Sunday Evening Open Thread: Please Proceed, Senators

mcconnell defaces scotus handelsman

(Walt Handelsman via GoComics.com)
.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) suggested Thursday he would be willing to meet with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, though it won’t change his position.
“I have no problem with meeting with people,” he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “I’ll have to say, I’m not sure what the point will be.”

Johnson, considered one of the most vulnerable senators up for reelection, is the latest Republican to split with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and say he would accept a meeting if the White House reaches out…

Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Rob Portman (Ohio) — who are in reelection fights that, along with Johnson’s, will help decide which party controls the Senate next year — have also said they would be willing to meet with Garland…

Separately, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said Thursday he would agree to a meeting, though it wouldn’t change his position. He also spoke with Garland Wednesday.


***********
Apart from REPUBS IN DISARRAY!, what’s on the agenda as we wrap up the weekend?





GET In Mah Belly! (Open Thread)

Made a Dutch Baby this morning using a recipe from Epicurious:

Dutch Baby

As the recipe notes, it’s like a cross between a pancake and a popover. Very delicious, and I highly recommend the recipe, only it calls for way too much lemon zest-sugar for sprinkling. About a third of what’s called for in the recipe would have been more than enough — and I’m not afraid of sugar. Also, we used Meyer lemons, which make everything better.

Another thing: We got a convection oven during our kitchen remodel a couple of years back. I like it except for one thing: If you use the convection setting, you can’t trust the recommended bake times from any recipe. And there doesn’t seem to be a common factor by which you can reduce it to apply across the board, which is kinda frustrating. Any tips on that dilemma welcome!

Open thread!





Heartening Read: “Who Is the Hillary Voter?”

Eric Sasson, at TNR“The media is obsessed with the Sanders voter and the Trump voter. Yet it is the Hillary voter who may have the last laugh”:

We have heard much talk this cycle about the mood of our national electorate. People are angry. They are sick and tired of establishment politicians, and are gravitating toward outsiders, revolutionaries, people who are going to “turn this country around.” They are flocking to the polls in huge numbers to make their anger heard…

The voter we almost never hear about, however, is the Clinton voter. Which is surprising, since Hillary Clinton has won more votes in the primaries than any other candidate so far. She has amassed over 2.5 million more votes than Sanders; over 1.1 million more votes than Trump. Clearly Clinton voters exist, yet there has been very little analysis as to who they are or why they are showing up to vote for her. Sure, there has been talk of Clinton’s dominance among African-American voters, and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic voters. Her voters seem to skew older and more affluent. But these are demographics. (And even demographics have a hard time explaining her commanding win in Ohio, or her wins in Massachusetts and Missouri.) There is almost no discussion of what is motivating these voters. If anything, the media seems to think they are holding their noses as they vote for Hillary. As a recent New York Times article suggested, Clinton is winning “votes, not hearts.”…

Considering that narrative, one would expect Clinton to be faring far worse in the primaries. Instead, she currently holds a popular vote and delegate lead over Sanders that far surpasses Obama’s lead over her at this point in the race in 2008.

This is no accident. An examination of Clinton voters and their motivations might reveal that the narrative that most media outlets have been feeding us this election cycle is dubious at best. Because if the biggest vote-getter of either party is Hillary—by a large margin—then that suggests the electorate is not necessarily as angry as pundits claim. It further suggests that perhaps some people are tired of hearing about how angry they are, and are quietly asserting their opinions at the ballot box. If Democrats are so angry, Clinton would not be in the position she is today. Is it really so farfetched to claim that quite a few Democrats aren’t voting for Sanders precisely because he seems angry? Which isn’t to suggest that people aren’t angry—certainly many Republican primary voters seem to be. Rather, it is to suggest that voters who aren’t angry are still showing up at the polls, despite being ignored in news stories…

It’s certainly curious to presume, as many do, that Clinton’s supporters are somehow less enthusiastic than Sanders’s are. How is enthusiasm measured, if not by actual vote count? And they are doing so despite the media narrative surrounding their candidate, despite hearing very little about themselves in the media, despite her “damn” emails, despite Benghazi, despite her low Gallup favorables, and despite how everyone else is “Feeling the Bern.” If anything, Clinton might need to thank the press for consistently underestimating her. Perhaps this is why her supporters are coming out for her in such strength: to assert their existence in the face of a narrative that both overlooks them and disparages their candidate…

Jamelle Bouie wrote about this at Slate, too:

… Hillary Clinton, having learned lessons from her last campaign, is running a race for delegates. And like Obama before her, she’s run up the score in favorable states and held tight in contested ones. Up until Tuesday’s primaries, this gave her an advantage. And now, with lopsided victories in Florida and North Carolina, she enjoys a structural lead that dwarfs the one Obama held at this point in 2008…

Clinton still has a long slog to the nomination—it takes time to accumulate the delegates she needs—but it’s a clear one, without major obstacles. In a sense, she and her team have reverse-engineered Obama’s 2008 effort, bringing “establishment” resources—huge fundraising and tremendous party support—to bear on an insurgent-style campaign that focused on voter contacts and organizing instead of paid media and massive events. Clinton has made mistakes, and she will continue to make them, but her present campaign is durable enough to survive them.





Late Night Moment of Zen

Steve was groomed yesterday. Got a mani/pedi, bathed, all the mats I couldn’t get out myself brushed out, blow dried, and just general primped and preened so he’s in full majestic form. And the best part about it is that I can tell he feels so much better:

blissedout

Since I brought him home yesterday, he’s been strutting around the house like a peacock, and I can tell he really appreciates it because he has been surgically attached to my lap letting me know how happy he is. Just gazing on my lovingly, kneading me, giving me the little “love you man” wink that cats do when they are happy, and letting out some deep thankful purring. He’s so soft and smooth, too, since the bath, and it’s just so nice knowing my little buddy feels better and appreciates it. That’s a good feeling, knowing your critters are happy.

BTW- Season 2 of Daredevil is AMAZING.





Open Thread: Another Cunning GOP Plan!…

… Assuming one spells ‘cunning’ D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E. You’d think even the GOP Establishment would have realized by now that Bill Kristol is not to be trusted with sharp edges or political campaigns, but, per the NYTimes:

Republican leaders adamantly opposed to Donald J. Trump’s candidacy are preparing a 100-day campaign to deny him the presidential nomination, starting with an aggressive battle in Wisconsin’s April 5 primary and extending into the summer, with a delegate-by-delegate lobbying effort that would cast Mr. Trump as a calamitous choice for the general election.

Recognizing that Mr. Trump has seized a formidable advantage in the race, they say that an effort to block him would rely on an array of desperation measures, the political equivalent of guerrilla fighting.

There is no longer room for error or delay, the anti-Trump forces say, and without a flawlessly executed plan of attack, he could well become unstoppable.

But should that effort falter, leading conservatives are prepared to field an independent candidate in the general election, to defend Republican principles and offer traditional conservatives an alternative to Mr. Trump’s hard-edged populism. They described their plans in interviews after Mr. Trump’s victories last Tuesday in Florida and three other states.

The names of a few well-known conservatives have been offered up in recent days as potential third-party standard-bearers, and William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, has circulated a memo to a small number of conservative allies detailing the process by which an independent candidate could get on general-election ballots across the country.

Among the recruits under discussion are Tom Coburn, a former Oklahoma senator who has told associates that he would be open to running, and Rick Perry, the former Texas governor who was suggested as a possible third-party candidate at a meeting of conservative activists on Thursday in Washington….

Because Rick Perry is still hoping for a comeback from his ‘oops’ moment, and Tom Coburn wants to push his much-mocked 2004 comments about lesbianism in Oklahoma high schools a little further down his Google search profile, I guess. More good news for Democrats, from the same article:

… David McIntosh, president of the conservative Club for Growth, which has spent millions on ads attacking Mr. Trump, said his group met on Wednesday and concluded it was still possible to avert Mr. Trump’s nomination. The group plans a comprehensive study of Trump supporters to sharpen a message aimed at driving them away from him.

“This is still a winnable race for a free-market conservative that’s not Donald Trump,” Mr. McIntosh said, adding, “It’s not a layup, but there’s a clear path to victory.”…

Mr. Trump’s hand has been strengthened by disagreements within the stop-Trump forces, which fall along familiar lines: Conservative activists are uneasy with the party establishment and favor Mr. Cruz, while many Republican elites have warmed to Mr. Kasich, recoiling from those they perceive as ideological purists…

Every dollar they throw into taking down the Short-Fingered Shouter is a dollar not spent attacking Democrats. As a lifelong Dem myself, it’s heartwarming to watch a circular firing squad from the outside, for once!





Friday Night Recipe Exchange: Saturday Night Edition

As was previously announced I’m filling in for Tamara, our Doyenne of Digestibles, as guest food goddess for the next few weeks. So before I put on the frilly apron and the tiara, I just want to make a quick apology to Betty Cracker for today’s rain in central Florida. I washed and waxed my car last night, so this one is clearly on me.

We have three recipes for you tonight. I don’t have any photos of any of these preparations that I’ve made myself, so the pictures are from a keyword search.

A request came in for an Easter(ish) recipe, so first up is a roasted leg of lamb. The seasoning is simple and works for both bone in and bone out. For the bone out, I will be including Bessie’s Cornbread Stuffing, which is the only stuffing recipe anyone in my family uses. I’ll explain the name when we get there. You can stuff a bone in roast, but its much trickier/more difficult.

For those of you not into really game-y tasting meat, the fine folks at Food Lab explain that most of that flavor is in the fat. So eliminate most of the fat on your lamb roast and you minimize the game-y flavor. They also have a nice discussion of bone in versus boneless too. I happen to like the game-y flavor so I leave the fat on and I like the ease of preparation and stuffability of the boneless as well..

stuffed-leg-of-lamb*

Ingredients:

1 Lamb Roast (bone in or bone out at purchaser’s/consumer’s preference) about 10-12 lbs

Kosher salt to taste

Freshly cracked black pepper to taste

Finely chopped or minced garlic to taste

Rosemary to taste

Olive Oil

Directions:

Preheat the oven to 275 degrees Fahrenheit. Remove the lamb roast from its packaging, rinse off, and pat dry. Sprinkle with kosher salt, set aside, and allow to stand for forty minutes to pull out moisture. After the forty minute salting rub the lamb roast with the olive oil to create an olive coating. Sprinkle with kosher salt (don’t go to heavy as you’ve already salted the meat), freshly cracked black pepper, and the rosemary to taste. Rub the finely chopped or minced garlic all over the lamb roast. Please note/remember: if you have a boneless lamb roast do all of the seasoning on the inside too!

If you’ve gone with a boneless (bone out) roast, before you can roast it you have to tie it up (this post’s safe word, just in case, is “mutton”). Same thing goes if you’ve stuffed the hollowed out end of a bone in roast. Get yourself a good length of butcher’s twine, roll your roast into cylindrical shape, and tie it with the twine. Try to avoid letting the roast assume its natural tapered shape when rolling or you’ll get the wider, cylindrical end cooked just right and the narrower, tapered end overcooked and dry.

For roasting we’re going with Food Lab’s reverse sear. I liked it a lot when I did that standing rib roast back in December.  Remember to let your seasoned roast sit at room temperature for a 1/2 hour or so to facilitate roasting. Take your seasoned, rested at room temperature, and twined lamb roast, place it on a wire rack or roasting rack above a catch/drip tray and place it in your 275 degree oven. You’re going to roast for 3 hours for medium rare, so start checking the internal temperature with a probe thermometer at the 2 and 1/2 hour mark. You’re shooting for an internal temperature between 125 and 130 for medium rare, and don’t forget the 5 degree cook over increase. So when the roast reads 125, pull it out and let it rest for 40 minutes. While the lamb is resting increase the oven temperature to 500 degrees. After the lamb has rested place it back in the oven for 15 minutes for the reverse sear. After 15 minutes remove the lamb roast from the oven and let it rest for 5 more minutes. Then just remove the twine, transfer to a cutting board, slice, and serve. I like to use the pan juices juices just as they are for au jus, so I don’t turn them into a thickened gravy.

If you’re going to stuff your boneless roast: after seasoning the inside, place as much stuffing as you reasonably can inside the roast and still roll it into a cylinder. You may actually want to put a little extra stuffing on the narrower end to even out the roast’s shape when rolling. After placing the stuffing inside the roast, roll the roast around the stuffing into a cylinder and then tie it off with the twine. Then simply follow the roasting directions above. For medium rare you’re shooting for an internal temperature of 125, though it may take a little bit longer to get the meat there because of the additional material stuffed inside the roast. And remember: when using your probe thermometer to check the roast’s temperature it is very important to not insert the probe through the meat and into the stuffing! You want to check the lamb’s temperature, not the stuffings. Finally, for the reverse sear at 500 degrees: you’re still only going with a 15 minute roasting time.

Read more





Referee use your whistle

My season is starting up again, so that means a few more refereeing posts.

Last weekend, I was reffing a bunch of U-13 to U-16 games.  Most of those games were reasonable as the coaches were decent, the players tried to play smart and hard and the parents were reasonably well informed and well controlled.  However there was the constant refrain from the sideline about why we were not blowing the whistle on plays that some parent thought was a foul.

There are several reasons why a referee won’t blow a play dead.

Let’s acknowledge the most frustrating one — the referee did not see it, or more often, did see the situation but either failed to recognize the foul or recognized the foul and brain-farted acting on it.  That happens due to inexperience, that happens due to getting screened or being out of position, that happens due to fatigue, that happens due to the fouling player being a subtle and sneaky bastard.  It happens.  Good referees do their best to minimize it, but it happens.  But let’s talk about legitimate reasons to not blow a whistle.

The most obvious one is that in the opinion of the referee there was no action or contact that could be called a foul at any level of the game from U-6 Brownian motion ball to UEFA Finals.  Sometimes there is contact, sometimes there is a player on the ground, and sometimes there is an injury where there was absolutely no foul.  Soccer is a contact sport and contact can and should happen in the game.

A related but distinct reason to not blow a whistle is that the referee is interpreting the rules in a manner that the parents’ don’t understand.  The most common scenario in the youth game is the ball hitting a player’s hand.  If the player’s hands are in a natural playing position and the player is not attempting to purposefully strike the ball with an illegal body part, we’re not going to call a handling offense as the player did not handle the ball.  It does not matter if the ball went straight to feet on a breakaway, the ball played the hand.  As soon as the hand or arm is in a non-natural position during the normal run of play or the player deliberately attempts to hit the ball, we’re seeing a foul and probably hitting the whistle.

More frequently, the referee is making an active decision.  There may be contact but it may be skill and competition level appropriate contact.  This is where the referee will often say that something was a foul at Under-6 or high school but it is not a foul in U-14 or in the college game.  As players get better with more skill and more strength, referees are more inclined to let more contact go.  Spectators who see a medium challenge that looked a little bit off will often hear the referee tell both players that the contact was “trifling.”  In soccer, “trifling” is a term of art.  It means that the contact may have been illegal but the violation is so minor and the impediment to play is so small that there is no reason to blow the whistle.  A common example of this is the hand fighting that goes on between forwards and defenders; someone may have grabbed and released someone within reaction time, but as long as the grabbed player is still able to get to where they want to go, very few referees are going to call it.

A similar reason is that the referee has made a decision as to where the foul line lies on a given day.  Referees try to be consistent within games, between games and in best circumstances between referees working the same level of competition.  However there will be variance.  As long as within a single game, that variance is minimized, good teams can adapt.  Some days I’ll allow a bit more hand fighting than other days.  sometimes I’ll let harder tackles go in while other games basically require me to set a soft contact limit or risk a brawl.  I am trying to read players and coaches for their expectations as to what type of contact they want.  My preference is to hold a foul line about half a step below the frustration/retaliation point so I don’t have to blow the whistle as much, and I can let the game breathe.  So there are situations where a parent can rightly say that I called a certain situation a foul yesterday but I let it go today.  It is a conscious decision on the referee’s part.

The next reason why a referee will see a foul but not blow the whistle is advantage.  In soccer, advantage is withholding of a stoppage because in the opinion of the referee the team that was fouled has a promising attack that would be interuptted and degraded by a whistle.  We want to see fluid play, we want to see a screaming shot go into the top corner; that is pretty, that is fun, that is the point of the game.  Advantage allows referees to see that.  It also discourages completely cynical fouling because a cynical foul that does not demolish an attack usually means the defense is off-balance or outnumbered because there is at least one defender significantly out of position and unable to recover in time.

Advantage is a tough call to make.  If I see a foul in the midfield where the attacking player has lofted a ball down the sideline and I see an attacking teammate making a long run, I want to hold my whistle.  If that teammate can get a clean possession of the ball while possessing a numbers’ advantage in their support, I want to give the advantage as a fluid attack 25 yards from goal is a much higher probability scoring chance than a free kick 60 yards away.  Referees have four seconds to watch and wait to see what develops.  If that ball is lofted down the sideline to a player making an attacking run and it either skips out of bounds or there are three defenders rotating back, a good referee will see that, and blow the whistle a couple of seconds late.  If they want advantage, they should announce it very loudly and clearly so that everyone within 200 yards knows what happened.  As a side note, the referee can reserve the right to caution or send off a player for a shitty foul even as they call advantage, and they should mentally track persistent infringement on advantages as well as whistled fouls.

Advantage varies greatly by both skill of the players and the position of the ball.  I am far more inclined to allow for things to play out for a second or two at the top games that I referee.  I want to see what the players can do as most non-cynical fouls are because the fouling player was late or out of position which means the fouled player if they are still moving is moving into open space.  At lower skill levels, I am more inclined to go to a fast whistle because the fouled player will have had their fluid movement totally disrupted and won’t have good support to distribute out to.  Location on the field matters.  I am not calling advantage in the penalty box unless the ball is in the back of the net.  I am extremely reluctant to call advantage in the defensive third unless there is a clear three touch build up to grab sixty yards of field position and a numbers advantage going forward.  Most advantages will happen in the middle third as it transitions into the attacking third.

Now we can move onto advance refereeing.

Read more





Dump Saturday Open Thread

Like a culinary version of the Kardashians, the “dump” recipe trend is taking over the checkout line magazine rack:

dump food

As far as I know, the dump trend was started by that adorable, bejeweled grandmotherly lady who stars in an astonishing number of 4 AM infomercials, where she can be seen dumping an odd assortment of ingredients into crockpots and a variety of other vessels and producing five-course meals in one steaming glop.

Seems like the dump trend originated with dump cakes, which may be a variation on the “cuppa-cuppa-cuppa” cake recipe made famous by “Steel Magnolias” in the ’80s. After that, there was no stopping the dump, which has been applied to soups, appetizers, main dishes, etc.

It’s raining hard here in Central FL, so we’re using that as an excuse to do very little, although there’s plenty that needs attending to indoors. You?

Consider this a “dump” post, i.e., an open thread.





Saturday Funnies Open Thread: Trump’s Not For Dumping

trump cat swallows gop elephant toles

(Tom Toles via GoComics.com)
.

There’s something in the conservatives’ favorite book about falling into the pit one has dug… The Washington Post, company paper for the town where the monopoly industry is politics, reports:

A secretive group of Republican operatives and conservative leaders convened Thursday morning for more than three hours to discuss ways to unite the right against Donald Trump, with a presentation about the feasibility of mounting a third-party challenge as well as extensive deliberations about whether a coalition of anti-Trump forces could prevent the billionaire mogul from securing the party’s presidential nomination at the July convention in Cleveland.

“It’s certainly not too late,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said as he left the session. “You could get another party on the ballot. A candidate could be picked as late as August…”…

At Esquire, Mr. Charles P. Pierce disagrees:

… What influence do these people truly believe they have? If their alternative is Tailgunner Ted Cruz, an oleaginous and friendless theocrat with a very serious political messiah complex, how dare they decide that He, Trump is outside the mainstream? If their alternative is not Cruz, then what in the hell do they think they’re about, anyway?

The notion of a Third Way candidate in Cleveland is patently absurd. For one thing, the threat of a Trump uprising is not an idle one, especially if he shows up with north of 1000 delegates. Second, what makes them think that Cruz will get out of the way for, say, Paul Ryan or, worse, Willard Romney? Even if you accept the notion that He, Trump is not the perfect manifestation of the conservative prion disease afflicting the Republicans, and I don’t for a moment accept that, you cannot deny that Cruz is an even more perfect product of the Party’s madness. After all, he will show up with a boatload of votes fairly won over the previous seven months, a legitimate claim to be the party’s second choice, and his profound belief that the Deity has marked him to lead this nation to Canaan. Who’s going to tell him he’s wrong? Quin Hillyer? And is there any doubt that both He, Trump and the Tailgunner are greasy enough to enter into an ad hoc alliance to blow the whole thing sky high if they don’t get what they want?…

Ed Kilgore, at NYMag, is even more dismissive of the “GOP Cabal”:

… This and many accounts of schemes to rig the convention against Trump — or otherwise keep him out of the White House through means other than beating him in the primaries — generally suffer from an extreme overvaluation of the ability of Republicans to reach and execute a complex coordinated strategy. If they had that capacity, would 17 people have run for president in this cycle? Would it have taken the Establishment so long to settle on a candidate that it basically did not matter? Does anyone in particular really strike you as having the power to “broker” a brokered convention, and if so, what have they been waiting for?

Some seem to put faith in the Republican National Committee and Reince Priebus to orchestrate things to a successful conclusion. And it’s true the RNC may not have a “putative” nominee telling him and the quadrennial army of convention volunteers exactly what to do every moment of the day leading up to and through the convention. But that doesn’t mean the party hacks will be free to do what they want. No, any surviving candidates, including presumably Trump and Cruz, will demand input on every single decision, no matter how minor. There will be no “private,” much less “secret” meetings at which deals go down; there will instead exist the special transparency imposed on people who don’t trust each other at all.

Right now, the only people who look likely to head to Cleveland knowing exactly what they want and being able to communicate with each other without fearing an imminent knife in the back are the candidates and their loyal retainers, for whom the elevation of their lord and god to the nomination is not just the first but the only consideration. Everyone else may well look as feckless as the conservative revolutionaries who sounded like a threat to Trump until it became apparent they couldn’t find their butts with both hands…

Politico found someone (admittedly, a self-professed Democrat) to run the numbers and deduce that “At this point in the race, it would be very hard, if not nearly impossible, to qualify a third party or independent candidate in enough states to come close to winning 270 electoral votes.”

And the Guardian has the lowest blow of all: “Who can stop Trump? Republicans may have little choice but to vote Clinton”.
***********
Apart from sweet, sweet schadenfreude, what’s on the agenda for the day?





Food Open Thread: Chocolate Is Magic! (Maple Syrup Might Be, Too)

Happy dietary news, for once. The Washington Post reports on “The magical thing eating chocolate does to your brain”:

In the mid 1970s, psychologist Merrill Elias began tracking the cognitive abilities of more than a thousand people in the state of New York. The goal was fairly specific: to observe the relationship between people’s blood pressure and brain performance. And for decades he did just that, eventually expanding the Maine-Syracuse Longitudinal Study (MSLS) to observe other cardiovascular risk factors, including diabetes, obesity, and smoking…

“We found that people who eat chocolate at least once a week tend to perform better cognitively,” said Elias. “It’s significant—it touches a number of cognitive domains.”

The findings, chronicled in a new study published last month, come largely thanks to the interest of Georgina Crichton, a nutrition researcher at the University of South Australia, who led the analysis. Others had previously shown that eating chocolate correlated with various positive health outcomes, but few had explored the treat’s effect on the brain and behavior, and even fewer had observed the effect of habitual chocolate consumption. This, Crichton knew, was a unique opportunity…

In the first of two analyses, Crichton, along with Elias and Ala’a Alkerwi, an epidemiologist at the Luxembourg Institute of Health, compared the mean scores on various cognitive tests of participants who reported eating chocolate less than once a week and those who reported eating it at least once a week. They found “significant positive associations” between chocolate intake and cognitive performance, associations which held even after adjusting for various variables that might have skewed the results, including age, education, cardiovascular risk factors, and dietary habits.

In scientific terms, eating chocolate was significantly associated with superior “visual-spatial memory and [organization], working memory, scanning and tracking, abstract reasoning, and the mini-mental state examination.”…

And Canadians are thrilled to announce another ‘miracle food’, per the Global News:

In preliminary laboratory-based Alzheimer’s disease studies…extracts of maple syrup from Canada showed neuroprotective effects, similar to resveratrol, a compound found in red wine,” Dr. Navindra Seeram said…

Seeram, along with Toronto’s Dr. Donald Weaver, were among about two dozen scientists who presented findings on natural products and how they could fight neurodegenerative diseases at an annual American Chemical Society meeting this week.

In Weaver’s research, he found that an extract in maple syrup could stop the clumping of proteins in brain cells, specifically tau peptides. A buildup of tau proteins has been tied to brain disease in athletes in the past few years.

In other studies presented at the symposium, doctors found that an extract in pure maple syrup stopped the tangling of other proteins in the brains of rats. The same compound also helped with protecting the brain….

Of course, further studies, yadda yadda yadda. When the red wine drinkers raise your glasses, I shall return your toast with a generous chunk of dark chocolate-dipped maple candy!





Hulk Media, Inc.

I’m dying here:

The retired wrestler Hulk Hogan was awarded $115 million in damages Friday by a Florida jury in an invasion of privacy case against Gawker.com over its publication of a sex tape.

The wrestler, known in court by his legal name, Terry G. Bollea, sobbed as the verdict was announced in late afternoon, according to people in the courtroom. The jury had considered the case for about six hours.

Nick Denton, the founder of Gawker and a defendant in the case, was found personally liable, as was Albert J. Daulerio, the site’s former editor in chief.

In his closing argument in the two-week trial, the wrestler’s lawyer delivered a lacerating attack on Gawker’s culture and guiding principles.

“It’s just porn,” the lawyer, Kenneth G. Turkel, told the six-person jury in St. Petersburg, Fla., considering the claim by the 62-year-old former wrestler that he was humiliated and emotionally shattered by Gawker’s 2012 publication of a secretly recorded video of him having sex with a friend’s wife.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.





Secretly Canadian

I really do love Canada, and Canadians. Even though your plastic bumwad is worth 75 cents for every real US American dollar, it’s OK that you’re feeling a little smug about Trump. Just like national healthcare, and chip and PIN, you are ahead of us with your choice of leader, as well as the quality of your family dynasties. (But, in fairness, you did elect Harper.) So, while it’s OK that you feel good about yourselves, perhaps you could refrain from mentioning that fucking asshole Donald every time you discover (via my vile US chip-and-sign piece of shit credit card) that I’m American.

I’ll make you Canucks a deal – you don’t mention Trump, and we will never speak of this again:
yuk