Later On

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

Archive for June 7th, 2018

Fawn rescued by its mom

leave a comment »

Written by Leisureguy

7 June 2018 at 8:51 pm

Posted in Daily life, Video

My current favorite paring knife

leave a comment »

The Yaxell Dragon 3.5″ paring knife. Extremely nice.

Written by Leisureguy

7 June 2018 at 3:46 pm

Lessons from history: What Happens When a Bad-Tempered, Distractible Doofus Runs an Empire?

leave a comment »

Miranda Carter writes in the New Yorker:

One of the few things that Kaiser Wilhelm II, who ruled Germany from 1888 to 1918, had a talent for was causing outrage. A particular specialty was insulting other monarchs. He called the diminutive King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy “the dwarf” in front of the king’s own entourage. He called Prince (later Tsar) Ferdinand, of Bulgaria, “Fernando naso,” on account of his beaky nose, and spread rumors that he was a hermaphrodite. Since Wilhelm was notably indiscreet, people always knew what he was saying behind their backs. Ferdinand had his revenge. After a visit to Germany, in 1909, during which the Kaiser slapped him on the bottom in public and then refused to apologize, Ferdinand awarded a valuable arms contract that had been promised to the Germans to a French company instead.

Not that this deterred the Kaiser. One of the many things that Wilhelm was convinced he was brilliant at, despite all evidence to the contrary, was “personal diplomacy,” fixing foreign policy through one-on-one meetings with other European monarchs and statesmen. In fact, Wilhelm could do neither the personal nor the diplomacy, and these meetings rarely went well. The Kaiser viewed other people in instrumental terms, was a compulsive liar, and seemed to have a limited understanding of cause and effect. In 1890, he let lapse a long-standing defensive agreement with Russia—the German Empire’s vast and sometimes threatening eastern neighbor. He judged, wrongly, that Russia was so desperate for German good will that he could keep it dangling. Instead, Russia immediately made an alliance with Germany’s western neighbor and enemy, France. Wilhelm decided he would charm and manipulate Tsar Nicholas II (a “ninny” and a “whimperer,” according to Wilhelm, fit only “to grow turnips”) into abandoning the alliance. In 1897, Nicholas told Wilhelm to get lost; the German-Russian alliance withered.

About a decade ago, I published “George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I,” a book that was, in part, about Kaiser Wilhelm, who is probably best known for being Queen Victoria’s first grandchild and for leading Germany into the First World War. Ever since Donald Trump started campaigning for President, the Kaiser has once again been on my mind—his personal failings, and the global fallout they led to.

Trump’s tweets were what first reminded me of the Kaiser. Wilhelm was a compulsive speechmaker who constantly strayed off script. Even his staff couldn’t stop him, though it tried, distributing copies of speeches to the German press before he’d actually given them. Unfortunately, the Austrian press printed the speeches as they were delivered, and the gaffes and insults soon circulated around Europe. “There is only one person who is master in this empire and I am not going to tolerate any other,” Wilhelm liked to say, even though Germany had a democratic assembly and political parties. (“I’m the only one that matters,” Trump has said.) The Kaiser reserved particular abuse for political parties that voted against his policies. “I regard every Social Democrat as an enemy of the Fatherland,” he said, and he denounced the German Socialist party as a “gang of traitors.” August Bebel, the Socialist party leader, said that every time the Kaiser opened his mouth, the party gained another hundred thousand votes.

When Wilhelm became emperor, in 1888, at twenty-nine years old, he was determined to be seen as tough and powerful. He fetishized the Army, surrounded himself with generals (though, like Trump, he didn’t like listening to them), owned a hundred and twenty military uniforms, and wore little else. He cultivated a special severe facial expression for public occasions and photographs—there are many, as Wilhelm would send out signed photos and portrait busts to anyone who’d have one—and also a heavily waxed, upward-turned moustache that was so famous it had its own name, “Er ist Erreicht!” (It is accomplished!)

In fact, Wilhelm didn’t accomplish very much. The general staff of the German Army agreed that the Kaiser couldn’t “lead three soldiers over a gutter.” He had neither the attention span nor the ability. “Distractions, whether they are little games with his army or navy, travelling or hunting—are everything to him,” a disillusioned former mentor wrote. “He reads very little apart from newspaper cuttings, hardly writes anything himself apart from marginalia on reports and considers those talks best which are quickly over and done with.” The Kaiser’s entourage compiled press cuttings for him, mostly about himself, which he read as obsessively as Trump watches television. A critical story would send him into paroxysms of fury.

During Wilhelm’s reign, the upper echelons of the German government began to unravel into a free-for-all, with officials wrangling against one another. “The most contradictory opinions are now urged at high and all-highest level,” a German diplomat lamented. To add to the confusion, Wilhelm changed his position every five minutes. He was deeply suggestible and would defer to the last person he’d spoken to or cutting he’d read—at least until he’d spoken to the next person. “It is unendurable,” a foreign minister wrote, in 1894. “Today one thing and tomorrow the next and after a few days something completely different.” Wilhelm’s staff and ministers resorted to manipulation, distraction, and flattery to manage him. “In order to get him to accept an idea you must act as if the idea were his,” the Kaiser’s closest friend, Philipp zu Eulenburg, advised his colleagues, adding, “Don’t forget the sugar.” (In “Fire and Fury,” Michael Wolff writes that to get Trump to take an action his White House staff has to persuade him that “he had thought of it himself.”)

More sinisterly, Wilhelm’s patronage of the aggressive, nationalistic right left him surrounded by ministers who held a collective conviction that a European war was inevitable and even desirable. Alfred von Tirpitz, Germany’s Naval chief—who realized at his first meeting with the Kaiser that he did “not live in the real world”—consciously exploited Wilhelm’s envy and rage in order to extract the astronomical sums required to build a German Navy to rival Britain’s, a project that created an arms race and became an intractable block to peace negotiations.

The Kaiser was susceptible but never truly controllable. He asserted his authority unpredictably, as if to prove he was still in charge, staging rogue interventions into his own advisers’ policies and sacking ministers without warning. “You cannot have the faintest idea what I have prevented,” his most obsequious aide, Bernhard von Bülow, complained to a friend, “and how much of my time I must devote to restoring order where our All Highest Master has created chaos.”

The Kaiser’s darkest secret was that every few years—after his meddling and blunders had exposed his incompetence or resulted in a crisis—he would . . .

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

7 June 2018 at 2:06 pm

The mystery of the Omani Real

leave a comment »

Kevin Drum writes in Mother Jones:

Yesterday I learned that Republicans are still obsessed with alleged violations of the Iran deal even though President Trump has killed it off. Their latest outrage comes over an effort by the Obama Treasury Department to help Iran get access to its frozen funds, as required by the agreement. The problem was a simple one: Some of the funds were held at a bank in Oman, and Iran wanted to convert them to euros. This was a two-step process: first rials to dollars and then dollars to euros.

But wait. Even after sanctions were lifted, Iran was banned from any access to the US financial system. That meant they couldn’t convert to and from dollars and therefore couldn’t get to their Omani funds. The Treasury Department eventually concluded that giving Iran access to its money took precedence and therefore looked into granting a one-time “license” that would allow a US bank to perform the conversion.

In the end, even though the license was granted, no US bank was willing to conduct the transaction. Republicans nevertheless spent months investigating this Obama-era outrage. God only knows why, and I don’t care. But I am curious about this:

In approaching the U.S. government, Bank Muscat claimed it would be impossible to complete Iran’s requested conversion to euros without first changing the Omani rials to U.S. dollars….A Bank Muscat executive also expressed frustration that the primary sanctions banning the use of the U.S. financial institution created a “challenge to convert one currency to another.”

In this case, the primary hurdle was that the Omani rial is “pegged” to the U.S. dollar. In 1986, Oman created a fixed exchange rate and established a .38 Omani rial peg to the U.S. dollar.

What’s the deal here? Why can’t Bank Muscat convert directly from rials to euros? And why does it matter that the rial is pegged to the dollar? Why wouldn’t, say, Credit Suisse be willing to accept rials in return for euros? Can someone with deep knowledge of currency conversion issues explain?

As for why Republicans are hot and bothered about this, I suppose it’s . . .

Update: The Omani Rial Mystery — Solved!

Written by Leisureguy

7 June 2018 at 1:35 pm

Not normally a sign of a successful nation: U.S. suicide rates rise sharply across the country, new report shows

leave a comment »

Amy Ellis Nutt reports in the Washington Post:

Suicide rates rose in all but one state between 1999 and 2016, with increases seen across age, gender, race and ethnicity, according to a report released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In more than half of all deaths in 27 states, the individuals had no known mental health condition when they took their own life.
In North Dakota, the rate jumped more than 57 percent. In the most recent period studied (2014-2016), the rate was highest in Montana at 29.2 per 100,000 residents, compared with the national average of 13.4 per 100,000.
Only Nevada saw a decline — of 1 percent — for the overall period, though its rate remained higher than the national average.
Increasingly, suicide is being seen not just as a mental health problem, but a public health one. Nearly 45,000 suicides occurred in the United States in 2016 — more than twice the number of homicides — making it the 10th leading cause of death. Among people ages 15 to 34, suicide is the second leading cause of death.
Overall, the most common method used was firearms.
“The data are disturbing,” said Anne Schuchat, CDC principal deputy director. “The widespread nature of the increase, in every state but one, really suggests that this is a national problem hitting most communities.”
It is hitting many places especially hard. In half of the states, suicide among people 10 years and older increased more than 30 percent.
“At what point is it a crisis?” asked Nadine Kaslow, a past president of the American Psychological Association. “Suicide is a public health crisis when you look at the numbers, and they keep going up. It’s up everywhere. And we know that the rates are actually higher than what’s reported. But homicides still get more attention.”
High suicide numbers in the United States are not a new phenomenon. In 1999, then U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report on the state of mental health in America and called suicide “a significant public health problem.” The latest data at that time showed about 30,000 suicides a year.
Kaslow is particularly concerned about what’s emerged with suicide among women.
“Historically, men had higher death rates than women,” she noted. “That’s equalizing not because men are [taking their lives] less, but women are doing it more. That is very, very troublesome.”
Among the stark numbers in the CDC report was the one signaling a high number of suicides among people without a known mental health condition. In the 27 states that use the National Violent Death Reporting System, 54 percent of suicides were by individuals without a known mental illness.
But Joshua Gordon, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said that that statistic must be viewed in context.
“When you do a psychological autopsy and go and look carefully at medical records and talk to family members of the victims,” he said, “90 percent will have evidence of a mental health condition.” That indicates a large portion weren’t diagnosed, “which suggests to me that they’re not getting the help they need,” he said.
Cultural attitudes may play a part. Those without a known mental health condition, according to the report, were more likely to be male and belong to a racial or ethnic minority
“The data supports what we know about that notion,” Gordon said. “Men and Hispanics especially are less likely to seek help.”
The problems most frequently associated with suicide, according to the study, are . . .

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

7 June 2018 at 12:09 pm

What’s Next for Evangelicalism?

leave a comment »

Sarah Jones writes in The New Republic:

Evangelicals love President Donald Trump, as we all know. And every time a new poll shows evangelical support for Trump at a steady high, the commentariat wrings its hands. These Christians have fallen for a cut-rate King David, a charlatan Solomon, a false prophet. But the evangelical movement is not monolithic. America’s megachurches aren’t lined up neatly in a row, all marching to a Republican cadence. Evangelical support for Trump maps onto racial lines: He belongs to white evangelicals, who put their might behind his presidency.

However, white evangelical Protestants declined from 23 percent of the population in 2006 to 17 percent of the population in 2017, the Public Religion Research Institute has found. The decline can be partly attributed to the millennial generation’s relative non-religiosity, but there are other factors at work. Immigrants are changing American politics, and they’re changing American churches, too.

Janelle Wong, a professor of American studies at the University of Maryland and author of the new book Immigrants, Evangelicals, and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change, tells me that Latinos and Asian-Americans are key sources of growth for evangelical churches. And they differ from white evangelicals in certain key areas. “I think what’s surprising is that non-white evangelicals, especially Asians and Latinos, sometimes show higher rates of religiosity, like they go to church more. Or they exhibit a more fundamentalist kind of orientation,” she explained. “And even though they show higher levels of religiosity, they are much less conservative on almost every issue, except for abortion.”

On climate change, Black Lives Matter, and immigration, non-white evangelicals have little in common with their white brothers and sisters in Christ. Trump didn’t just accelerate an identity crisis in his party, which faces its own future demographic challenges—he also created the same problem for one of the party’s most loyal factions. White evangelicals are ascendent now, but is the Trump era their last hurrah?

In the ecosystem of American politics, the white evangelical is a well-studied creature. His habits make headlines. We know that he usually attends church at least once a week, and that it’s also common for him to attend two to three services a week. He usually opposes abortion rights and same-sex marriage rights. He probably believes God created the world in seven days. He may refer to himself as being “born-again” or he might not, but ask him if he thinks the Bible is God-breathed revelation to be interpreted literally by believers, and he will usually say yes.

But gulfs can separate a tradition’s agreed-upon doctrine from the practices of individual believers. For example, most Catholic women in America say they’ve used hormonal contraception, even though it directly contradicts the clear teachings of their church. For Protestants, these discrepancies can be particularly pronounced. If all believers are priests, charged with working out their own salvation, then doctrinal divisions will necessarily proliferate. Factor in “Christian liberty”—the idea that two Christians can disagree on some points of doctrine without committing heresy—and the matter becomes even more complicated. What is heresy to one evangelical could be orthodoxy to another.

Thus, the Republican conundrum. How can a group call itself “pro-life” and decline to support a more affordable health care system? The answer is doctrinal as well as political. Some conservative evangelicals believe that the Bible advocates against abortion and for small government. There are reams of books and entire universities dedicated to promoting this exegesis. That this interpretation mirrors the political priorities of conservative white voters is no accident. In the case of the Christian right, the line between political cynicism and religious conviction has always been thin.

And now it’s even thinner. “If you took evangelicals at their word in the 1990s and early 2000s, around the election of George W. Bush and in their reaction against the presidency of Bill Clinton, you saw them branding themselves strongly as values voters,” explained Robert Jones, president of the Public Religion Research Institute and author of The End of White Christian America. Central to the value voter’s identity was (ostensibly) a preference for applying the standards of Scripture to each individual candidate. “But what has happened is that white evangelicals have really turned that on its head and have exchanged an ethic of principle for a utilitarian ethic where the ends tend to justify the means,” he added. Post-Trump, the transformation of values voter to political utilitarian may be complete.

Within this moral void, other Christian voices can gain purchase. The Christian Left has begun to mobilize, and with the launch of the Poor People’s Campaign, it is becoming more prominent than it has been in decades—a legible evolution of the work many liberal Christians have carried out in relative obscurity for a long time. The Sanctuary movement encourages churches to open their facilities to immigrants seeking protection from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and it straddles political lines; some participating churches lean left, and others do not, but all diverge from the Christian right’s party line.

According to Jones, evangelicalism now faces a steeper membership decline than Catholicism or liberal, mainline Protestant denominations, a change from earlier demographic trends. “[Membership decline] is a much more recent phenomenon among white evangelicals that I think white evangelicals thought they were going to be immune to before the last decade,” Jones explained. “If you look at seniors today white evangelicals comprise 26 percent of seniors. But white evangelicals make up only 8 percent of Americans under the age of 30.”

Consider that statistic against others: Americans under 30 are . . .

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

7 June 2018 at 11:39 am

Can the GOP be saved?—or, more to the point, is the GOP worth saving?

leave a comment »

Michael A. Cohen (not the lawyer Michael Cohen) writes in an email:

Close to 40 percent of Americans are obese. Life expectancy in America has declined for two straight years – the first time this has happened since the early 1960s. The United States has some of the highest levels of income inequality in the developed world.  In 2017, more than 60,000 Americansdied from drug overdoses

The state of Arkansas, with the blessing of the Trump administration is about to make these problems – and many others – a lot worse.

This week Arkansas became the first state in America to put in place work requirements for those receiving Medicaid, the public health insurance program for poor Americans . Three more states are planning to follow suit, but Arkansas’ rules are particularly onerous and mean-spirited. Residents will be required to prove that they’ve worked 80 hours per month or are engaged in “other community engagement” programs. Failure to do so for three months out of the year, will result in loss benefits for the calendar year.

State residents will be required to document their work hours on an online system. Ordinarily this would make things more efficient, but in a state that has the second lowest rate of home Internet access in the country, it is instead a major hardship. In addition, for a state that relies heavily on its agricultural sector and seasonal employment, even those with regular jobs may be tripped up by the stringent requirement of at least 80 hours of work per month.

One might imagine that Arkansas would do everything it can to ensure that its citizens know what’s happening. Instead, state legislators have allocated a paltry $1 million to a public information campaign. In comparison, neighboring Kentucky is spending $190 million to let people know about that state’s coming work requirement.

The irony of all this is that Arkansas is one of the few red states that took advantage of Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. As a result, from 2013 to 2016 more than 330,000 Arkansans became eligible for coverage and the state’s uninsured rate was cut in half. Emergency room visits also dropped by a third, helping the state’s hospitals save more than $69 million. But as a requirement for continuing the expansion program, Arkansas’ GOP-controlled state legislature last year demanded the imposition of a new work requirement.

Another irony: When Arkansas originally pushed its Medicaid expansion program with the Obama administration one of its key concerns was reducing so-called “churn” or people going on and off Medicaid because of lost eligibility due to losing a job or changes in family circumstances. These latest changes will almost certainly increase churn while costing residents coverage and leading to worse health outcomes.

So why is Arkansas doing this?

To put it simply, Republican budget cutters want the state to insure fewer people. Indeed, in its initial proposal to change its Medicaid program, Arkansas officials requested that the Trump Administration approve its plan to limit enrollment to those who are at 100 percent the poverty rate, rather than the current 138 percent. Doing so would have cut 60,000 Arkansans from the Medicaid program. However, Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services rejected this proposal, which means that it is possible to suggest a public policy change that hurts poor Americans, which even the Trump administration thinks goes too far.

Instead, the state will have to settle for an estimated 39,000 people who are likely to lose coverage under these new work requirements.

By cutting the Medicaid rolls it will help the state balance the budget and will also make it that much easier to enact Governor Asa Hutchison’s proposed $180 million tax cut that would reduce the top tax rate in the state from 6.9 percent to 6 percent.  In effect, Arkansas will be robbing from the poor to give to the rich, which is odious, but at least is consistent with the national attitude of Republicans.

Even if one puts aside the abject cruelty of forcing poor people to work for health care, there is no escaping the damage that Arkansas is doing to its own state.  Fewer insured Arkansans means worse health outcomes, greater economic and personal anxiety, higher costs for hospitals, and lower productivity for workers. It’s a recipe for long-term economic disaster and the worst part is that Arkansas voters have brought this on themselves. Back in November 2016, President Trump won Arkansas by nearly 27 points. Eighteen months later a change to the state’s Medicaid law — that a Hillary Clinton administration would almost certainly have never accepted — will now do lasting damage to the state and its residents.  This, unfortunately, is the future of America in the era of Republican rule in Washington – a shrinking of the social safety net, cruel and mean-spirited policies toward the nation’s most vulnerable citizens and a Republican electorate blithely unaware of its own culpability in driving America’s future off a cliff.

Written by Leisureguy

7 June 2018 at 10:25 am

Fasting: Configurations and benefits (with a note on drawbacks)

leave a comment »

I am not too taken with the whole “toxins/detoxing” idea, but periodic fasting does have some benefits, including stimulating apoptosis of weaker cells: culling the cellular herd, as it were. Steve Paul emailed me to point out this page from his Life Guru blog. It describes several ways of fasting, and the 16-8 method caught my eye: eat dinner at the normal hour and then wait 16 hours before eating again—for example, finish dinner at 6:30 p.m. and then don’t eat until 12:30 p.m. the next day. Water is fine, and he suggests green tea though I don’t see black tea as being any problem—nor white tea, for that matter, which is even better than green tea in terms of healthfulness.

 

Written by Leisureguy

7 June 2018 at 8:41 am

Posted in Daily life, Food, Health, Science

Massive, Meaningful Drug Reform in An Unexpected Country: Iran

leave a comment »

And Canada is just on the brink of legalizing marijuana (just as alcohol and tobacco are legal). Philip Smith reports in Drug War Chronicles:

For years, Iran has been one of the world’s leading executioners of drug offenders, with hundreds of people hung from the gallows annually for drug smuggling and trafficking. But in a remarkable turnabout, that is no longer the case.

After the Iranian parliament amended the country’s drug laws in November 2017, drug executions have all but halted, according to a new report from Iran Human Rights (IHR). The non-profit group found that only one person had been executed for a drug offense this year in Iran, compared to 112 during the same period last year and nearly 500 for all of 2017.

That’s a 99% reduction in the resort to the death penalty for drugs in the Islamic Republic.

The changes to Iran’s drug laws didn’t remove the death penalty from the books — it remains one of 33 countries, including the United States, that mete out the ultimate punishment for drug offenses — but it dramatically raised the quantities of drugs needed to merit the death penalty.

Under the old law, being caught with a little more than an ounce (30 grams) of drugs such as cocaine or heroin could bring a death sentence. Now, it takes nearly 4 ½ pounds (2 kilograms). Similarly, for plant-based drugs such as cannabis and opium, the death penalty threshold has increased ten-fold, from 5 kilograms (11 pounds) to 50 kilograms (110 pounds).

The death penalty can also be imposed for certain other drug offenses where quantity is not the issue, for example, the use of a minor in a drug trafficking operations, carrying or using firearms while committing drug-related crimes, having a prior death penalty or prison sentence longer than 15 years, or being the “leader” of a drug trafficking group.

The one man executed for drug offenses in Iran this year, identified as Kiomars Nosuhi, was convicted of being a “leader” of a drug trafficking group.

Bordering Afghanistan, the world’s primary supplier of raw opium and heroin, Iran has for decades waged war on drug smugglers, with thousands of police and soldiers killed in the struggle. While opium smoking was a traditional Iranian pastime, the country now has one of the world’s highest addiction rates, with heroin largely replacing opium. In recognition of that reality, in the past decade, Iranian officials have switched from harsh punishments of drug users to emphasizing drug treatment and harm reduction. The end of the reflexive resort to the death penalty for drugs marks another step in the country’s march toward a more progressive policy response.

While human rights groups applaud the dramatic decline in drug executions, they continue to express concern over the way the Iranian judicial system responds to drugs.

“We welcome the significant reduction in the use of the death penalty and hope that this trend will continue towards complete abolition,” said IHR spokesperson Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam. “However, we have several serious concerns regarding the process of implementation of the new amendment, including bribery in the judicial system, insufficient capacity to handle a large number of cases, and lack of a monitoring organ overlooking the process.”

And then there are the tens of thousands of drug offenders filling Iran’s prisons. [Just like the US in that respect. – LG]

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

7 June 2018 at 8:04 am

A woodsy shave—Simpson Case, QED Special 218, RazoRock Baby Smooth, and Anthony Gold Red Cedar—with a note on glycerin-based shaving soap

with 5 comments

I grew to enjoy the Simpson Case on my trip, and so I bought it out from a shave with my now-vintage QED Special 218 shaving soap. QED’s soapmaker at the time liked glycerin-based soaps, and those s/he made were really excellent, quickly producing a stable and excellent lather of good consistency and excellent fragrance. Those who learn about products from reading forums rather than from their own experience sometimes reach an erroneous judgment about shaving soaps: “Tallow = good, glycerin = bad,” but in my experience a good glycerin soap can be really excellent, and this is a good glycerin soap. (Also, I have found some tallow soaps that were iffy.)

I easily got a fine lather, with a fragrance of pine and cedar. The soap is quite dark (see photo at right), which I imagine is due to pine tar in the formula—just a guess.

Well lathered, I picked up the Baby Smooth and in three passes (with, of course, two additional latherings), I had a perfectly smooth face with no problems at all. In using (and actively enjoying) the Baby Smooth, one of which I gave to The Son on a recent visit, I was thinking of how Italian Barber/RazoRock have developed some really excellent razors. I have not only the Baby Smooth, but also the German 37 slant, the RazoRock Old Type, the RazoRock Stealth slant, and most recently the RazoRock stainless steel Mamba. The Black Mamba (aluminum) was also excellent, and The Nephew swears by the RazoRock Slab. Really a good run.

A good splash of one of my favorite aftershaves, Anthony Gold’s Red Cedar from The Copper Hat here in Victoria, and I’m ready for another day of getting well. The chest cold (viral) is very gradually departing and will be gone, I think, by Sunday: just about two weeks’ duration, typical of the illness. And my conjunctivitis (bacterial) is responding quickly to the antibiotic and will also I think be gone by Sunday. I’m very glad to be rid of them. I haven’t been ill for quite a while, and I find I don’t like it at all.

Written by Leisureguy

7 June 2018 at 7:56 am

Posted in Daily life, Health, Shaving

%d bloggers like this: