Later On

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

Archive for October 8th, 2019

In Deranged Quasi-legal Rant, Trump Calls Impeachment Unconstitutional

leave a comment »

It’s really getting crazy. Impeachment is not unconstitutional because it’s defined in the Constitution. Jonathan Chait writes in New York:

Advising President Donald Trump on the law, and formally expressing his views thereof, is a pitiable task. Trump’s worldview is almost wholly incompatible with the law. The latter is premised on neutral rules, mediated by precedent and constructed with the goal of some notion of abstract fairness. The latter is rooted in an entitlement to absolute domination regardless of circumstance.

The White House letter rejecting the House impeachment inquiry is an effort to reconcile the irreconcilable. At the level of tone, it reads like an extended Trumpian rally diatribe lightly edited by an attorney. At the level of substance, it is almost pure, uncut Trump. It repeats a series of immaterial, laughably false claims, surrounding the audacious thesis that impeaching Trump is literally illegal.

The letter’s most persistent argument revolves attacks on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. In one of the letter’s few concessions to legal propriety, it does manage to avoid calling him “pencil neck”, “shifty”, or “lil’ adam schiff.” Other than this, it hews closely to Trump’s methods of argument.

The letter charges that Schiff “chose to concoct a false version of the call and to read his made-up transcript,” a “fact” that, it proceeds to assert, proves Trump did nothing wrong. The “fact” is also one of those bizarre implanted memories from the Fox News fever swamp. Schiff, in a hearing, paraphrased Trump’s call to Ukrainian President Vlodomyr Zelensky, saying “In not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates,” before going on to summarize Trump’s meaning. Trump and his allies have pretended this paraphrase, which Schiff openly billed as a paraphrase, was an attempt to concoct a falsified transcript of the call. It is unnerving to see this unhinged fantasy not only making its way into a formal White House legal document but playing a central role in its argument.

The letter also cites, by way of defending Trump, two additional pieces of evidence to establish his innocence. It notes that the Department of Justice reviewed the call and did not find a campaign finance violation — as if a campaign finance violation is the only, or even primary problem with extorting a foreign leader for dirt on domestic rivals, and as if Trump’s Attorney general is a remotely credible figure. Even more comically, it notes that Zelensky has publicly stated, in Trump’s presence no less, that he was not pressured on the call — as if the leader of a country dependent on American support for its very existence, who has already been extorted, is in a position to undercut its president.

The presence of these vapid talking points in a putative legal document is tribute to the dearth of support for its shocking central claim: that the House has no right to impeach Trump. It calls the proceedings “illegal,” and one of Congress’ “unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process.” There is no remotely plausible constitutional theory to support this claim. The Constitution gives the House absolute right to conduct impeachment hearings in a manner determined by the House.

The letter complains that the House fails to grant Trump sufficient control over the impeachment agenda. Though there’s a reason for that — the trial takes place in the Senate, not the House — Trump could in theory try to negotiate for more Republican input into the process. In a briefing with reporters, a senior administration official was asked what changes Trump would need to cooperate. “A full halt” was the answer. That is, Trump will cooperate with an impeachment probe if Democrats stop the impeachment probe.

Such Catch-22 absurdities give this administration no embarrassment. Since Democrats took control of the House last January, Trump has asserted it has no right to investigate him for crimes, no right to obtain his tax returns despite a law clearly authorizing exactly that, and that prosecutors can neither charge nor even investigate his criminal activity. He has claimed the right to start or stop any federal legal proceeding. Some of his positions grow out of the extreme unitary executive theory that figures like William Barr have developed for years, though only for Republican presidents.

But it is, in the main, an expression of Trump’s idiosyncratic convictions. This is a president who asserted his “absolute right” to investigate any person he wants, for any reason even while facing impeachment for abuse of power.  . .

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

8 October 2019 at 7:23 pm

“I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From”

leave a comment »

Olga Khazan writes in the Atlantic:

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.

The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.

I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy.

Some educators in this ambivalent 60 percent tend to teach evolution only as it applies to molecular biology, Plutzer said, but not the macroevolution of species. (This seems like what happened to me.) Others distance themselves from the material even as they tell students it will be on a standardized test. “Their primary concern is not offending the students or their parents by characterizing the science in a way that seems to be challenging religious faith,” Plutzer told me. “I think that in some cases, the teachers themselves have doubts.”

Additionally, some teachers expose students to different “theories” about evolution and encourage them to make up their own minds. “But does a 15-year-old student really have enough information to reject thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers?” Berkman and Plutzer write in their article.

Some of these teachers might even introduce evolutionary ideas such as natural selection and microevolution. But they skip the part we skipped—the monkey part. The reason is perhaps unsurprising: Creationists “are not invested in whether evolution affects the sizes and shapes of the beaks of finches in the Galápagos,” says Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, which supports teaching evolution in schools. “They are worried about whether people were created in the image of God himself.”

The reason public-classroom instruction varies so much, Branch says, is that teachers have many opportunities to personalize what they teach to students. State standards differ, and local school boards develop curricula that are designed to meet those differing standards. Teachers take those curricula and develop lesson plans. Then they go off into their classrooms. Do they teach exactly what’s in the lesson plan or tweak it? It’s hard to know for sure.

If teachers are aligned with the values of the community, parents might not complain about what students are learning, Branch says. If parents do complain—because, say, they believe that the teacher has improperly brought up religion in the classroom—the principal might force the teacher to change his or her ways. If the principal backs up the teacher, it might become fodder for a lawsuit.

The courts have so far been on the side of the secular. Creationism has lost every major U.S. federal court case in the past 40 years, Berkman and Plutzer write. And not even the best-known opponents of evolution overtly come out against it. Take the Discovery Institute, which describes itself as an “educational and research organization” with “more than 40 affiliated scientists and scholars, many of whom think key features of life and the universe reflect evidence of intelligent design rather than an unguided process.” Its vice president, John West, told me via email that the best approach to teaching human evolution in public high schools is to “give students an accurate understanding of the current science, which includes exploring unresolved issues and areas where scientists continue to disagree.” These include, he said, “debates about how humans’ unique capacities for language, math, ethics, fire-making, and art developed in the history of life.” Sarah Chaffee, the institute’s program officer for education and public policy, told me, “The Next Generation Science Standards inform most states’ science standards. These standards mention many aspects of evolution, but they do not specifically reference human evolution.” If teachers aren’t teaching human evolution, she said, “it is very likely the main reason is solely the fact that it is not in the science standards.” (Branch says while it’s true that human evolution is not in the NGSS, other factors also might explain why teachers don’t present it.)

How does this variation in evolution education affect students? Plutzer suggested . . .

Continue reading.

I found the reference to this article in a Quora answer by Lee Thé, whose answer to the question “Why is evolution such a controversial topic?” begins:

Because it isn’t taught in over 2/3 of American high school biology classes—all in Red State America, under extreme social pressure by Bible-Thumper students and their parents against individual teachers.

The Religious Right kept losing efforts to ban/subvert teaching evolution at the district and state level, so they turned their efforts to making teachers not teach it, one a onesy twosy basis. They succeeded, and they flew under the liberals’ radar in doing so, because intimidating one high school bio teacher in a conservative community doesn’t make headlines, unlike actions at the official level.

Today’s cosmopolitan liberals—even those with just a high school education—know their rural brethren comprise America’s ignorati, but they still don’t realize the extremity of how ignorant/misinformed their rural brethren are. Not just about evolution, but about critical thinking in general. These things are anathema to the fundamentalist churches that dominate America’s rural landscape. So it’s like traveling back in time to Medieval Europe to see what kind of “education” Red State rural kids get.

“While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” “ . . .


Written by Leisureguy

8 October 2019 at 6:41 pm

Trump’s terrible tactics for avoiding the inevitable

leave a comment »

Jennifer Rubin has an interesting column in the Washington Post:

President Trump and his Republican dead-enders are behaving as if it were possible to stave off impeachment in the House. The Associated Press reports on the administration’s decision to prevent ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland from testifying or turning over text messages:

The strategy risks further provoking Democrats in the impeachment probe, setting up court challenges and the potential for lawmakers to draw up an article of impeachment accusing Trump of obstructing their investigations. Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House intelligence committee, said that Sondland’s no-show would be grounds for obstruction of justice and could give a preview of what some of the articles of impeachment against Trump would entail.

Moreover, “As the impeachment inquiry ramps up, the White House plans to reprise its past response to congressional oversight: open scorn. The president’s aides have ignored document requests and subpoenas, invoked executive privilege — going so far as to argue that the privilege extends to informal presidential advisers who have never held White House jobs — and all but dared Democrats to hold them in contempt.”

The problem with this tactic, obvious to those outside the Trump cult, is that it is hard to imagine the House forgoing impeachment, unless of course Trump resigns before it can. Furthermore, while the House is free to pursue contempt proceedings against Sondland and other non-cooperating witnesses, it does not have to hold up impeachment proceedings. There is nothing wrong with moving forward with multiple articles, including one on obstruction, while also seeking enforcement of a contempt proceeding against current or former officials who refuse to appear or provide documents.

Impeachment is a political process, and there is no requirement that an article based on obstruction requires a court order that witnesses must appear. Former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal tells me, “Definitely Congress can and should proceed on impeachment inquiries for the underlying offenses (Ukraine)” while pursuing remedies against non-cooperating witnesses. The House is permitted to take the White House’s refusal as its last and final position, proceed on the underlying offense (procuring foreign help in an election) based on what evidence it does have and throw the acts of defiance into the obstruction hopper.

Another option is to continue on the impeachment track without going to court at all. “I think the time has come for the House to proceed without making further detours to court or testing its powers of inherent contempt,” suggests constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe. “Even expedited judicial proceedings proceed at best ‘with all deliberate speed,’ which is legalese for ‘at a stately pace.’” He reminds us, “Article III of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment provided the model for going forward. In the Article, the House Judiciary Committee identified the systematic defiance of congressional impeachment inquiries as independently an obstruction of Congress and a violation of the president’s duty faithfully to execute and cooperate with executing the laws.”

Tribe continues: “That is exactly what should happen here. Directing the State Department to prevent Ambassador Sondland from appearing for his deposition when his information is obviously valuable in corroborating and elaborating on the whistleblower’s account would be inexcusable even if there were a relevant privilege or immunity otherwise applicable.” However, he concludes, “The fact that there is no such privilege or immunity to justify this stonewalling clinches the case for an article of impeachment, given that the underlying conduct of extorting Ukraine for the benefit of Trump’s own political survival and to help his benefactor Vladimir Putin is itself clearly impeachable.”

In short, there is more than enough evidence already and more than enough public support as we speak for the House to move to impeachment right now. To the extent over the next few weeks that it can gain further incriminating material or reveals incriminating material it possesses, the House will only bolster its case. However, nothing we have seen in the underlying evidence or the polling suggests any reason not to proceed to impeachment. To the contrary, as Joyce White Vance, a former federal prosecutor, puts it, “The president’s conduct, making foreign policy and threats by Twitter, are a strong indication that we cannot wait for drawn-out court battles on contempt of court and there is more than sufficient conduct for Congress to investigate as high crimes and misdemeanors and determine whether articles of impeachment are warranted.”

Trump, however, seems unwilling to accept the inevitability of impeachment. He rails at Democrats, but they ignore him. He resists cooperating, but Democrats slap an obstruction label on his efforts and proceed with their investigation. By fighting against the inevitable, acting more illogical and unhinged than usual and refusing to give Senate Republicans reason to support him, his current strategy only makes it easier for more Senate Republicans to break with him in a trial for removal. His flailing just heightens the perception among voters that one way or another, this guy has to go.

So what should Trump be doing? Trump is not capable of . . .

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

8 October 2019 at 4:03 pm

Trump’s (Insane) Conflict of Interest in the Turkey-Syria Dispute

leave a comment »

Eric Levitz writes in New York:

Last week, Donald Trump called on the governments of China and Ukraine to launch (ostensibly baseless) investigations into his chief political rival. Vice-President Mike Pence defended his boss’s statement, arguing that the voting public deserves nothing less than full transparency about its leaders’ potential conflicts of interest.

“I think the American people have a right to know if the vice president of the United States or his family profited from his position as vice president during the last administration,” Pence told reporters in Arizona. “The president made it very clear that he believes other nations around the world should look into it as well.”

Pence’s position here is, apparently, that the prospect of a White House shaping foreign policy around the personal financial interests of its leadership is so antithetical to democratic values, it is worth exhaustively investigating even the slightest hint of such corruption, even in a circumstance where:

• The alleged corruption involves a vice-president supporting a foreign policy that was also endorsed by America’s national-security Establishment, and bipartisan congressional leadership.

• The vice-president vehemently denies having had a conflict of interest in the matter.

• The potential corruption is years old, and thus, does not pose any risk of undermining current policy.

• The method for achieving transparency on the issue involves using America’s limited diplomatic capital to coerce foreign governments into investigating the existing president’s political rival, a measure that itself gives off an aura of corruption.

Clearly, then, Pence takes the threat of a U.S. administration pursuing a “for-profit” foreign policy fanatically seriously. So, surely, if the current president made a foreign-policy decision that was roundly opposed by America’s national-security Establishment and bipartisan congressional leadership — and which benefited a country where said president has, by his own account, “a little conflict of interest” — Pence would, at the very least, call on the commander-in-chief to release his tax returns, right?

After all, in such a scenario, the stakes of — and evidence for — the alleged act of corruption would be much greater than in the Ukraine-Biden controversy. And the method for achieving greater transparency would be essentially costless: Instead of siccing foreign governments on a domestic political foe, Trump would merely need to uphold a decades-old “good government” norm.

So (unless Pence is a shameless toady who believes in little beyond his own right to power) expect the veep to flip out when he finally gets around to reading about Trump’s new policy in Syria — and pair of towers in Istanbul.

Shortly after speaking to Turkey’s authoritarian president Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday, Trump endorsed “a Turkish military operation that would sweep away American-backed Kurdish forces near the border in Syria.” In defiance of the will of the Pentagon, State Department, and both houses of Congress, the president agreed to suddenly withdraw U.S. troops from northeast Syria, leaving our nation’s Kurdish allies defenseless against an invading army that considers them “terrorists” on the basis of little more than their ethnicity.

In the days since, the White House’s position has grown more ambiguous. On Tuesday morning, Trump tweeted his support of both the Turkish government and the Kurds — complimenting the former for the grace it displayed in releasing an American pastor it had baselessly imprisoned.

Regardless, Trump’s initial, renegade policy raises questions about whether unsavory personal motives are influencing some of the most consequential decisions his office empowers him to make. The basis of this suspicion is simple: Donald Trump has a significant conflict of interest in his dealings with Turkey.

But don’t take my word for it, take Trump’s.

“I have a little conflict of interest ‘cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump told Steve Bannon during a December 2015 interview on Breitbart’s radio show. “It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers — two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it’s two.”

Critically, Trump does not actually own these towers. Rather, he licenses his brand to the building’s owner, Turkish tycoon Aydin Dogan, an ally of Erdogan. This arrangement may actually leave our president more vulnerable to extortion from the Turkish regime than if he owned the towers outright. According to Trump’s financial disclosures, he has collected between $3.2 million and $17 million in royalties from the licensing deal since 2012. This means that Trump could ostensibly lose millions of dollars, should Dogan terminate their partnership. Which is to say: The president could have a multimillion-dollar motivation to avoid pursuing any policy that might incur Dogan’s wrath. Notably, the prospect that Dogan might leverage his business relationship with Trump to influence his policies isn’t a mere hypothetical. As Russ Choma of Mother Jones explains:

In June 2016, after Trump said he supported a ban on immigration by people from countries he said were associated with Islamic terrorism — he called them “terror countries” — Erdogan objected, and so did Dogan, and both threatened to remove Trump’s name from the buildings.

… Less than a month after the threat to remove his name was made, Trump very publicly voiced support for Erdogan when the Turkish leader faced a coup attempt. And his closeness with Erdogan has continued, even over the objections of some of Trump’s most reliable supporters. For instance, in May 2017, when Erdogan visited Washington, D.C., for a White House visit, Turkish agents violently attacked protesters outside the Turkish ambassador’s residence — shoving past local police officers to do so. Video showed Erdogan calmly watching the attack from his car. Although the House of Representatives, then under GOP control, voted 397-0 to condemn the attacks, Trump refused to do so. A few months later, Trump praised Erdogan, describing him as “a very good friend” and saying he gets “very high marks” for the way he runs Turkey.

Presented with this set of facts, Mike Pence would doubtlessly conclude that . . .

Continue reading.

Impeachment, followed by conviction, would be an excellent outcome, assuming the rule of law still has any meaning..

Written by Leisureguy

8 October 2019 at 3:11 pm

Batch 4 of tempeh, going for 50% success rate

leave a comment »

To summarize:

Batch 1: Pinto bean, flax seed, cumin seed, and jalapeño: 4 bags plus 2 dishes. Successful except that jalapeño should have been added after cooking since the flavor was attenuated in the end product. But good, solid tempeh.

Batch 2: Peanuts and kamut with curry powder. A semi-success. Curry powder contains ground coriander, an antifungal, and that undermined the mold. Lesson learned: Check ingredients to verify no antifungal properties.

Batch 3: Black bean and green lentils with chia seed. A failure. Chia seed, which I added right at the end of cooking the lentils, forms a glutinous coating that holds water. The mold never had a chance. Lesson earned: Follow the instructions. The instructions in the starter packet state:

Dry the [cooked] beans by patting with a clean towel or using a hair dryer on low heat. Beans must be dry to the touch before continuing.

Batch 4: Black bean and green lentils, with no fancy stuff. I cooked 2 cups black beans and 1 cup green lentils, so 1/3 larger than the 2-cup batch of the instructions. I decided to go with all bags this time, bags well perforated with my small-hole punch, each bag ~11 ounces.

I decided that I’m not weighting they bags: they went into the oven on the rack as shown, no weight on top. In Batch 1 the unweighted tempeh in the bowls formed solid bricks, so I don’t really see weighting as necessary, and the starter instructions don’t mention weighting. Plus weighting is a pain.

The white areas in the bags are from steam, not mold. I don’t expect to see any mold until tomorrow. This went into the incubator (oven with light on) at exactly 12:00n.

If this works, I’m going redo peanuts and kamut, but plain—no curry powder.

Written by Leisureguy

8 October 2019 at 12:34 pm

Diabetes and diet

leave a comment »

Michael Greger MD has a blog post on diabetes that treads some ground familiar from his video “How Not to Die from Diabetes” and the chapter of the same name (chapter 6) in his book How Not to Die. I post it because it’s good material to know for those who have diabetes or insulin resistance. He writes:

We’ve known since the 1930s that type 2 diabetes can be prevented, arrested, and even reversed with a plant-based diet. Within five years of following the diet, about a quarter of the diabetic patients in that early study were able to get off insulin altogether.

Plant-based diets are relatively low in calories, though. Is it possible their diabetes just got better because they lost so much weight? To tease that out, we need a study where people are switched to a healthy diet but forced to eat so much food they don’t lose any weight. Then we could see if plant-based diets have specific benefits beyond all the easy weight loss. We had to wait 44 years for such a study, which I then discuss it in my video How Not to Die from Diabetes.

Subjects were weighed every day. If they started losing weight, they were made to eat more food—so much more food in fact that some of the participants had problems eating it all. They eventually adapted, though, so there was no significant weight change despite restricting meat, eggs, dairy, and junk.

Without any weight loss, did a plant-based diet still help? Overall insulin requirements were cut about 60 percent, and half the diabetics were able to get off their insulin altogether. How many years did that take? Not years. An average of 16 days. Only 16 days.

Let’s be clear: We’re talking about diabetics who had had diabetes as long as 20 years and injected 20 units of insulin a day. Then, as few as 13 days later, they were off their insulin altogether, thanks to less than two weeks on a plant-based diet—even with zero weight loss. It’s astonishing. Twenty years with diabetes, and then off all insulin in less than two weeks. Twenty years with diabetes because no one had told them about a plant-based diet. For decades they were just 13 days away at any time from being free.

In my video, I show data from patient #15: 32 units of insulin while on the control diet and then, 18 days later, after switching to the plant-based diet, on no insulin at all. None. Lower blood sugars on 32 units less insulin. That’s the power of plants. And that was without any weight loss. His body just started working that much better once it was provided with the right fuel.

As a bonus, their cholesterol dropped like a rock to under 150. Just as “moderate changes in diet usually result in only moderate reductions in LDL cholesterol levels,” how moderate do you want your diabetes?

“Everything in moderation” may be a truer statement than some people realize. Moderate changes in diet can leave diabetics with moderate blindness, moderate kidney failure, moderate amputations—maybe just a few toes or something. Moderation in all things is not necessarily a good thing.

Remember the study that purported to show that diets high in meat, eggs, and dairy could be as harmful to health as smoking, suggesting that people who eat lots of animal protein are four times as likely to die from cancer or diabetes? If you look at the actual study, you’ll see that’s simply not true. Those eating a lot of animal protein didn’t have just 4 times the risk of dying from diabetes, they had 73 times the risk of dying from diabetes! A 73-fold increase in risk. And those who chose moderation, only eating a “moderate” amount of animal protein, had 23 times the risk of death from diabetes.

Written by Leisureguy

8 October 2019 at 11:42 am

A wild shave with a long-absent razor

with 3 comments

The wild part of the shave was only in the products: Wild Lavender shave stick from Mystic Water and Wild Coast Perfumery contribution as aftershave.

Mystic Water shave soaps are quite good, and I’ve specifically recommended their Sensitive Skin unscented shaving soap in the Guide’s various editions. This Wild Lavender is not currently listed on their product page (scroll down at the link), but several of those listed catch my eye: Yellow Rose, Windjammer, Vanilla Sandalwood, Sardinian Honey, Raspberry Lemon, …  I could happily place a large order right now.

And nothing in today’s fine lather to dissuade me: this is as thick and creamy good as the glycerin-soap lathers I’ve been using lately, perhaps because of the extra glycerin in her soaps:

All of our shaving soap is made with tallow, which contributes to an exceptionally dense, slick lather.  Combined with stearic acid, unrefined shea butter, sustainably sourced organic palm oil, avocado oil, aloe vera, bentonite clay, silk protein, allantoin, and extra glycerin, Mystic Water shaving soap offers exceptional protection, glide and post-shave skin care, excellent for even sensitive skin and tough beards.  Most of my shaving soaps also include lanolin.

Emphasis added. It was a really nice lather, and once more I enjoyed this synthetic brush from Chiseled Face. I have to admit a growing preference for synthetic knots.

This is the great iKon stainless steel slant, which came first as naked stainless and then briefly in this DLC-coated version and now with a B6 coating, which is exceptionally durable. And in using it this morning, I wish that it had not gone displaced in the back of the drawer, a victim of my once-a-week slant use, a mistake I’ll not be repeating. This one deserves a much more frequent outing. Three smooth and comfortable passes and a totally BBS result—the very epitome of morning shaving pleasure.

A splash of Wild Coast Perfumery’s Eau de Lavande (lavender + bergamot + lemon) and the day begins.

Written by Leisureguy

8 October 2019 at 9:28 am

Posted in Shaving

%d bloggers like this: