Do we really need a scientific formula for the perfect bacon sandwich?

Should it be slithery or scrunchy, glutinous or grilled? The answer, British scientists say, may be divined by a formula: N = C + {fb(cm) · fb(tc)} + fb(Ts) + fc · ta.

That is the scientific answer to the question: what makes the perfect bacon sandwich?

And, no, it is not April 1.

Researchers at Leeds University spent more than 1,000 hours testing 700 variants on the traditional bacon sandwich, which many Britons refer to as a bacon butty (eschewing the term sandwich, said to have been coined to honor the fourth Earl of SandwichÂ’s habit of eating meat between slices of bread around 1762).

For Britons, butties come in a variety of guises — chip butties (French fries between slices of bread), crisp butties (ditto with potato chips) or even sugar butties, which are self-explanatory. None are viewed as especially healthful.

Bacon and sugar?????

And the results?

The research combined four types of cooking, using grills, pans and ovens, three kinds of oil and four types of bacon — smoked, unsmoked, streaky and thick cut — to establish the preferences of 50 tasters in such matters as the butty’s tactile and aural crunchiness. The study also considered a broad range of condiments (like ketchup and brown sauce) and spreads.

It concluded that the best bacon butties were made with crisply grilled, not-too-fat bacon between thick slices of white bread.

Eureka!

“We often think that it’s the taste and smell of bacon that consumers find most attractive,” Dr. Clayton said in a news release. “But our research proves that texture and sound is just, if not more, important.”

Crispy bacon, thick bread? Sounds like breakfast to me!

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

Talk about false consciousness -- some people really think they are better human beings because of how their meat is killed.

Burger King, of all places, has taken the biggest initiative to pull savagery off the menu. After several years of consulting animal welfare groups, the chain last month announced significant changes in the way it buys meat.

Starting now, 2 percent of Burger King's eggs will come from cage-free birds; that proportion will rise to 5 percent by the end of this year. The chain also will buy 10 percent of its pork from suppliers who refuse to keep their animals in crates; that percentage will rise to 20 by 2008.

Burger King also has told suppliers it will prioritize buying chickens that have been killed humanely, with a "controlled atmosphere" technique that is already in use in Europe.

The effect of these measures together, animal welfare groups say, is enormous. First, Burger King's actions will increase awareness about the way meat is routinely produced. If more Americans knew about these methods, the factory farms that sell more than 95 percent of U.S. meat surely would be pressured into changing.

* * *

Most promising of all, Burger King has announced it will continue its ongoing discussions with animal welfare experts. The Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals both worked closely with the chain to develop the policy changes.

In keeping that conversation going, Burger King shows that ethics can coincide with good business. Few consumers, after all, need or want animals tortured in the service of lunch.

I'm sorry, but if your conscience is that prickly concerning your food, how can you justify eating meat? After all, it is still being killed. And if you are still willing to kill to obtain your food, is it really cruelty free? Either become a vegetarian or quit your bitchin' about it.

Personally, I want my meal to have been water-boarded, dressed in women's underwear and terrorized by dogs before it is dispatched with a single bullet to the back of the head. I'll take two Abu Ghraib burgers to go, please.

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

We all saw how accurate this prediction was last year?

A top researcher predicted a "very active" 2007 Atlantic hurricane season Tuesday, with at least nine hurricanes and a good chance one will hit the U.S. coast. The forecast by William Gray predicts 17 named storms this year, five of them major hurricanes. The probability of a major storm making landfall on the U.S. coast this year is 74 percent, compared with the average of 52 percent over the past century, he said.

The forecast, issued two months before the hurricane season starts, is virtually identical to the one Gray issued before the 2006 season, which turned out far quieter than he and others had feared.

"Our forecast skill does improve as we get closer to the start of the season," said Phil Klotzbach, a member of Gray's team at Colorado State University. "Stay tuned."

Last May, Gray's team forecast 17 named storms in 2006, including nine hurricanes, five of them major ones, and an 81 percent chance that at least one major hurricane would hit the U.S. Scientists with the National Hurricane Center and two other National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration agencies issued similar predictions.

Instead, there were 10 named storms in 2006 and five hurricanes, two of them major ones, in what was considered a "near normal" season. None of those hurricanes hit the U.S. Atlantic coast — only the 11th time that has occurred since 1945.

I'd argue this constitutes a wild @$$ guess -- and will treat it as such.

Sort of like global warming.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

The US is investigating counterfeiting by the North Korean government – an activity that dates back to at least the mid 1990s. how do we know? Because the UN has been in possession of some of the faux cash since 1995 – but conveniently failed to tell the United States government.

As federal investigators examine how the leading U.N. agency in North Korea illegally kept 35 counterfeit American $100 bills in its possession for 12 years, documents indicate that more officials were aware of the existence of the fake currency — and earlier — than the agency has reported.

Spokesmen for the United Nations Development Program have said top officials at the agency's New York headquarters learned in February that their safe in Pyongyang contained the counterfeit bills and immediately reported it to American authorities. But several documents shown recently to The New York Sun indicate that higher-ups knew much earlier that the safe held counterfeit money.

The documents are part of a worldwide reporting system that allows the agency to keep track of the contents of its office safes.

Where did the cash come from?

The safe contents record shown to the Sun includes such items as a "petty cash box," its keys, a zip drive containing finance-software data backup, an official U.N. stamp, identity cards, a log for checks, and a long list of checkbooks in euros, dollars, and North Korean won. One line in the record itemizes $3,500 in " Counterfeit US Dollar Bank Notes (given by FTB)."

A UNDP spokesman, David Morrison, declined to provide the Sun with the agency's rules governing the tracking of safe contents and how regional offices report on them, citing the ongoing probe.

Mr. Morrison explained the presence of the counterfeit currency in the safe by saying an unidentified Egyptian consultant did some work for the UNDP in North Korea and as payment was given a check equal to $3,500 in North Korean won. The Egyptian consultant then cashed the check at the Foreign Trade Bank in Pyongyang, received American bills, and left the country.

Once abroad, the Egyptian consultant tried to deposit the bills, but was told they were suspect. He then returned the bills to the UNDP office in Pyongyang, where they were kept since 1995 in a safe, unnoticed, until February, the spokesman said.

Unnoticed – except for being recorded on all those inventory forms.

US prosecutors are seeking to interview at least 13 UN officials – who are resisting those interviews based upon questions of diplomatic immunity and legal representation.

Indictments must be sought – against officials of Communist North Korea, as well as against those UN officials who knew about this counterfeiting ring and covered it up for over a decade. And I agree with the assessment of Captain Ed Morrissey.

If federal prosecutors can return an indictment and confirm this activity, the UN will face a much tougher time in the US than it did in the Oil-for-Food Programme scandal. In that case, they turned a blind eye and enabled Saddam Hussein to enrich himself through a vast kickback scheme. If the UN helped hide North Korea's counterfeiting ring, that is a direct insult to our sovereignty, as well as our hospitality.

It would be an insult that we cannot afford to let pass. If the UN does not immediately fire everyone involved in this scandal and revoke their immunity, then we must cut off all funds for the UN and create a timetable for withdrawal from this thoroughly corrupt organization. We have no need of a debating society whose members transform refugee camps into seraglios, who stuff the pockets of dictators with money meant for those they oppress, and who actively assist other nations in undermining our currency. If the UN fails to cooperate, it's time to push Turtle Bay into the water and bid adieu to the last of the Cold War anachronisms.

Actually, I’d take matters a bit further – given that the evidence is clear that UN officials were more interested in protecting the NorK dictatorship than the primary financial supporter of the UN and the host of its headquarters, it is appropriate to take at least some of those actions, if not all of them. It is time for the UN to join the League of Nations on the garbage heap of history, a fate which this corrupt organization deserves even more than its impotent predecessor.

H/T Stix Blog

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, LaTogaStrappata®, Rightlinx, third world county, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 810 words, total size 7 kb.

Talk about suits with no merit – this qualifies.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has tossed out a lawsuit filed by barbecue magnate Maurice Bessinger accusing several grocery store chains of unfair trade by not selling his sauce on their shelves.

Nine chains with over 3,000 stores between them removed BessingerÂ’s mustard-based barbecue sauce in 2000 after he raised the Confederate flag over his restaurants in protest of the General AssemblyÂ’s decision to take the Confederate flag off the top of the Statehouse dome.

News stories at the time also pointed out Bessinger distributed literature at his restaurants with titles like “The South Was Right” and “Myths of American Slavery.”

Bessinger sued Bi-Lo, Food Lion, Harris Teeter, Kroger, Publix, Wal-Mart, SamÂ’s Club, Winn-Dixie and Piggly Wiggly stores, asking for $50 million. He said they violated his right to free speech under the stateÂ’s Unfair Trade Practices Act by removing his barbecue sauce.

The state Supreme Court recently upheld rulings by two lower courts that BessingerÂ’s case did not have enough merit to be heard by a jury.

Bessinger attorney Glen Winston LaForce Sr. said the ruling ends BessingerÂ’s legal fight.

“Mr. Bessinger is still proudly flying the Confederate flag. He stood for his principles, and I’m proud of him for that,” LaForce said.

I’m sorry, but there is no merit to the lawsuit from a constitutional standpoint – after all, no state action is involved in the actions of the stores. And I don’t see how the decision of the stores can run afoul of a state statute – after all, these stores have every right not to associate themselves with the speech of Mr. Bessinger. Indeed, I’d argue that any statute that required them to do so would constitute a violation of THEIR rights under the First Amendment.

Posted by: Greg at 09:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.