Later On

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

Archive for September 22nd, 2020

A note on “Scaramouche,” by Rafael Sabatini

with 4 comments

I mentioned my reading of Scaramouche in a post earlier today, a novel I found enthralling (and indirectly led to my college choice — a story for another time). I wanted to point out that the full text is available for download in a variety of formats (it’s long been out of copyright), and since I have Calibre (a free ebook-management program) installed on my computer, the download went directly to Calibre.

As it turns out, the so-called Kindle format on Gutenberg is in fact MOBI, which current Kindles don’t read. But Calibre readily converts from one format to another, so (after using Calibre to download a better cover design), I converted to AZW3 (there’s a “convert format” button in the menu bar, so it’s child’s play), and then, once I attached Kindle to computer, Calibre’s menu bar changed, and I clicked the “send to device” button and it’s now on my Kindle, where I can read it again.

The book begins:

He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad. And that was all his patrimony. His very paternity was obscure, although the village of Gavrillac had long since dispelled the cloud of mystery that hung about it. Those simple Brittany folk were not so simple as to be deceived by a pretended relationship which did not even possess the virtue of originality. When a nobleman, for no apparent reason, announces himself the godfather of an infant fetched no man knew whence, and thereafter cares for the lad’s rearing and education, the most unsophisticated of country folk perfectly understand the situation. And so the good people of Gavrillac permitted themselves no illusions on the score of the real relationship between Andre-Louis Moreau—as the lad had been named—and Quintin de Kercadiou, Lord of Gavrillac, who dwelt in the big grey house that dominated from its eminence the village clustering below.

Andre-Louis had learnt his letters at the village school, lodged the while with old Rabouillet, the attorney, who in the capacity of fiscal intendant, looked after the affairs of M. de Kercadiou. Thereafter, at the age of fifteen, he had been packed off to Paris, to the Lycee of Louis Le Grand, to study the law which he was now returned to practise in conjunction with Rabouillet. All this at the charges of his godfather, M. de Kercadiou, who by placing him once more under the tutelage of Rabouillet would seem thereby quite clearly to be making provision for his future.

Andre-Louis, on his side, had made the most of his opportunities. You behold him at the age of four-and-twenty stuffed with learning enough to produce an intellectual indigestion in an ordinary mind. Out of his zestful study of Man, from Thucydides to the Encyclopaedists, from Seneca to Rousseau, he had confirmed into an unassailable conviction his earliest conscious impressions of the general insanity of his own species. Nor can I discover that anything in his eventful life ever afterwards caused him to waver in that opinion.

In body he was a slight wisp of a fellow, scarcely above middle height, with a lean, astute countenance, prominent of nose and cheek-bones, and with lank, black hair that reached almost to his shoulders. His mouth was long, thin-lipped, and humorous. He was only just redeemed from ugliness by the splendour of a pair of ever-questing, luminous eyes, so dark as to be almost black. Of the whimsical quality of his mind and his rare gift of graceful expression, his writings—unfortunately but too scanty—and particularly his Confessions, afford us very ample evidence. Of his gift of oratory he was hardly conscious yet, although he had already achieved a certain fame for it in the Literary Chamber of Rennes—one of those clubs by now ubiquitous in the land, in which the intellectual youth of France foregathered to study and discuss the new philosophies that were permeating social life. But the fame he had acquired there was hardly enviable. He was too impish, too caustic, too much disposed—so thought his colleagues—to ridicule their sublime theories for the regeneration of mankind. Himself he protested that he merely held them up to the mirror of truth, and that it was not his fault if when reflected there they looked ridiculous.

All that he achieved by this was to exasperate; and his expulsion from a society grown mistrustful of him must already have followed but for his friend, Philippe de Vilmorin, a divinity student of Rennes, who, himself, was one of the most popular members of the Literary Chamber.

Coming to Gavrillac on a November morning, laden with news of the political storms which were then gathering over France, Philippe found in that sleepy Breton village matter to quicken his already lively indignation. A peasant of Gavrillac, named Mabey, had been shot dead that morning in the woods of Meupont, across the river, by a gamekeeper of the Marquis de La Tour d’Azyr. The unfortunate fellow had been caught in the act of taking a pheasant from a snare, and the gamekeeper had acted under explicit orders from his master.

Infuriated by an act of tyranny so absolute and merciless, M. de vilmorin proposed to …

Read the whole thing.

I mentioned that when I read this in junior high, it sent me constantly to the dictionary. The first time, I vividly recall, was on “patrimony.”

Written by Leisureguy

22 September 2020 at 4:55 pm

Posted in Books, Software

How the west lost

leave a comment »

Anatol Lleven writes in Prospect:

As the US prepares to plunge into a new cold war with China in which its chances do not look good, it’s an appropriate time to examine how we went so badly wrong after “victory” in the last Cold War. Looking back 30 years from the grim perspective of 2020, it is a challenge even for those who were adults at the time to remember just how triumphant the west appeared in the wake of the collapse of Soviet communism and the break-up of the USSR itself.

Today, of the rich fruits promised by that great victory, only wretched fragments remain. The much-vaunted “peace dividend,” savings from military spending, was squandered. The opportunity to use the resources freed up to spread prosperity and deal with urgent social problems was wasted, and—even worse—the US military budget is today higher than ever. Attempts to mitigate the apocalyptic threat of climate change have fallen far short of what the scientific consensus deems to be urgently necessary. The chance to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and stabilise the Middle East was thrown away even before 9/11 and the disastrous US response. The lauded “new world order” of international harmony and co-operation—heralded by the elder George Bush after the first Gulf War—is a tragic joke. Britain’s European dream has been destroyed, and geopolitical stability on the European continent has been lost due chiefly to new and mostly unnecessary tension with Moscow. The one previously solid-seeming achievement, the democratisation of Eastern Europe, is looking questionable, as Poland and Hungary (see Samira Shackle, p20) sink into semi-authoritarian nationalism.

Russia after the Cold War was a shambles and today it remains a weak economy with a limited role on the world stage, concerned mainly with retaining some of its traditional areas of influence. China is a vastly more formidable competitor. If the US (and the UK, if as usual we tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and endangering the world.

One of the most malign effects of western victory in 1989-91 was to drown out or marginalise criticism of what was already a deeply flawed western social and economic model. In the competition with the USSR, it was above all the visible superiority of the western model that eventually destroyed Soviet communism from within. Today, the superiority of the western model to the Chinese model is not nearly so evident to most of the world’s population; and it is on successful western domestic reform that victory in the competition with China will depend.

Hubris 

Western triumph and western failure were deeply intertwined. The very completeness of the western victory both obscured its nature and legitimised all the western policies of the day, including ones that had nothing to do with the victory over the USSR, and some that proved utterly disastrous.

As Alexander Zevin has written of the house journal of Anglo-American elites, the revolutions in Eastern Europe “turbocharged the neoliberal dynamic at the Economist, and seemed to stamp it with an almost providential seal.” In retrospect, the magazine’s 1990s covers have a tragicomic appearance, reflecting a degree of faith in the rightness and righteousness of neoliberal capitalism more appropriate to a religious cult.

These beliefs interacted to produce a dominant atmosphere of “there is no alternative,” which made it impossible and often in effect forbidden to conduct a proper public debate on the merits of the big western presumptions, policies or plans of the era. As a German official told me when I expressed some doubt about the wisdom of rapid EU enlargement, “In my ministry we are not even allowed to think about that.”

This was a sentiment I encountered again and again (if not often so frankly expressed) in western establishment institutions in that era: in economic journals if it was suggested that rapid privatisation in the former USSR would lead to massive corruption, social resentment and political reaction; in security circles, if anyone dared to question the logic of Nato expansion; and almost anywhere if it was pointed out that the looting of former Soviet republics was being assiduously encouraged and profited from by western banks, and regarded with benign indifference by western governments.

The atmosphere of the time is (nowadays notoriously) summed up in Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History, which essentially predicted that western liberal capitalist democracy would now be the only valid and successful economic and political model for all time. In fact, what victory in the Cold War ended was not history but the study of history by western elites.

A curious feature of 1990s capitalist utopian thought was that  . . .

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

22 September 2020 at 12:12 pm

Posted in Government, Politics

Time spent in learning a language

leave a comment »

I got to thinking about the amount of time I’m spending in my Esperanto studies (which interest me much more than other ways of spending a lot of time — for example, poker), and I realized that I spent a lot of time learning English, though it was spread across years and even decades — and even now I occasionally learn some small thing to add to the heap of accumulated knowledge.

I mentioned how in elementary school and junior high I would spend hours with a dictionary, look up the definition of a word, then looking up the words in the definition that I didn’t know. When I read the (wonderful) book Scaramouche, by Rafael Sabatini in the 7th or 8th grade, I had to go to the dictionary constantly, sometimes four or five times in a page.

And that’s just vocabulary. There’s the mountain of knowledge and experience one must accumulate to develop good grammar, style, and fluency. I was 31 before I learned that it’s better to use “so” rather than “as” following a negative: “it’s as good as it gets, but not so good as I like.” That came from reading a remark by Walter Lippmann, and after that I spent hours in reading and working through The Reader Over Your Shoulder (see this post).

So though it feels as though I’m spending a lot of time now on Esperanto, it’s a small fraction of the time I spent in learning English. And for me it’s more satisfying (albeit occasionally frustrating) that other pursuits to which some people devote huge amounts of time — golf springs to mind, a game that I’m told carries with it some substantial amount of frustration in addition to the enjoyment it provides.

So while there’s a lot left to learn, I should note that I am making progress and faster progress than I enjoyed in learning English. It’s just that learning a language to the level of reflex is inherently difficult and also requires a fair amount of time for the brain to rewire itself, setting up the new connections. Just as learning to play the piano takes more than a few months of practice, so does learning a language.

Written by Leisureguy

22 September 2020 at 12:01 pm

Posted in Daily life, Esperanto

Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus

leave a comment »

Nina Bai writes at University of California San Francisco:

As states reopen from stay-at-home orders, many, including California, are now requiring people to wear face coverings in most public spaces to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization now recommend cloth masks for the general public, but earlier in the pandemic, both organizations recommended just the opposite. These shifting guidelines may have sowed confusion among the public about the utility of masks.

But health experts say the evidence is clear that masks can help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and that the more people wearing masks, the better.

We talked to UC San Francisco epidemiologist George Rutherford, MD, and infectious disease specialist Peter Chin-Hong, MD, about the CDC’s reversal on mask-wearing, the current science on how masks work, and what to consider when choosing a mask.

Why did the CDC change its guidance on wearing masks?

The original CDC guidance partly was based on what was thought to be low disease prevalence earlier in the pandemic, said Chin-Hong.

“So, of course, you’re preaching that the juice isn’t really worth the squeeze to have the whole population wear masks in the beginning – but that was really a reflection of not having enough testing, anyway,” he said. “We were getting a false sense of security.”

Rutherford was more blunt. The legitimate concern that the limited supply of surgical masks and N95 respirators should be saved for health care workers should not have prevented more nuanced messaging about the benefits of masking. “We should have told people to wear cloth masks right off the bat,” he said.

Another factor “is that culturally, the U.S. wasn’t really prepared to wear masks,” unlike some countries in Asia where the practice is more common, said Chin-Hong. Even now, some Americans are choosing to ignore CDC guidance and local mandates on masks, a hesitation that Chin-Hong says is “foolhardy.”

What may have finally convinced the CDC to change its guidance in favor of masks were rising disease prevalence and a clearer understanding that both pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission are possible – even common. Studies have found that viral load peaks in the days before symptoms begin and that speaking is enough to expel virus-carrying droplets.

“I think the biggest thing with COVID now that shapes all of this guidance on masks is that we can’t tell who’s infected,” said Chin-Hong. “You can’t look in a crowd and say, oh, that person should wear mask. There’s a lot of asymptomatic infection, so everybody has to wear a mask.”

What evidence do we have that wearing a mask is effective in preventing COVID-19?

There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks.

One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.

But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”

A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.

Another study looked at coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates.

Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missouri had close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive.

Do masks protect the people wearing them or the people around them?

“I think there’s enough evidence to say that the best benefit is for people who have COVID-19 to protect them from giving COVID-19 to other people, but you’re still going to get a benefit from wearing a mask if you don’t have COVID-19,” said Chin-Hong.

Masks may be more effective as a “source control” because they can prevent larger expelled droplets from evaporating into smaller droplets that can travel farther.

Another factor to remember, noted Rutherford, is that you could still catch the virus through the membranes in your eyes, a risk that masking does not eliminate.

How many people need to wear masks to reduce community transmission? . . .

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

22 September 2020 at 10:51 am

How to Tame a Troll

leave a comment »

The original title is “How to Tame a Trump Troll,” but trolls come in all varieties and I can think of a few trolls of the left. Troll is a state of mind, not a particular political position, and this article by Karin Tamerius offers good advice to maximize the possibility of productive interactions with any troll, not specifically Trump trolls. (Indeed, her original title might be viewed as a bit of trolling in itself.)

She writes:

Bad news: Right-wing trolls are ubiquitous. Good news: Anyone can tame them — even you.

How often does this happen to you? You’re discussing the upcoming election on Facebook or Twitter when a Trump supporter…

  • calls you names or curses you out
  • makes comments dripping with smug, dismissive contempt
  • implies you’re a bad person or questions your motives

Uh oh, you’ve got trolls.

So now what? All too often we immediately reach for the block button. The impulse to silence folks with even a whiff of the troll about them is understandable — laudable even. Not only are our time and emotional energies limited, but engaging with trolls can make the infestation worse by feeding them the very thing they seek: our attention. And, of course, in our current political environment, the last thing we want is to give harmful ideas a platform.

But trolling is not as simple as we think. Not all trolls are all bad. They’re not all Russian proxies looking to spread disinformation or alt-right militants looking to lob bombs. They aren’t all trying to sow division and discord or spread hate.

Some Trump trolls are just ordinary folks who are triggered and behaving badly in the moment. Many have forgotten they’re talking with real humans. Others think trolling is just how people behave on the internet. And some are lost souls genuinely looking to connect — people who want to make friends, but don’t know how.

After several years of dealing with trolls on social media, I’ve discovered most are motivated by the same desire that drives us all: the need to connect and belong. Satisfy that and they’ll miraculously transform into decent people who just want to talk politics.

Through trial and error, I’ve gradually developed a system for managing obnoxious behavior that charms all but the worst of the worst. With this method, I’ve converted erstwhile trolls to friends; extremists to moderates; and adversaries to allies. Best of all, I’ve created a social-media culture in my (mostly public) communities where trolling is rare despite the expression of a wide range of political beliefs.

How to Tame a Troll

Not every troll requires a firm hand or banishment. The secret to troll taming is to adjust your interaction to the troll’s level of intractability. Begin gently and only shift to harsher responses if the trolling behavior persists despite your initial efforts.

Phase I: Humanize

The simplest way to tame a troll is to treat them the way you want to be treated. Do you wish everyone would behave with kindness and respect? Then be kind and respectful — even when being kind and respectful seems difficult.

When you seek the human beneath the troll and turn the other cheek, 9 times out of 10 they’ll either go away or improve their behavior without any further effort on your part.

In its simplest form, humanizing consists of three steps:

  1. say hi
  2. introduce yourself
  3. invite them to join the conversation

Depending on the circumstances, you can often do much more.

Here’s a recent example from Twitter. Sword of #Maga retweeted a poll I was conducting in order to mock me. I neutralized the attack by turning the other cheek: . . .

Continue reading. There’s much more.

Written by Leisureguy

22 September 2020 at 9:24 am

Posted in Daily life, Politics

“That’s Their Problem”: How Jared Kushner Let the Markets Decide America’s COVID-19 Fate

leave a comment »

Katherine Eban reports in Vanity Fair:

On the evening of Saturday, March 21, a small group of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, business executives, and venture capitalists gathered in the White House Situation Room to offer their help to the Trump administration as it confronted a harrowing shortage of lifesaving supplies to battle COVID-19.

More than seven weeks after the federal government first learned that a new and lethal coronavirus was barreling toward U.S. shores, hospitals were pleading for masks, gloves, and other personal protective equipment to safeguard their medical staff. Intensive care nurses had been photographed wearing garbage bags instead of gowns. More than 19,600 Americans had been diagnosed with the disease, and at least 260 had died.

The meeting’s attendees—some present, some dialing in—were a bipartisan collection of heavy hitters. The ad hoc group had spent weeks canvassing America’s private sector to map the shortages and draft a plan to solve them. Briefly using a hotel ballroom in Washington, D.C., as a makeshift headquarters, they sought answers to some urgent questions: What capacity did America’s companies have to manufacture protective equipment and medical supplies? What supplies could be ordered now? Were there hidden reserves?

They had secured commitments from dozens of major corporations, including General Motors, to manufacture ventilators, map supply needs, create a system for contact tracing, and much more.

On Friday, March 20, they met with a large group of officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency—people one attendee described as “the doers”—to strategize how best to replenish the nation’s depleted reserves of PPE. The attendees had gotten a significant pledge from, among many others, Mary Barra, the CEO of General Motors. Her company could reconfigure a production line to make ventilators, so long as the federal government would commit to purchasing them. To accomplish that, the private sector attendees and the FEMA officials discussed the need for President Donald Trump to invoke a federal law called the Defense Production Act, which would unleash the government’s procurement powers.

As one attendee recounted, certain government officials there had “implored” the group to return the next day to the White House for a follow-up with President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, to make the case for the Defense Production Act. Earlier in the month Kushner had formed a coronavirus “shadow task force” running parallel to the official one helmed by Vice President Mike Pence.

The meeting on Saturday began at 6:30 p.m. Kushner is an observant Jew and normally wouldn’t work during Shabbat, which ended at 8:00 that evening, but a “rabbinic dispensation” allows him to make exceptions for matters of public importance, according to a senior administration official.

Those representing the private sector expected to learn about a sweeping government plan to procure supplies and direct them to the places they were needed most. New York, home to more than a third of the nation’s coronavirus cases, seemed like an obvious candidate. In turn they came armed with specific commitments of support, a memo on the merits of the Defense Production Act, a document outlining impediments to the private-sector response, and two key questions: How could they best help? And how could they best support the government’s strategy?

What actually transpired in the room stunned a number of those in attendance. Vanity Fair has reconstructed the details of the meeting for the first time, based on recollections, notes, and calendar entries from three people who attended the meeting. All quotations are based on the recollections of one or more individual attendees.

Kushner, seated at the head of the conference table, in a chair taller than all the others, was quick to strike a confrontational tone. “The federal government is not going to lead this response,” he announced. “It’s up to the states to figure out what they want to do.”

One attendee explained to Kushner that due to the finite supply of PPE, Americans were bidding against each other and driving prices up. To solve that, businesses eager to help were looking to the federal government for leadership and direction.

“Free markets will solve this,” Kushner said dismissively. “That is not the role of government.”

The same attendee explained that although he believed in open markets, he feared that the system was breaking. As evidence, he pointed to a CNN report about New York governor Andrew Cuomo and his desperate call for supplies.

“That’s the CNN bullshit,” Kushner snapped. “They lie.”

According to another attendee, Kushner then began to rail against the governor: “Cuomo didn’t pound the phones hard enough to get PPE for his state…. His people are going to suffer and that’s their problem.”

“That’s when I was like, We’re screwed,” the shocked attendee told Vanity Fair.

The group argued for invoking the Defense Production Act. “We were all saying, ‘Mr. Kushner, if you want to fix this problem for PPE and ventilators, there’s a path to do it, but you have to make a policy change,’” one person who attended the meeting recounted.

In response Kushner got “very aggressive,” the attendee recalled. “He kept invoking the markets” and told the group they “only understood how entrepreneurship works, but didn’t understand how government worked.”

Though Kushner’s arguments “made no sense,” said the attendee, there seemed to be little hope of changing his mind. “It felt like Kushner was the president. He sat in the chair and he was clearly making the decisions.”

Kushner was accompanied by Navy Rear Admiral John Polowczyk, who had just been posted to FEMA to lead supply-chain efforts. He heaped flattery on Kushner, calling his ideas “brilliant,” and expressed skepticism concerning the motives of those in the room and on the phone. “Are you trying to hawk your wares on us?” he asked one participant.

Ultimately, there was little follow-up from the government on the group’s offers. President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act in name a week later, but he didn’t immediately use the act to formally order supplies, sparking confusion and delays. He also rage-tweeted at Barra, the CEO of GM: “Always a mess with Mary B.” The government waited until April 8 to announce its first order of ventilators from GM.

“We had so much potential to commandeer against this,” said one person who attended the meeting. “We had a real system for contact tracing, the world’s best mobile engineers on standby. There was a real opportunity to have a coordinated response.”

That attendee said he remains “angry” over the federal government’s intransigence in stockpiling supplies and feels certain that people died because of it. “At the time I just thought of it as blind capitalism and extreme libertarian ideals gone wrong,” he said. “In hindsight it’s not crazy to think it was some purposeful belief that it was okay if Cuomo had a tough go of it because [New York] was a blue state.”

According to another attendee, it seemed “very clear” Kushner was less interested in finding a solution because, at the time, the virus was primarily ravaging cities in blue states: “We were flabbergasted. I basically had an out-of-body experience: Where am I, and what happened to America?”

In response to a request for comment, a senior administration official told Vanity Fair that the meeting was not confrontational and said the attendees’ impressions were “not rooted in reality.” He said the federal government had sourced “over a billion items of PPE, enough ventilators so that no American was denied one, and we are the leading testing country in the world.” He added that the “vast majority of the federal response was aimed at helping blue states,” and pointed to public statements Governor Cuomo had made, in which he said Kushner had been “extraordinarily helpful.”

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany had this to say: “This story is another inaccurate and disgusting partisan hit job. President Trump has consistently put the health of all Americans first.”

At the end of July, writing for Vanity Fair, I revealed that Kushner had commissioned a robust federal COVID-19 testing plan, only to abandon it before it could be implemented. One public health expert in frequent contact with the White House’s official coronavirus task force said a national plan likely fell out of favor in part because of a disturbingly cynical calculation: “The political folks believed that because [the virus] was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy.”

The story struck a nerve, partly because . . .

Continue reading. There’s much more, and it unfortunately is depressing albeit important.

And now it looks likely that Republicans will establish a strong conservative majority on the court and at least achieve their goal of ensuring that millions of Americans will lose access to healthcare by bringing down the Affordable Care Act.

Written by Leisureguy

22 September 2020 at 9:05 am

Nancy Boy and Baby Smooth, with Wee Scot and Anthony Gold

leave a comment »

Another great shave — that is, another good experience to start the day, a day that is sunny and haze-free. I’m running very low on Nancy Boy Signature Shave Cream, and it occurs to me with all the clarity of hindsight that I should have bought a full-size tub. Perhaps next time — it’s one lather source I don’t want to be without.

The lather was excellent, and I particularly like the refreshing fragrance. Three passes with the Baby Smooth produced the eponymous result, and a splash of Anthony Gold’s Red Cedar aftershave made me happy because it made my nose happy.

Written by Leisureguy

22 September 2020 at 8:52 am

Posted in Shaving

%d bloggers like this: