Not necessarily food subjects today, but just
"things"…..
First, as I was out this morning for my cup of enthusiasm
from a coffee purveyor I noticed that there were myriad pickups (mostly of the big
boy muscle variety) brandishing snow blades. Not sure what conditions are around you, but
last night's edition near the digs brought little more than a dusting. But if you bought the darn thing, you have to
look like you use it. Most of the blades
were freshly painted if not new. Guess
we’re into a warmup period now, so hopefully it will melt without help from the blade corps. Bare pavement is good, call me old fashioned.
Next subject:
I had an enjoyable lunch the other day where I finally paid
off my friendly wager going back to the MSU/Notre Dame game last fall. As you remember the Spartans became just
another statistic in the Irish’s “perfect” regular season. It
was, as you might imagine, a bit bittersweet for my “Domer” friend given the on
and off field foibles of the team lately.
Anyway, we discussed (as you might guess) sports of one kind or another
besides football. When the conversation
got around to basketball, I said that both the women’s and men’s team (at ND)
were doing well. He then made what I took
to be a preposterous statement. As part
of the women’s discussion, he said “you know the women use a smaller ball”. Of course not, how idiotic! Not these days of Title Nine, equal rights
for both genders, “women’s rights”, and with NCAA’s legal beagles paying
attention to everything. How
stupid. Parenthetically, I THINK when
we were first in high school, women’s (or girl’s) basketball had some rule about
dribbling three times and then having to pass the ball. So we went on to talk about other things.
Well, as any responsible Irish (engineering) grad would do,
he researched the subject and found the NCAA rules for Basketball and here is
Article 8 (and I am not making this up):
Art. 8. a. (Men) The
circumference of the ball shall be within a maximum of 30 inches and a minimum
of 29½ inches.
b. (Women) The
circumference of the ball shall be within a maximum of 29 inches and a minimum
of 28½ inches.
Art. 9. a. (Men) The
weight of the ball shall not be less than 20 ounces nor more than 22 ounces.
b. (Women) The weight
of the ball shall not be less than 18 ounces nor more than 20 ounces.
In addition there are
specs for “resiliency” that call out how high the ball should bounce when
dropped from 6 feet. Men: not less than
49 inches; Women: not less than 51 inches.
In summary, the women play with a smaller, lighter, and “bouncier”
ball. I was, and remain, astonished. Isn’t this some kind of throwback (no pun
intended) rule? Do they assume the poor
little “girls” are incapable of dealing with a (only slightly) bigger ball? Brittney Griner is bigger than a lot of the
men, and has hands that could palm my head.
Theoretically then, there is a better chance for the female point guard
to chuck it in the hoop than the men (no mention of smaller baskets). And not to mention any athletic program has to pay for an inventory of both? Which begs the question:
Should they also lower the basket for women?
Not to be outdone, this Spartan did some cursory research
and found that: Track hurdles are different heights for men and women (by six
inches or so); Soccer balls are not; Softballs are not; Hockey pucks are (apparently)
not. As far as I know, a one hundred
yard dash measures the same for men and women.
What conclusion you draw from all this (other than in my
case surprise) is left to the reader.
Okay, one food item
The above mentioned lunch took place at ThaiInter, in all its
glowing yellow exterior. It was a Tuesday
and quite a few of the tables were occupied.
I had eaten there long ago (under the first management, there is now a “new”
one) and as i recall was impressed by the food and presentation. I don't think i could say that this time.. but hey, it's been a while. Service was prompt to the point that we had to
shoo the server once due to deep conversation about football, but the next time
we ordered. I suspect at lunch a lot of the people need to eat and get back to work so that's okay. Out of my reluctance to wind
up with something overly spicy and foreign to the system I took the chicken
dish of Pad Thai (with chicken), that standard Thai dish of Pho noodles. Sorry Domer I forgot your selection. Good news and slightly bad news, there was
quite a wait for the food. Bad news: there was quite a wait for the food (Ref get back to work); Good News: hopefully that means it was
prepared to order, not scooped out of a bin under heat lamps. My portion was more than I wanted/could eat,
but was fairly tasty and not hot at all.
Parenthetically (to violate some author law about using the same word
twice in a piece), the menu was arranged by number as is common in Asian
restaurants. Probably has something to
do with the fact that there are a bewildering number of choices (and then
chicken, pork, or Tofu, sometimes shrimp).
Anyway it was a fun lunch, guess if you like that kind of food, it is as
good a choice as any, but not really my main culinary focus.
Well Okay, Food Number two – which I just thought of…
The little outfit I (sometimes) work for usually gives its
employees an Amazon gift card at the holiday time period. Not a huge amount, but enough to take the
edge off a purchase. I try to use such
windfalls for an item for which I would be reluctant to shuck out the
whole freight, and don’t really need, but
something I just want. Well, I have always wanted a slow cooker and a deep fryer. Considering the versatility and frequency of
use, I am leaning toward the slow cooker (fending off the MFO “where are you
going to store something like that?” comments).
So Sparty again did some research and as usual it only results in
befuddling me. This source says Crock
Pot the best; the next likes Hamilton Beach; and so on. Over the years I have developed an affinity
for All Clad products finding that they perform extremely well, are easy to
clean, hard to abuse, and properly taken care of (Bar Keeper’s Friend) quite
attractive. However, this applies to
cookware (sauté pans, sauce pans, and the like). So I am naturally attracted to their slow
cooker (reasonably expensive, but see start of paragraph). The folks at “America’s Test Kitchens” form the
Cook’s Illustrated empire rate them “highly recommended” although there was
another model that was cheaper in the category as well. The site that liked the Crock Pot model also said
there were cracking issues with the All Clad insert. So what’s a poor consumer to do? Sigh.. (opinions/experience welcomed if any)
Okay enough ramblings for this morning.. enjoy your snowy
weekend and despite inclement weather carry the flag and
DFD
No comments:
Post a Comment