Later On

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

Archive for November 23rd, 2019

Tempeh batch 8 – 56 hours and I’m calling it done

leave a comment »

I might go for 72 hours next time, but I was just too eager to see how it turned out. It’s very nice in being well bonded together by the mold, and the taste is really excellent. Now I see why they use soybeans. I’ll probably do the next batch with soybeans again, but go for 72 hours and leave it in the oven longer. The dishtowel cover is a winner.



Tomorrow I’m making tempeh chili and will blog the recipe.

Written by LeisureGuy

23 November 2019 at 9:16 pm

Posted in Food, Plant-only diet, Recipes

Tagged with

Some effects of a whole-food plant-based diet

leave a comment »

Some of these accounts exactly match my experience: easy weight loss to target weight, for example, and my doctor told me to discontinue my medications for blood glucose control, for high blood pressure, and for cholesterol because I no longer needed those medications.

Certainly it seems to me worth trying for a couple of months.I blogged my approach and lessons learned along the way in this post.

Just watch.

Written by LeisureGuy

23 November 2019 at 8:19 pm

Trump’s Retribution Against the Washington Post Owner Is His Gravest Abuse of Power

leave a comment »

Jonathan Chait writes in New York:

The saga of President Trump’s reprisals against Amazon has lurked on the margin of the news, largely overshadowed by the Ukraine scandal. Late Thursday night, Amazon revealed it had filed a protest in federal court of a Pentagon decision to deny it a $10 billion cloud-computing contract, the most recent piecemeal iteration of a saga that attracted precious little media attention even before the Ukraine scandal obscured it.

Yet the story here is almost certainly a massive scandal, probably more significant than the Ukraine scandal that spurred impeachment proceedings. Trump improperly used government policy to punish the owner of an independent newspaper as retribution for critical coverage. It resembles the Ukraine scandal because it is a flagrant abuse of power, and has been hiding in plain sight for months (as the Ukraine scandal did, until a whistle-blower report leaked in September). The scale of the abuse, though, is far more serious, because it is a concrete manifestation of Trump’s authoritarian ambitions.

Coverage of this story has implicitly extended Trump the benefit of the doubt by treating his hatred of Amazon’s owner and the Defense Department’s decision to spurn Amazon as presumably disconnected. There is not yet any smoking gun proof that Trump interfered improperly. It is possible, however unlikely, that the Pentagon acted completely at arm’s length from any political consideration, and the result just happened to comport with Trump’s desire to punish Jeff Bezos.

But even the appearance of impropriety ought to amount to a far larger scandal than it has been treated so far. The external evidence alone is incredibly damning, sufficient on its own to constitute an impeachable offense.

Starting in 2015, Trump raged at critical coverage in the Washington Post, and immediately connected it to the economic interests of its owner.

By 2016 Trump had gone from implicitly threatening to harm Amazon’s interests to threatening this explicitly. “If I become president, oh do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems,” he warned, presciently, in February 2016. A few months later, Sean Hannity asked about critical reporting in the Post. Trump’s response was telling. He weaved back and forth between denouncing the Post and denouncing Amazon, treating the two as interchangeable:

It’s interesting that you say that, because every hour we’re getting calls from reporters from the Washington Post asking ridiculous questions. And I will tell you. This is owned as a toy by Jeff Bezos, who controls Amazon. Amazon is getting away with murder, tax-wise. He’s using the Washington Post for power. So that the politicians in Washington don’t tax Amazon like they should be taxed. He’s getting absolutely away — he’s worried about me, and I think he said that to somebody … it was in some article, where he thinks I would go after him for antitrust. Because he’s got a huge antitrust problem because he’s controlling so much. Amazon is controlling so much of what they’re doing.

And what they’ve done is he bought this paper for practically nothing. And he’s using that as a tool for political power against me and against other people. And I’ll tell you what: We can’t let him get away with it. So he’s got about 20, 25 — I just heard they’re taking these really bad stories — I mean, they, you know, wrong, I wouldn’t even say bad. They’re wrong. And in many cases they have no proper information.

And they’re putting them together, they’re slopping them together. And they’re gonna do a book. And the book is gonna be all false stuff because the stories are so wrong. And the reporters — I mean, one after another — so what they’re doing is he’s using that as a political instrument to try and stop antitrust, which he thinks I believe he’s antitrust, in other words, what he’s got is a monopoly. And he wants to make sure I don’t get in. So, it’s one of those things.

But I’ll tell you what. I’ll tell you what. What he’s doing’s wrong. And the people are being — the whole system is rigged. You see a case like that. The whole system is rigged. Whether it’s Hillary or whether it’s Bezos.

What’s revealing is the ease and frequency with which Trump weaves back and forth. If you are charting his rant, it goes Washington Post-Amazon-Washington Post-Amazon-Washington Post-Amazon-Washington Post-Amazon. In Trump’s mind, they are the same.

As president, Trump has continued denouncing the Post and its owner, and publicly floating policies to exact his revenge. Sometimes he has claimed Amazon is getting away with avoiding “internet taxes”:

Other times he has framed the issue as generous postal rates:

The former complaint is totally false, the latter only exaggerated. But neither is made in anything resembling good faith. Both clearly showed Trump casting about for a policy rationale to justify the motive he had already revealed.

In March of 2018, five sources who have discussed the issue with Trump described him as “obsessed with Amazon,” according to a report by Jonathan Swan. Another report the next month by Gabriel Sherman provided more detail about Trump’s thinking. Four sources close to the White House told Sherman not only that Trump is obsessed with punishing Bezos and Amazon (“He gets obsessed with something, and now he’s obsessed with Bezos,” one source said. “Trump is like, how can I fuck with him?”), but floated for the first time using the Pentagon as the vehicle to do this. “Advisers are also encouraging Trump to cancel Amazon’s pending multibillion contract with the Pentagon to provide cloud-computing services,” Sherman’s sources reported.

Guy Snodgrass, a former speechwriter to Defense Secretary James Matthis, writes in his new book that in the summer of 2018, Trump ordered Mattis to “screw Amazon” by denying it the contract. Snodgrass records that Mattis pushed back on this request. And it is common for Trump or his advisers to consider wild, dangerous, or criminal schemes they ultimately don’t follow through on. Yet the fact is that the Pentagon did deny Amazon the cloud-computing contract after what the New York Times called a “highly unusual, last-minute intervention by President Trump.” And that denial came as a shock to analysts, who considered Amazon the prohibitive favorite to win the bid. The firm is the country’s largest cloud provider and had already built a cloud for the CIA.

On their face, the publicly reported facts of this case lay out a gigantic scandal. The president intervened to deny a federal contract to a firm he publicly and privately vowed to punish because its owner also owns a newspaper whose coverage angered him. The most generous possible interpretation of these facts is that Trump somehow came to believe some merit-based reason to deny Amazon the contract. But this scenario would presuppose that Trump is able to ignore his intense personal animus toward a principal figure in the dispute and form a judgment abstracted from his political interests — the kind of thinking even Trump’s defenders would largely concede he is almost incapable of.

And even this virtually-unimaginable scenario would still amount to a massive abuse of power. After all, Trump has vowed retribution against Bezos over the Post’s coverage, and then delivered a punishing blow to his firm. His actions made the threat credible.  . .

Continue reading.

The US is rushing toward tyranny, and the Republican Party is doing all it can to protect Trump and speed the process.

The column concludes:

Amazon’s suit may or may not expose the process that led the Pentagon to its decision. Trump is reasonably good at hiding evidence, banishing note-takers from his presence, using code words and funneling his shadiest orders through intermediaries.

Whatever the outcome, though, Trump has already taken his largest step toward the kind of democratic backsliding engineered by Orban in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey (two strongmen he admires). He has turned the power of the state into a weapon of intimidation against the free press. Clever conservatives have defended Trump’s abuses for years by insisting he is too incompetent to be an effective authoritarian. They have used a version of that defense in the Ukraine scandal — he attempted to use American diplomatic might for his political gain, but failed. Here, though, Trump set out to abuse his powers of office to intimidate the media, and succeeded. What are we going to do about it?

Written by LeisureGuy

23 November 2019 at 5:53 pm

Pointless work meetings ‘really a form of therapy’

leave a comment »

Sean Coughlan reports for BBC:

Meetings at work should be seen as a form of “therapy” rather than about decision-making, say researchers.

Academics from the University of Malmo in Sweden say meetings provide an outlet for people at work to show off their status or to express frustration.

Professor Patrik Hall says they are becoming increasingly frequent – as more managerial and “strategy” jobs generate more meetings.

But he says despite there being more meetings “few decisions are made”.

Prof Hall has investigated an apparent contradiction in how people can have a low opinion of work meetings, yet their numbers keep increasing.

Looking for a purpose

The political scientist says the rise in meetings reflects changes in the workforce – with fewer people doing and making things and an increase in those involved in “meetings-intense” roles such as strategists, advisers, consultants and managers.

“People don’t do concrete things any more,” he says.

Instead he says there has been a rise of managerial roles, which are often not very well defined, and where “the hierarchy is not that clear”.

“Many managers don’t know what to do,” he says, and when they are “unsure of their role”, they respond by generating more meetings.

“People like to talk and it helps them find a role,” says the professor.

Many of these people can spend half of their working hours in meetings, he says.

These can spill over into pre- and post-meetings, to such an extent that people might begin to “disguise” how much time they spend attending them.

Prof Hall, who has co-authored a book on meetings, gives the example of the Swedish border police, who describe their overseas meetings as “power weeks”.

‘Opportunity to complain’

Meetings can “arouse feelings of meaninglessness”, he says. But he argues that is often missing their point.

Once in a meeting – particularly long ones – their function can become “almost therapeutic”. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

23 November 2019 at 4:44 pm

Dozens of infant deaths have been tied to a popular baby product. But regulators are too paralyzed to act.

leave a comment »

Todd C. Frankel reports in the Washington Post:

A paralyzing conflict inside the nation’s product safety regulator has prevented the agency from taking action against a popular baby product that studies have linked to at least 48 infant deaths over 27 years and that public health officials say should be banned, according to a Washington Post investigation.

The cause of the breakdown is a small team inside the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that does not believe the product — padded crib bumpers — played a role in most, if any, of the infants’ deaths, derailing the agency’s attempts to regulate or ban crib bumpers. The position of the CPSC’s health sciences directorate, charged with assessing product risks, is opposed by pediatricians and safety advocates and contradicted by medical studies. It also has led senior officials at the CPSC to question whether their own scientists are producing reliable research about the risks of infant sleep products.

“I’m troubled by what appears to be a wide gulf between the views of our highly skilled technical staff and experts in the public health community,” said Robert Adler, a longtime commissioner who recently took over as the CPSC’s acting chairman. Adler plans to invite experts from outside the agency to discuss crib bumpers at a public hearing early next year.

The CPSC’s health sciences team reached its opinion on crib bumpers by rejecting rulings from medical examiners who found that bumpers were associated with at least 35 deaths from across the country.

That is what happened after the 2012 death of Dylan Micjan, a 3-month-old found by his parents with his face pressed against a padded crib bumper at their home in Suffolk, Va. Police investigated. And an autopsy found a distinct white line along the baby’s cheek and nose.

“This means that the child’s nose was compressed by something after he was dead,” pathologist Wendy Gunther, an assistant chief medical examiner, later testified in a deposition.

She ruled the baby’s death was “likely due to accidental suffocation in bumper pad.”

But CPSC staff, reviewing the case four years later, said they believed the bumper wasn’t to blame.

The CPSC’s stalled response to evidence of the dangers of crib bumpers is a story of an agency struggling to fulfill its basic mission to protect the public from unreasonably dangerous products. Even as the CPSC’s leadership has sought alternative views within and outside the agency, it appears almost powerless to stop the sale of products that a consensus of public health authorities say should be avoided, according to agency documents reviewed by The Post and interviews with 24 medical researchers, agency employees and doctors.

The current dispute over the agency’s failure to act on crib bumpers also is playing out just months after the CPSC was widely criticized for its handling of inclined sleepers — another infant-sleep device — when the agency was accused of being slow to react to a series of infant deaths in Fisher-Price’s Rock ’n Play.

[Fisher-Price invented a popular infant sleeper without medical safety tests and kept it on the market, as babies died.]

“It absolutely makes no sense at all. We should be able to come up with a better system,” said Rachel Moon, a pediatrician who studies infant sleep deaths and helped write the American Academy of Pediatrics’ safe-sleep guidelines. Those guidelines recommend against using both crib bumpers and inclined sleepers.

The CPSC health sciences directorate’s stance on crib bumpers, which wrap inside a crib and are marketed as products that protect babies, is unusual. The AAP, National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all have warned the public against using bumpers for years. Three states and two municipalities have banned the sale of padded bumpers because of safety concerns. The latest was New York state in August.

Walmart and Target stopped selling padded bumpers. Safety advocates — frustrated by the CPSC’s lack of action — recently persuaded federal lawmakers to introduce legislation for a nationwide padded bumper ban.

But bumpers remain popular with parents. An estimated 1.2 million sets were sold in the United States last year, according to an industry official. They can be found at retailers including Pottery Barn Kids, Amazon and Buy Buy Baby. They can be seen in Instagram photos and magazine ads showcasing the perfect nursery. There are traditional padded bumpers made of fabric, which provoke the greatest concern from experts, along with newer mesh crib liners, which claim to pose less of a suffocation risk. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

23 November 2019 at 4:32 pm

Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed

leave a comment »

This post by David Cain at is well worth reading — and in connection with it, I recommend also revisiting “The Gospel of Consumption.”

Well I’m in the working world again. I’ve found myself a well-paying gig in the engineering industry, and life finally feels like it’s returning to normal after my nine months of traveling.

Because I had been living quite a different lifestyle while I was away, this sudden transition to 9-to-5 existence has exposed something about it that I overlooked before.

Since the moment I was offered the job, I’ve been markedly more careless with my money. Not stupid, just a little quick to pull out my wallet. As a small example, I’m buying expensive coffees again, even though they aren’t nearly as good as New Zealand’s exceptional flat whites, and I don’t get to savor the experience of drinking them on a sunny café patio. When I was away these purchases were less off-handed, and I enjoyed them more.

I’m not talking about big, extravagant purchases. I’m talking about small-scale, casual, promiscuous spending on stuff that doesn’t really add a whole lot to my life. And I won’t actually get paid for another two weeks.

In hindsight I think I’ve always done this when I’ve been well-employed — spending happily during the “flush times.” Having spent nine months living a no-income backpacking lifestyle, I can’t help but be a little more aware of this phenomenon as it happens.

I suppose I do it because I feel I’ve regained a certain stature, now that I am again an amply-paid professional, which seems to entitle me to a certain level of wastefulness. There is a curious feeling of power you get when you drop a couple of twenties without a trace of critical thinking. It feels good to exercise that power of the dollar when you know it will “grow back” pretty quickly anyway.

What I’m doing isn’t unusual at all. Everyone else seems to do this. In fact, I think I’ve only returned to the normal consumer mentality after having spent some time away from it.

One of the most surprising discoveries I made during my trip was that I spent much less per month traveling foreign counties (including countries more expensive than Canada) than I did as a regular working joe back home. I had much more free time, I was visiting some of the most beautiful places in the world, I was meeting new people left and right, I was calm and peaceful and otherwise having an unforgettable time, and somehow it cost me much less than my humble 9-5 lifestyle here in one of Canada’s least expensive cities.

It seems I got much more for my dollar when I was traveling. Why?

A Culture of Unnecessaries

Here in the West, a lifestyle of unnecessary spending has been deliberately cultivated and nurtured in the public by big business. Companies in all kinds of industries have a huge stake in the public’s penchant to be careless with their money. They will seek to encourage the public’s habit of casual or non-essential spending whenever they can.

In the documentary The Corporation, a marketing psychologist discussed one of the methods she used to increase sales. Her staff carried out a study on what effect the nagging of children had on their parents’ likelihood of buying a toy for them. They found out that 20% to 40% of the purchases of their toys would not have occurred if the child didn’t nag its parents. One in four visits to theme parks would not have taken place. They used these studies to market their products directly to children, encouraging them to nag their parents to buy.

This marketing campaign alone represents many millions of dollars that were spent because of demand that was completely manufactured.

“You can manipulate consumers into wanting, and therefore buying, your products. It’s a game.” ~ Lucy Hughes, co-creator of “The Nag Factor”

This is only one small example of something that has been going on for a very long time. Big companies didn’t make their millions by earnestly promoting the virtues of their products, they made it by creating a culture of hundreds of millions of people that buy way more than they need and try to chase away dissatisfaction with money.

We buy stuff to cheer ourselves up, to keep up with the Joneses, to fulfill our childhood vision of what our adulthood would be like, to broadcast our status to the world, and for a lot of other psychological reasons that have very little to do with how useful the product really is. How much stuff is in your basement or garage that you haven’t used in the past year?

The real reason for the forty-hour workweek

The ultimate tool for corporations to sustain a culture of this sort is to develop the 40-hour workweek as the normal lifestyle. Under these working conditions people have to build a life in the evenings and on weekends. This arrangement makes us naturally more inclined to spend heavily on entertainment and conveniences because our free time is so scarce.

I’ve only been back at work for a few days, but already I’m noticing that the more wholesome activities are quickly dropping out of my life: walking, exercising, reading, meditating, and extra writing.

The one conspicuous similarity between these activities is that they cost little or no money, but they take time.

Suddenly I have a lot more money and a lot less time, which means I have a lot more in common with the typical working North American than I did a few months ago. While I was abroad I wouldn’t have thought twice about spending the day wandering through a national park or reading my book on the beach for a few hours. Now that kind of stuff feels like it’s out of the question. Doing either one would take most of one of my precious weekend days!

The last thing I want to do when I get home from work is exercise. It’s also the last thing I want to do after dinner or before bed or as soon as I wake, and that’s really all the time I have on a weekday.

This seems like a problem with a simple answer: . . .

Continue reading. It’s much more problematic and interconnected that it seems at first. Do read the whole thing. It’s almost like the Abilene paradox writ large, over all our society.

Written by LeisureGuy

23 November 2019 at 3:48 pm

The Case for Impeachment, According to Adam Schiff

leave a comment »

Abigail Weinberg writes at Mother Jones:

Throughout the last week, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff has used his position to lay out a powerful argument for impeaching President Trump for withholding military aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations into the Bidens. His closing statements for each of the public hearings clearly outline evidence against Trump and carefully dismantle the Republican talking points that seek to absolve the president of guilt. Let’s review Schiff’s impassioned statements from the past week.


Schiff was emphatic in his closing statements Tuesday that there is no evidence to support the notion that Trump was only seeking to root out corruption in Ukraine, following testimony from Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, the Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, and Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence. Republicans have tried to argue that Trump’s interest in investigating Burisma, the natural gas company for which Hunter Biden served as a board member, was borne from a genuine interest in fighting corruption.

“The evidence all points in the other direction,” Schiff said. “The evidence points in the direction of the president inviting Ukraine to engage in the corrupt acts of investigating a US political opponent.”

After former envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and former Trump adviser Tim Morrison testified later that day, Schiff homed in on a meeting Volker witnessed between Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. “Sondland told you that he had informed the Ukrainians that if they wanted that $400 million in military aid, they were going to have to do those investigations that the president wanted,” Schiff said, addressing Volker.

Then, he defined bribery as, “the conditioning of official acts in exchange for something of personal value.” “The official acts we’re talking about here,” he said, “are a White House meeting that President Zelensky desperately sought and, as you have acknowledged, Ambassador Volker, was deeply important to this country at war with Russia.”

According to Volker’s testimony, Trump withheld military aid and conditioned both the aid and a meeting with Zelensky upon an investigation of Burisma. Republicans were upset only that Trump got caught, Schiff said.


Wednesday’s hearings began with testimony in which Ambassador Sondland affirmed that there was a quid pro quo. During his closing statement, Schiff read Sondland’s testimony back to him:

Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election, DNC server, and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.

Moreover, Sondland testified that the hold on aid was directly related to Trump’s request that Ukraine investigate both Burisma and the 2016 elections. Schiff refuted the idea that anyone other than the president was behind the scheme. “I do not believe that the president would allow himself to be led by the nose by Rudy Giuliani or Ambassador Sondland or anybody else,” he said. “I think the president was the one who decided whether a meeting would happen, whether the aid would be lifted, not anyone who worked for him.”

Following the testimony of Laura Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, and David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs, Schiff made clear that the United States’ actions in Ukraine were not, as Republicans have argued, anti-corruption. Those actions were corrupt in and of themselves.

Schiff identified several of Trump’s actions as corrupt: when Trump recalled Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, “an anti-corrupt champion,” from her post in Ukraine; when Trump praised Ukraine’s corrupt former prosecutors and said that “they were treated very unfairly”; when Trump conditioned a meeting with Zelensky on investigations into his political rival, Joe Biden; and when Trump told Zelensky, “I want you to do us a favor” and requested investigations into a conspiracy theory about the 2016 election hackings and into the Bidens.

“The great men and women in your department under Secretary Hale and in your department, Ms. Cooper, they carry that message around the world, that that the United States is devoted to the rule of law,” Schiff said in conclusion. “But when they see a president who is not devoted to the rule of law who is not devoted to anti-corruption but instead demonstrates in word and deed corruption, they are forced to ask themselves, what does America stand for anymore?” . . .

Continue reading. There’s much more, and it’s clearly laid out.

Written by LeisureGuy

23 November 2019 at 1:56 pm

Tempeh batch 8 after 48 hours

leave a comment »

Interesting colors. The dark grew I understand the orange/yellow is, so far as I can tell, simply discolored soybeans. I’ll give it another 6 hours or so.

As I noted, the countertop didn’t seem to work so well this time, and perhaps it was that previously I let the beans go for around 32 hours before removing to the countertop. More experimentation is required. I do think using a clean dishtowel rather than a foil tent to cover the dish is a good idea: insulates and finesses the condensation problem

Written by LeisureGuy

23 November 2019 at 1:19 pm

Posted in Daily life, Food, Plant-only diet, Recipes

Tagged with

Amla and its power

leave a comment »

I blogged earlier a couple of videos from, and I realized the surely the book How Not to Die must include info about amla, so I did a quick search and found:


The most antioxidant-packed uncommon spice is amla,82 which is powdered dried Indian gooseberry fruit. As a Western-trained physician, I had never heard of amla despite its common use in Ayurvedic herbal preparations. I was surprised to find four hundred articles on this lesser-known spice int he medical literature, and even more surprised to find papers with titles like “Amla, a Wonder Berry in the Treatment and Prevention of Cancer.” Amla is arguably the impost important plant in Ayurvedic medicine, used traditionally as everything from a neutralizer of snake venom to a hair tonic.83 I eat it because it’s apparently the single most antioxidant-packed green-light food on the planet.84

Using an argon laser, researchers can measure and track carotenoid antioxidant levels in real time. The most important finding from this body os work is that antioxidant lives can plummet within two hours of an oxidatively stressful event. When you’re stuck in traffic breathing diesel fumes, deprived of sleep, or suffering from a cold, for example, your body starts using up some of its antioxidant stores. What may take only two hours to lose can take up to three days to build back up.85

Even ordinary body processes, such as turning food into energy, can produce free radicals. This is okay so long as the food you eat comes pre-packaged with antioxidants. But if it doesn’t—if you chug straight sugar water, for example [e.g., soda pop – LG]—the level of free radicals and oxidized fat in your bloodstream rises over the next few hours, while vitamin E levels drop as your body’s antioxidant stores are expended.86 If you were to eat the same amount of sugar in the form of an orange, though, you wouldn’t get a spike in oxidation.87 Researchers concluded: “This argues strongly for the need to include high antioxidant foods in each and every meal in order to prevent this redox [free-radical versus antioxidant] imbalance.”88

The standard American diet (SAD) isn’t exactly antioxidant-packed. Here is the antioxidant content (in modified FrAP assay daumol antioxidant units) of some typical American breakfast foods: bacon (7) and eggs (8), a bowl of corn flakes (25) with milk (10), an Egg McMuffin (11), pancakes (21) with maple syrup (9), and a bagel (20) with cream cheese (4). A typical breakfast may average about 25 antioxidant units.

Compare those to the smoothie I had for breakfast this morning. I started with a cup fo water (0), a half cup of frozen blueberries (323), and the pulp of a ripe mango (108). I added a tablespoon of ground flaxseeds (8), along with a half cup of fresh mind leaves (33) and a palmful of bulk white tea leaves (103). While the typical SAD breakfast may give you only about 25 antioxidant units, my breakfast smoothie offered more than 500. And when I add the final ingredient, a single teaspoon of amla, I get an additional 753 antioxidant units. That’s about 4 cents’ worth of amla, and it just doubled the antioxidant content of my entire smoothie. Before I’ve even fully awakened, I’ve already consumed more than 1,000 antioxidant units. That’s more than the average person may get in an entire week. I could drink my smoothie and eat nothing but doughnuts for the rest of the week, and most people still wouldn’t catch up. Notice that even though I packed the blender with amazing foods like blueberries and white tea leaves, fully half the antioxidant power cam from that single, four-cent teaspoon of powdered gooseberries.

The numbers in the text identify footnotes that specify the studies on whose findings the statements are based.

Earlier in the chapter Dr. Greger notes “The most antioxidant packed herb is dried Norwegian bearberry leaf. (Good luck finding that!) The most antioxidant-packed common herb is peppermint.u3”

He notes that oregano and marjoram are excellent and that the most antioxidant-packed common spice is the clove. Amla, as noted above is the most antioxidant-packed uncommon spice.

I ordered a bag from Amazon, and this morning my breakfast included a teaspoon of amla.

Written by LeisureGuy

23 November 2019 at 10:51 am

Did Rockwell make the 6S so good on purpose? or by accident?

with 9 comments

The next natural brush is this 24mm barrel brush from RazoRock/Italian Barber, and to me it feels enormous. But it worked well and holds a ton of lather—excellent lather in this case, redolent with the summertime fragrance of honeysuckle, thanks to Phoenix Artisan’s very good shaving soap. This is their regular formula, which they seem now to call “CK-1,” and not the ultra-premium CK-6. But it is quite a good soap.

As I was shaving with my Rockwell 6S, using the R3 baseplate, I was struck again at the extreme comfort combined with extreme efficiency — as a razor, it is incredibly smooth and easy in its action, and the stubble is simply wiped away. We who have been involved in this for a while know Rockwell’s struggles to the 6S right, so clearly there was a lot of trial and error involved. And certainly their intention was to make a good razor. But the 6S as it finally turned out is so exceptional that I can’t help but believe that its feel and performance does involve some happy happenstance. If one could design a razor this good on purpose, wouldn’t there be a lot more of them?

There are, of course, quite a few razors that are both very comfortable and very efficient — I list in this article those I’ve encountered — but the 6S seems to be in a class all its own. Maybe it’s due to the peculiar (reversible) baseplate, which other razors don’t have, which would explain why the feel is unique to the Rockwell.

I don’t actually know, but I did notice again this morning the lovely feel of this razor as I did three passes to achieve a perfect result.

A splash of Phoenix Artisan’s Honeysuckle aftershave finished the job and started the weekend right.

Written by LeisureGuy

23 November 2019 at 10:20 am

Posted in Shaving

%d bloggers like this: