in plain sight and wonders why no one else seems to care.

Earlier parts are found here. It really is a criminal enterprise.

Written by LeisureGuy

24 September 2016 at 12:38 pm

Inside the secret world of wealth managers

leave a comment »

Also in the Guardian, Brooke Harrington reports:

The Pritzker family is one of the wealthiest in the United States. Their assets, which amount to $15bn, are held in 60 companies and 2,500 trusts, using structures and strategies that Forbes magazine – normally a cheerleader for wealthy elites – describes with an unusual hint of moral distaste as “shadowy … constructed to discourage outside inquiry – and brilliantly exploitative of loopholes in the tax code.”

This complex asset-holding structure was created not by the Pritzker family itself but by its lawyers, accountants, tax specialists and investment advisers. In this respect, the Pritzkers are no different to tens of thousands of super-rich families and individuals worldwide, who use the services of wealth managers. These professionals not only shelter wealth from taxation but, in the words of one academic paper, serve to “obscure concentrations of economic power”, using vehicles that make it difficult, if not impossible, to identify the true owners of wealth.

The work of wealth managers has been described by some leading practitioners as a defence against the depredations of “confiscatory states.” Much of these professionals’ day-to-day practice occurs in an ethical grey area – a realm of activity that is formally legal but socially illegitimate. This includes the use of trusts, offshore corporations and similar tools to help clients avoid paying tax, debts to creditors or alimony to ex-spouses. Following the financial crisis and news stories such as the Panama Papers, these tactics – many of which are also used by corporations to avoid taxation and regulation – are attracting increasing public attention and condemnation.

The profession – whose main representative body is the London-based Society for Trust and Estate Practitioners (Step) – has been singled out for blame in several countries by government agencies concerned with tax evasion, money laundering, and growing worldwide wealth inequality. In its 2006 Seoul declaration, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) made special mention of the roles played by ‘‘law and accounting firms, other tax advisers and financial institutions” in helping companies and individuals find ways round international laws. In 2003, the now-retired Democrat senator Carl Levin complained to a US Senate subcommittee about the asset-holding structures created by wealth managers to obscure their clients’ assets: “Most are so complex that they are Megos – ‘My Eyes Glaze Over’ type of schemes. Those who cook up these concoctions count on their complexity to escape scrutiny and public ire.”

As world wealth has grown to record levels in recent years – to an estimated $241 trillion – inequality has also grown, with 0.7% of the global population owning 41% of the assets. Wealth managers are estimated to direct the flows of up to $21tn in private wealth, resulting in about $200bn in lost tax revenues globally each year. In effect, these professionals detach assets from the states that wish to tax and regulate them, creating a form of capital that is, like its owners, transnational and hypermobile. Doing so involves creating not just asset-holding and tax-avoidance structures but a new body of transnational institutions, which are expanding outside of any democratic process of checks and balances. In this way, the rise of the super-rich and the wealth management industry is creating an elite who are increasingly ungoverned and ungovernable.

The wealthy and powerful are notoriously difficult to study. Within this domain, wealth management presents particular challenges, as the profession depends on secrecy and is governed by a code of conduct that requires strict privacy.

As a sociologist intent on understanding the world of wealth management, I started my research by going back to school. In November 2007, I enrolled in a two-year wealth management training programme. My goal was to obtain a credential that is now the accepted global standard for practitioners: the TEP, or Trust and Estate Planning certification. To earn the credential, you need to pass five courses in key domains of technical competence: trust law, corporate law, investments, finance, and accounting.

Between 2008 and 2015, I conducted 65 interviews with wealth managers in 18 countries, including Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mauritius, and British crown dependencies and overseas territories such as Guernsey, Jersey, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands. I also conducted interviews in the newer financial centres, particularly those serving the growing wealth of Asia, such as the Seychelles.

Only once my findings started to be published, about six years into the project, did anyone treat me with open hostility. In August 2013, I conducted a prearranged interview in the British Virgin Islands with a white British man in his 60s, who was a banker by training. He greeted me by saying that he had read my two recently published papers and found my work to be “left-leaning” and “disapproving of what the [wealth management] industry and wealthy people are doing”. He added that the islands’ wealth management community were all wondering what I was doing here. Although he graciously answered my interview questions, he was not done with the subject of my “agenda”. At the end of the interview, . . .

Continue reading. And there’s much more. In particular, the iron fist is revealed in the very next paragraph.

Written by LeisureGuy

24 September 2016 at 12:34 pm

The long fight, humans v. rats, may be drawing to a close

leave a comment »

Very interesting article by Jordan Kisner in the Guardian:

First, the myths. There are no “super rats”. Apart from a specific subtropical breed, they do not get much bigger than 20 inches long, including the tail. They are not blind, nor are they afraid of cats. They do not carry rabies. They do not, as was reported in 1969 regarding an island in Indonesia, fall from the sky. Their communities are not led by elusive, giant “king rats”. Rat skeletons cannot liquefy and reconstitute at will. (For some otherwise rational people, this is a genuine concern.) They are not indestructible, and there are not as many of them as we think. The one-rat-per-human in New York City estimate is pure fiction. Consider this the good news.

In most other respects, “the rat problem”, as it has come to be known, is a perfect nightmare. Wherever humans go, rats follow, forming shadow cities under our metropolises and hollows beneath our farmlands. They thrive in our squalor, making homes of our sewers, abandoned alleys, and neglected parks. They poison food, bite babies, undermine buildings, spread disease, decimate crop yields, andvery occasionally eat people alive. A male and female left to their own devices for one year – the average lifespan of a city rat – can beget 15,000 descendants.

There may be no “king rat”, but there are “rat kings”, groups of up to 30 rats whose tails have knotted together to form one giant, swirling mass. Rats may be unable to liquefy their bones to slide under doors, but they don’t need to: their skeletons are so flexible that they can squeeze their way through any hole or crack wider than half an inch. They are cannibals, and they sometimes laugh (sort of) – especially when tickled. They can appear en masse, as if from nowhere, moving as fast as seven feet per second. They do not carry rabies, but a 2014 study from Columbia University found that the average New York City subway rat carried 18 viruses previously unknown to science, along with dozens of familiar, dangerous pathogens, such as C difficile and hepatitis C. As recently as 1994 there was a major recurrence of bubonic plague in India, an unpleasant flashback to the 14th century, when that rat-borne illness killed 25 million people in five years. Collectively, rats are responsible for more human death than any other mammal on earth.

Humans have a peculiar talent for exterminating other species. In the case of rats, we have been pursuing their total demise for centuries. We have invented elaborate, gruesome traps. We have trained dogs, ferrets, and cats to kill them. We have invented ultrasonic machines to drive them away with high-pitched noise. (Those machines, still popular, do not work.) We have poisoned them in their millions. In 1930, faced with a rat infestation on Rikers Island, New York City officials flushed the area with mustard gas. In the late 1940s, scientists developed anticoagulants to treat thrombosis in humans, and some years later supertoxic versions of the drugs were developed in order to kill rats by making them bleed to death from the inside after a single dose. Cityscapes and farmlands were drenched with thousands of tons of these chemicals. During the 1970s, we used DDT. These days, rat poison is not just sown in the earth by the truckload, it is rained from helicopters that track the rats with radar – in 2011 80 metric tonnes of poison-laced bait were dumped on to Henderson Island, home to one of the last untouched coral reefs in the South Pacific. In 2010, Chicago officials went “natural”: figuring a natural predator might track and kill rats, they released 60 coyotes wearing radio collars on to the city streets.

Still, here they are. According to Bobby Corrigan, the world’s leading expert on rodent control, many of the world’s great cities remain totally overcome. “In New York – we’re losing that war in a big way,” he told me. Combat metaphors have become a central feature of rat conversation among pest control professionals. In Robert Sullivan’s 2014 book Rats, he described humanity’s relationship with the species as an “unending and brutish war”, a battle we seem always, always to lose.

Why? How is it that we can send robots to Mars, build the internet, keep alive infants born so early that their skin isn’t even fully made – and yet remain unable to keep rats from threatening our food supplies, biting our babies, and appearing in our toilet bowls?

rankly, rodents are the most successful species,” Loretta Mayer told me recently. “After the next holocaust, rats and Twinkies will be the only things left.” Mayer is a biologist, and she contends that the rat problem is actually a human problem, a result of our foolish choices and failures of imagination. In 2007, she co-founded SenesTech, a biotech startup that offers the promise of an armistice in a conflict that has lasted thousands of years. The concept is simple: rat birth control

The rat’s primary survival skill, as a species, is its unnerving rate of reproduction. Female rats ovulate every four days, copulate dozens of times a day and remain fertile until they die. (Like humans, they have sex for pleasure as well as for procreation.) This is how you go from two to 15,000 in a single year. When poison or traps thin out a population, they mate faster until their numbers regenerate. Conversely, if you can keep them from mating, colonies collapse in weeks and do not rebound.

Solving the rat problem by putting them on the pill sounds ridiculous. Until recently no pharmaceutical product existed that could make rats infertile, and even if it had, there was still the question of how it could be administered. But if such a thing were to work, the impact could be historic. Rats would die off without the need for poison, radar or coyotes.

SenesTech, which is based in Flagstaff, Arizona, claims to have created a liquid that will do exactly that. In tests conducted in Indonesian rice fields, South Carolina pig farms, the suburbs of Boston and the New York City subway, the product, called ContraPest, caused a drop in rat populations of roughly 40% in 12 weeks. This autumn, for the first time, the company is making ContraPest available to commercial markets in the US and Europe. The team at SenesTech believes it could be the first meaningful advance in the fight against rats in a hundred years, and the first viable alternative to poison. Mayer was blunt about the implications: “This will change the world.”

Mayer is a tall, vigorous woman in her mid-60s with bright eyes, spiky grey hair and a toothy grin. Her ideologies of choice are Buddhism and the Girl Scouts. “It’s kind of my core,” she said of the latter, “to do for others.” In conversation, her manner is so upbeat that she seems to be holding forth radiantly before an audience or on the verge of bursting into song. When asked how she is doing, she frequently responds in a near-rapture: “If I was any better, I’d be a twin!” – she also appears to enjoy watching people wonder whether this is an expression they should know.

When I took a seat in her office earlier this year, she clapped her hands triumphantly and said “Ooh! You’re sitting in history and strength!” There was a pause. “I had a feng shui person come and do my office,” she explained. . .

Continue reading.

There’s a lot more, and it’s interesting, informative, and intertaining (the three I’s). Later in the article:

It sounds crazy: a band of animal lovers and firemen in the mountains of Arizona, led by a Buddhist girl scout, making a pink milkshake for rats that may eventually improve the lives of millions of people. They are unruffled by scepticism: In the middle of one interview, Mayer forgot a detail and yelled towards the door, “Cheryl, who said to you, ‘That’s just not how we do it?’” Dyer hollered back from the other room. “Which time?” In response, they point to hard science, solicitations from governments and companies around the world, and an endorsement from Stephen Hawking, who featured them on his documentary mini-series Brave New World.

Written by LeisureGuy

24 September 2016 at 11:08 am

Corruption of justice in high relief in Wisconsin

leave a comment »

Lincoln Caplan writes in the New Yorker:

Next week, the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider whether it will hear an appeal of a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that, last year, halted a criminal investigation and ordered the destruction of all the evidence it gathered. The case is about the seemingly peripheral issue of judicial recusal. But it brings together two of the biggest disrupters of American democracy today: the surge, after the Citizens United decision struck down limits on independent spending, of private influence in elections; and the politicization of the highest courts in many states. For the past eight years, Wisconsin has been a laboratory testing the toxicity of this combination.

In 2008, conservative businesspeople in Wisconsin recruited a county trial judge named Michael Gableman to challenge Louis Butler, a liberal justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who was its first African-American member. In support of Gableman, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and the Wisconsin chapter of the Club for Growth, the conservative group funded by the Koch brothers’ network, spent an estimated $2.8 million. Gableman won with fifty-one per cent of the vote, giving the conservatives what turned out to be a critical majority on the court.

Gableman’s election raised an issue of serious concern around the country: When an organization, or an individual, that supported a judge’s election is a party to a case before him, shouldn’t that judge recuse himself? In 2009, by a 5–4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state judge must recuse himself when spending by a party to a case had “a significant and disproportionate influence” on the outcome of the judge’s election. The Court reasoned that, “just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when—without the consent of the other parties—a man chooses the judge in his own cause.”
Shortly after that decision, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Fundproposed a change in the recusal rules of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, so that a justice would have to recuse himself if a party in a case, or the lawyer or law firm handling it, had given a thousand dollars or more within the previous two years. In response, the Wisconsin Realtors Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce submitted two opposing rule petitions, which the justices voted to adopt, without amendment, in October, 2009. Together, the rule changes meant that a justice did not have to recuse himself just because a litigant had contributed to a justice’s campaign or made an independent expenditure on its behalf. The court’s four conservatives made up the majority that approved the changes.
In January, 2010, the conservatives again approved the changes, with some minor tweaks in the language. That same day, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, striking down limits on independent spending in elections by corporations, unions, and other organizations. “The appearance of influence or access” from such spending, the Court said, “will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate.” The decision unleashed a torrent of spending in American elections.

In November, 2010, Scott Walker was elected governor of Wisconsin, and Republicans won majorities in both houses of the state legislature. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign estimated that Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce spent about nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and that Wisconsin Club for Growth spent about a hundred thousand dollars. As William Finnegan reported, Walker had a strong anti-union agenda, and moved to cut the salaries of teachers and other government employees and gut the rights of public-sector unions. The legislation was enacted even as protesters occupied the state capitol, capturing national and international attention.

A few months into Walker’s tenure, David T. Prosser, Jr., a conservative justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, faced a serious challenge from a liberal opponent, who made the election a referendum on Walker’s anti-union agenda. An e-mail, dated March 20, 2011, circulated among Walker insiders, which said, “David Prosser is in trouble. And if we lose him, the Walker agenda is toast.” Two days earlier, a state trial judge had imposed a temporary restraining order that kept the new law from going into effect. If the case went to the State Supreme Court, and liberals had recaptured the majority, Walker’s supporters were concerned that the court would strike down the core of the law.
Walker’s right-wing circle mobilized and raised two and a half million dollars of corporate funding in support of Prosser. . .

Read the whole thing. It’s depressing, but it does reflect the gradual degradation of government and law in the US.

Written by LeisureGuy

24 September 2016 at 9:09 am

Posted in Business, Law

Wee Scot, Virgilio Valobra, Maggard V2 open comb, and Barrister & Mann Reserve

with 2 comments

No photo today. All shots were out of focus. I hope the camera’s not dying.

Virgilio Valobra has an almond fragrance, apparently beloved by Italians, and comes in a bar. The soap is the consistency of putty, so it’s easy to mash it into a bowl.

The Wee Scot is a workhorse, and the lather was excellent. I have my Maggard V2 open-comb head on their MR7 stainless handle, a very pleasant and well-balanced combination, and once again the V2OC proved to be extremely comfortable and extremely efficient, resulting in a rather easy BBS result.

The Barrister & Mann Reserve Spice aftershave just arrived, and I like it quite a bit. Ingredients:

Witch Hazel Water (Hamamelis Virginiana), SD Alcohol 40-B (Alcohol Denatured), Water (Aqua), Organic Licorice Root Extract (Glycyrrhiza Glabra), Glycerin, Taurine, Phenoxyethanol, Chlorella (Chlorella Vulgaris)/White Lupin Protein Ferment (Lupinus Albus), Eleuthero Root Extract (Acanthopanax Senticosus), Organic Alcohol, Fragrance, Salicylic Acid, Allantoin, Organic Aloe Leaf Extract (Aloe Barbadensis), German Chamomile Flower Extract (Matricaria Recutita), Provitamin B5 (Panthenol), Sodium Lactate, Neem Leaf (Melia azadirachta), Amino Esters-1, Ivy Gourd (Coccinia indica) Leaf Extract, Eggplant (Solanum melongena) Fruit Extract, Aloe (Aloe barbadensis) Flower Extract, Holy Basil (Ocimum sanctum) Leaf Extract, Turmeric (Curcuma longa) Root Extract, Red Seaweed (Corallina officinalis) Extract, Benzoic Acid, Citral, Oakmoss (Evernia prunastri) Extracts, Cinnamic Aldehyde (Cinnamal), Benzyl Benzoate, Isoeugenol, Cinnamic Alcohol (Cinnamyl Alcohol), Geraniol, Citronellol, Methyl Ionone Gamma; Alpha-Iso-Methylionone, Hexyl Cinammic Aldehyde, Eugenol, Coumarin, D-Limonene, Linalool

Not your everyday aftershave, eh? But the fragrance is appealing and it feels quite good on my skin. It’s also available in Classic and as a mentholated aftershave.

Written by LeisureGuy

24 September 2016 at 8:44 am

Posted in Shaving

%d bloggers like this: