Heh

 

A Senate problem

Greg Sargent's column on Mitch McConnell's attempt to convince every single Senator to not object to the Democrat electors in January explains it as well as any.   (He fears that if forced to vote, the Trump base will be able to identify specifically those who have abandoned Trump, and want to punish them.)  

I would think it hilarious if dimwit curly hair Rand Paul ruins this plan.  

Yes, I certainly have mixed feelings about what China is doing at the moment

I have also been meaning to say this:   an unfortunate effect of Australia feeling lucky in its avoidance of COVID 19 (the heavy lifting for which was to a large extent done at State level) is that Scott Morrison is getting approval ratings he really does not deserve.  

And yet conservatives still support him

 

 

Yay

Just happened an hour or so ago:

 

I am guessing that Parler is going off.

Also - how stupid of Republicans in some states to be assigning what someone on Twitter called cosplay alternative electors.   

Seriously, I think the party has to split for any part of it to regain credibility.
 

That Supreme Court decision

It was good news yesterday that the Supreme Court in the US stopped the Texas/Republican anti-democracy action.   

Now that so many Republicans signed up for it (completely foolishly - since what was the point of joining in on a Trump loyalty test when it was so unlikely that the case could be successful?), and yet still the Proud Boys want to destroy the GOP, we go back to the question I have been asking - how bad is the split in the GOP going to be between Trump loyalists who want to treat him indefinitely as the next president in waiting, and those who want to put an end to his era?

I am not alone

 I felt that way after only two episodes.

John Oliver on Pringles

John Oliver can be pretty funny, and his ranting about Pringles amused me this week:

 

 

 

Like him, I have questioned the point of Pringles. I'll eat them, but I agree - a well made normal chip is much nicer.

How stupid

 As someone else tweets:

He's right, I think, and as I keep saying, I reckon it spells trouble for the Republicans in the coming years, until Trump either goes to jail, has a stroke, or otherwise loses interest in trying to control the Republicans as a vanity project.

Or - I could be completely wrong.   I mean, who can tell with the weird, weird state of American politics now?

Republicans and the civil war fever

Noticed this on Twitter:

His article at Daily Kos, written in early 2019, is a good reminder about how long the wingnut Right has fantasised about getting to use their guns in a civil war.

Busy but some thoughts

The office workload is high at the moment:  it is always is at this time of year, and it always dispels any sense of a holiday mood.  Oh well.

Anyway, some various thoughts I normally would have posted separately about:

 *  By virtue of falling asleep and waking up with the TV still on, I found myself watching on SBS last Friday a documentary about Hank Williams, of all people.   Like most Australians, I guess, I knew the name, would probably recognise a couple of songs as being him, but had absolutely no idea about his life.  I would have guessed he lived into the 1960's, but he died aged 29 in 1953, seemingly of a combination of alcohol and medically administered morphine.

So yeah:  turns out he was like he was like the early country version of Amy Winehouse:  big talent, unhappy life, drugs and alcohol their ruination.  (Not that I know much about Amy Winehouse either, but I think that's the general gist.)   Fame is good for very, very few people.

* This Texas Supreme Court last ditch effort to try to stop Biden becoming President:  it's too cute by half, surely?   Given that the litigation is only against those States where Biden won, the political motivation is just too obvious - I mean, couldn't they find a Trump voting State where some technical argument might be possible about how that State had changed its voting procedures in the last year and join them in the action to try to gain some pretence of it not being purely about trying to install Trump?   

And if the Supreme Court gave it any credibility, surely it would be opening a Pandora's Box of potential future litigation. 

I see that a lot of people have noted that the 17 States joining in are basically the States of the old South, making it like a revenge attempt for losing the Civil War.   It's also been noted that its being run by the "States rights are important" party - sure, until they vote for the wrong President.

I am no expert on American constitutional law - but it seems wildly improbable that this will go anywhere.

* Assuming that this is all done and dusted soon - the biggest story of 2021 will be how seriously the Republican party splits.  Here's a bit of speculation:  the "best" thing that could happen for the party to recover would be for some QAnon, "the election was stolen" nutter to shoot or blow up up some Democrat (or even Republican who didn't endorse Trump's fake win claims) office - this would finally give the appalling "leadership" of the Party a reason to say "Enough is enough.  The election was lost legitimately and people have to stop believing it was all a conspiracy that's going to be cured by armed rebellion."

 

The very messy state of marriage in India

At the BBC, a quite long article on the mess that is inter-faith marriage in India.  Some points:

Every year, some 1,000 interfaith couples get in touch with a Delhi-based support group and seek help.

Hindu and Muslim couples usually approach Dhanak when their families deny them permission to marry. Aged between 20-30 years, the harried men and women want the group to talk to their families or help them seek legal assistance.

Among the couples who come to Dhanak, 52% are Hindu women planning to marry Muslim men; and 42% are Muslim women planning to marry Hindu men

"Both Hindu and Muslim families in India fiercely oppose interfaith marriages," Asif Iqbal, founder of Dhanak, told me.

"They will stoop to any level to stop them. Parents even smear the reputation of their daughters to dissuade her lover's family. The so-called 'love-jihad' is another weapon to discourage such relationships."

The bogey of "love-jihad", a term radical Hindu groups coined to accuse Muslim men of converting Hindu women by marriage, has returned to haunt India's interfaith relationships. 

Last week, police in northern Uttar Pradesh state held a Muslim man for allegedly trying to convert a Hindu woman to Islam - he was the first to be arrested under a new anti-conversion law that targets love-jihad. At least four other states ruled by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party are planning similar laws. Party spokespeople say such laws are required to stop "deception, fraud and misrepresentation".

"When a Hindu man marries a Muslim woman, it is always portrayed as romance and love by Hindu organisations, while when the reverse happens it is depicted as coercion," says Charu Gupta, a historian at University of Delhi, who has researched the "myth of love jihad" ....

 

Monogamous, arranged, heterosexual and same-community marriages are idealised - more than 90% of all marriages in India are arranged. Interfaith marriages are rare. One study put them at just over 2%. Many believe the spectre of love jihad is resurrected from time to time by Hindu groups for political gains.

That such strident campaigns against interfaith unions have a long and chequered history in India is well-documented.

In the backdrop of rising religious tensions in the 1920s and 1930s, Hindu nationalist groups in parts of northern India launched a campaign against "kidnapping" of Hindu women by Muslim men and demanded the recovery of their Hindu wives.

There's a lot more at the website.

 

Bind my (veggie) burger, please

For the second time, I tried making "smoky" beetroot and bean based burger patties on the weekend.  (It's the use of smoked paprika that gives them that flavour.)  The recipe I followed this time is here.    

The taste is pretty nice, and it's interesting, because I am pretty sure it's a psychological association of the colour of red with meat which gives the brain the impression that a beet burger is going to be more substantial and filling than some other forms of vegan or vegetarian burger.  

But - as with a previous attempt, using a different but similar recipe, there is a problem with getting home made veggie burgers to stick together in a similar way to meat burgers.

This seems to be a well recognised problem - see this article Tricks for Making Veggie Burgers That Won't Fall Apart, for example.  The trouble is, none of those suggestions sound very convincing to me.

I am sure the problem comes from the hard to avoid fact that frying (or baking) the patty makes the semi cooked vegetables inside release steam/water, which loosens the whole thing.   I doubt egg works, as I have never found it helps much with salmon patties, which can also suffer structural integrity issues. 

It was suggested to me yesterday, in a discussion which went on for far too long in the dog park, that perhaps the answer would be xanthan gum, which I didn't realise you could use in baked products as a thickening agent.

I also wonder whether the common ingredient you see on a lot of the imitation meat products you see lately - pea protein (or pea protein isolate) - itself binds somewhat when cooked.   Now that I look around, one other veggie burger suggest wheat gluten - so maybe just adding flour or cornflower does help?   Not sure how it would affect the taste, though.  (As a side note, I also see coconut oil in a lot of fake meat products now.  I can imagine that could help in taste and mouth feel too, so maybe it's time I start just experimenting with my own additions to a veggie burger recipe.)

I suspect that reader Tim might have an idea about this.  Help me, please.

Update:  because Google knows what I want to know, I found that Youtube suggested a Canadian video which showed a chef making a vegan burger with all the usual suspects (beans, lentils, chickpeas,  mushrooms, spices) but also oats and - I think this may make the difference - tapioca starch.

That sounds plausible to me - it would avoid the possible floury taste of wheat flour or cornflower.

Someone who watched the video guessed at the quantities:

1 cup - Black Beans

1 cup - Chickpeas

1 cup - Lentils 1 cup 

Mushrooms (cooked) 1/2 cup

Rolled Oats 1/4 cup 

Beets (Shredded) 

1/4 cup - Nutritional Yeast

1 tsp - Tapioca Starch

1/4 tsp - Salt 1/4 tsp - Pepper 1/8 tsp - Chili Powder 1 tsp - Parsley 1 tsp - Rosemary  

 

I think there was more tapioca starch than that. 

Sounds worth a try...

As read on Twitter

Count me disappointed that no one seems to remember The Andromeda Strain

Well, that was a good news science story - the Japanese satellite returning to Earth (to Woomera, no less) with a chunk of asteroid rock and dust in it.  

The only thing that slightly disappoints me is that not enough people are referencing that this is pretty much how The Andromeda Strain started, and given what 2020 has thrown up at us already, who would put it past the year to try that on....

Dubious about lab grown chicken

The Guardian has a headline:

No-kill, lab-grown meat to go on sale for first time 

but when you read the details, it sounds more like PR spin than anything else:

The cells for Eat Just’s product are grown in a 1,200-litre bioreactor and then combined with plant-based ingredients. Initial availability would be limited, the company said, and the bites would be sold in a restaurant in Singapore. The product would be significantly more expensive than conventional chicken until production was scaled up, but Eat Just said it would ultimately be cheaper.

The cells used to start the process came from a cell bank and did not require the slaughter of a chicken because cells can be taken from biopsies of live animals. The nutrients supplied to the growing cells were all from plants.

The growth medium for the Singapore production line includes foetal bovine serum, which is extracted from foetal blood, but this is largely removed before consumption. A plant-based serum would be used in the next production line, the company said, but was not available when the Singapore approval process began two years ago.

What I would like to know is:

*  how many chicken cells per piece?

*  how much could they be contributing to the taste?  [Perhaps need a blind test between a bit of their chicken made with plant filler alone, compared to a piece with the chicken cells thrown in.]

*  sounds like they certainly can't be contributing to texture. 

* is using "plant medium" to grow cells really been proved as viable?

I remain deeply skeptical about the benefits (both for the individual consumer and on the bigger question of whether it will ever reduce the number of animals raised and eaten) of this whole idea.  

I would like science journalists to show more skepticism on the matter - they seem too ready to just repeat PR releases.

Amongst the reasons to avoid it

Case studies and autopsy results are confirming that, in some cases, COVID-19 can cause such severe lung damage that patients require a lung transplant to survive.  ....

"We provide explicit evidence that COVID-19 can cause permanent damage to the lung in some patients for whom lung transplantation is the only hope for survival," said study principal investigator Dr. Ankit Bharat. He's chief of thoracic surgery and surgical director of the Northwestern Medicine Lung Transplant Program, in Chicago.

His team also discovered unique cells—called KRT17 epithelial cells—in the lung tissue of COVID-19 patients with irreversible damage. These cells have also been found in patients with end-stage pulmonary fibrosis, a deadly progressive lung disease.

The findings, the first of their kind on the issue, were published Nov. 30 in Science Translational Medicine. To date, eight COVID-19 patients have received double-lung transplants at Northwestern Medicine, the most performed at any health system in the world.

Pretty extraordinary (and not widely publicised, it seems.)

Not sure what this means for Umbrella Academy

So, mopey faced Ellen Page is now Elliot Page - and the BBC wastes no time in endorsing her transgender proclamation:

Elliot Page: Juno star announces he is transgender

As I have complained before, I already found her kind of annoyingly serious, and I would guess she very specifically wanted the second season of Umbrella Academy to give her character a lesbian awakening storyline.  (It was, in any event, pretty well handled; and the whole season was extremely enjoyable.) 

Apart from a suspicion that this will cause a further spike in unhappy teenage girls deciding their depression can be cured by deciding they are really men, my only other interest in the matter is what it means for the third season of Umbrella Academy.

Can the producers just replace her with a more likeable actress?   Please.

 

Yeah... Real suspicious

This man likes to give mini history lessons in many of his posts: 

Where's the rah rah Brexit support now?

By the way, there are tweets following that last one that say "only 8% lead for remain after all of this?"; and people responding with "wait until the effects actually start to be felt in the hip pocket, and in general inconvenience, next year." 

I have noticed, for a long time now actually, that there is a distinct lack of pro-Brexit content on the internet from the libertarian/conservative people who never said all that much about it, but were pro-Brexit because they could just feel it in their bones, or something, that "less rules the better". 

Look at Helen Dale, for example.  She promotes herself as some sort of reasonable, "classical liberal" Tory who supports Brexit yet seem to virtually never discuss it in detail in her Twitter feed.  Maybe she has written a column or two criticising the way it has been handled politically, but it seems low on her priority of interests, even though she lives there.

And calling Jason Soon:  where do you stand on this now?   You've had a pretty crook year as far as disillusionment with commentators who you formerly gave some credence to when they have gone completely stupidly pig headed on COVID 19.   (Hello, Adam "I never liked my gran anyway" Creighton - but I think there must be others.)   As far as I can recall, you indicated soft support for Brexit, like Dale, and thought Johnson would make a great PM.   Isn't it time to admit error, or do we have to wait to see economic and social costs over the next few years before you'll admit your support never had more than a mere intuitive basis?

Update:   also, not that I watch it, apart from the odd clip that turns up on Youtube, but I don't think even the clown wingnuts on Australia's Sky News at Night spend time trying to defend Brexit.   Lack of material to work with, I suspect.