One of the abiding myths about Britain is that all British people drink tea, Coffee has been the most popular non-alcoholic beverage in the UK for some time. Tea may still be the most popular among the old in the UK. I am very old and I dislike coffee intensely,
(Another myth is that of British "warm beer." Decent bitter served not ice cold can be had but young British people mostly drink swill like Budweiser and Stella.)
There is no secret to making good tea--boiling water and tea are the only necessities.
Eric, I think you need some perspective on the water situation that you should already have being from a city watching kids get sick from drinking water out of old lead pipes. I haven't drank a single drop from the taps where I live in years. Sometimes it comes out brown and smells. The company in charge of the water in our town claims it's safe while sometimes providing- wait for it!- bottled water! I suppose you'll say the solution is to fix the plumbing. Well, until landlords, water companies, and towns do this, I'll save my environmental efforts until the pipes give out something safe and desirable to drink.
I just now put 253 ml of cold tap water in a ceramic cup and put it in my microwave for 90 seconds. At the end I measured the temperatures near the top and near the bottom with my instant read thermometer. It was 180F near the top and 155F near the bottom. Of course, the water could be stirred to even out the temperature.
I am not a tea drinker, but my wife is. There is always a kettle on the stove, so it is just as easy to use that.
It had to be the rhomboid tweet. Why? Because (believe it or not) in the wee hours of the morning I was wondering what the adjectival form of rhomboid is. (It's "rhomboidal.) I'm odd that way.
Not too long ago my wife and I stopped buying bottled water, her before me but I came around. We both have nice water bottles to carry around which can be expensive. Given the environmental and health issues with plastic and understanding the cost of refillable, would it make sense for the city or state to provide portables to all (if not free, at a discounted price) before banning single use bottles? There would of course be an up front cost but “short term pain, long term gain” might apply. I also know that the state and city seem to be hurting for money, so this might be a pipe dream, but when I see pictures of the “plastic islands” floating in the oceans I think….why not?
I never understood why anyone in Chicago bought bottled water. Gallon and larger size bottles probably have some use, particularly distilled or deionized water. Banning bottled water might be a good idea, but there is zero reason for the taxpayers to buy reusable bottles for people that are currently paying tens to thousands of times more for their throw away water bottles.
I was also a huge proponent of tap water -- hate the plastic proliferation and ridiculous expense of bottled water. Then, after enjoying the tap water in my north side 2-flat for 10+years, I took up the City on the offer to test my water for lead and found it had really high concentrations and filtering is recommended. Although I figure any damage to my brain is long done, I now have 2 plastic (ugh) pitchers, spend ~$200/year on un-recyclable (ugh) filters, and I spend time every weekend to filter 8 gallon jugs (more plastic) of water for weekly use. It drives me nuts but I certainly can't afford to replace all the pipes. I just resign myself to it and won't rent to anyone with small children for whom lead is really problematic. Sigh.....
(Someday I'll share my education about the lead levels I discovered in my backyard soil that I'd been growing veggies in for years.)
This is so disturbing on a variety of levels. I have lived in the "Village" for more than 40 years and walk by this spot almost daily. And now it became a tourist destination! The insidiousness of social media is demonstrated with this as a prime example. Did this same person want to come to our house and take a picture of the initials we put in the sidewalk? Also who cares - are people that clearly bored with visiting the Art Institute or Cloud Gate or Garfield Park Conservatory that they want to come and see a sidewalk marking? I guess the answer is yes? Then of course someone filled it in to get more attention - so insane!
Whenever I see or hear a news report about this stupid subject, I can only think how much a waste of time all this hoopla has become. Every news report, newspaper accounts and social media post after post after post. I’m as much of a jokester as the next guy, but come on…give it a rest. If that was my house that was getting disturbed, and garbage being strewn about I’d be out there at zero dark thirty with a sledge hammer.
I think the Sox moving to The 78 is generally a good idea if, like you say, the sate/city doesn't spend out money on it they way they did the park by the freeway (I really have no idea what the current official name is) and the hideous Soldier Field.
But the area also needs transportation infrastructure improvements that should be funded by the Sox and the developers to make it easy to get there without a car and to improve pedestrian and biking experience in the area. Roosevelt needs a total redesign to make it better for buses, peds and bikes/scooters. It is a speedy highway in its current form.
Before the stadium is built there needs to be a funding an construction of the proposed Red Line stop at 15th & Clark and a station built on the site for Metra trains. That Metra line will eventually also serve trains from Orland Park when other infrastructure projects are complete, so that would serve a lot of South Siders and southern suburban fans. There also needs to be an improvement in bus service on that stretch of Clark, where it is currently infrequent and has no weekend service. And I think there should also be consideration of building an Orange Line stop at 18th & Clark (I don't know how possible this is).
Do all this and you could have an urban ballpark/entertainment center with better connectivity than Wrigley. But too often in this city we are promised infrastructure upgrades as part of projects like this and then we don't get them or they are half-assed. What absolutely should not happen is a stadium with a huge amount of parking. That would make the area unbearable with traffic.
i'm in gen'l agmt with EZ's position on the possibility of bldg a new ballpark for the White Sox in The 78. when i first heard of the initiative, i thought it was ... let's say, not sensible. but the more i've heard and read about it, the more i like the idea. it could be a boon [or a boondoggle] for the City.
i agree with no public financing/subsidies, other than improvements to Roosevelt Rd and 18th St, and follow thru on the Red Line stop at 15th. the WS shd not have to bear any of that cost. i agree it shd have a dome - but rhy shd the WS have to bear the incremental cost of a dome, if the dome's primary purpose is to make events feasible when the WS aren't playing there, especially in the off-season? if the WS are responsbile for the incremental cost of a dome, they shd be getting a cut of the revenues from non-WS baseball events.
and i disagree that it's the WS' responsbility to plan for the repurposing of GR Field. The WS need to be part of the solution - but i think it's primarily the repsonsibility of the City and the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority.
This is the first big Chicago development project in some time that's gotten me excited, and not just because the Sox could use a major mojo injection. I think it makes a lot of sense in the abstract. New Comiskey was developed at just the wrong time. It was well after the dismal dome era, thankfully, but just before the Camden Yards-style urban charm thing came into its own. We can finally fix that historic boo-boo and inject vitality into a South Loop area that, while very nice, is sort of dead, a bedroom community on the edge of downtown. I hope Johnson has the will and acumen to see it through responsibly, assuming it's feasible and a real possibility.
Congrats to your parents! As someone married for 51 years I agree that respect is a key element of a long happy marriage.
It also explains my pet peeve at marriage ceremonies when the bride and groom push a piece of cake into each other faces. This display of public disrespect does not bode well for the future.
I wonder if there is a study that records how long cake pushing marriages last versus non pushing ones.
My wife and I just celebrated our 45th anniversary and I remember like it was yesterday her admonishing me beforehand to NOT do that cake thing. I think it’s dumb anyway. And gross.
We had all electric in my house in SC (natural gas lines were not even run in our subdivision). I didn't mind cooking on electric so much but the electric water heater and dryer were expensive to operate. No furnace, only a heat pump (basically air conditioner works in reverse).
The thing I wonder about switching to all electric up here is whether it will actually be better for the environment. After all, we produce the electricity largely with - wait for it - natural gas! Is it a big environmental savings or 6 of one, half dozen of the other?
52% of the electricity in Illinois is generated by nuclear, 22% coal, 13% gas, 12% wind, 1% other. Environmentally, gas is better than coal, wind is better than gas, and nukes are best. Requiring a transition to electric for any fossil fuel will require massive new generation capacity. in addition to that required to replace the current coal and gas. In my opinion nukes are the best solution, but they are opposed by activists and weak-kneed politicians (like our governor).
this govt meddling is unlikely to achieve its stated goal of reducing GHG emissions. i'm assuming Marc M's post [below] is accurate as to the %'s of each form of fuel for electricity generation. so highly unlikely that banning gas stoves will have a net positive impact on GHG emissions. and, as MM also states, nuclear capacity is being reduced [wrong-headed], and there is not enough new, clean electric generating capacity coming online.
Am I the only one who can't see the visual tweet of the week winner? I've look at both the email and web versions of the PS and there is a blank where the winner should be.
Yeah, I'm stuck in pre-2017 America. Found this in Wikipedia about the change: The move drew some controversy. Los Angeles Times columnist Bill Plaschke welcomed the team to town by writing "We. Don't. Want. You.", noting that "The Chargers aren't even the second team in town behind the Rams. The Chargers aren't even the third team of interest here behind the Rams and Raiders. The Chargers might not even be in the top-five favorite NFL teams in Los Angeles." At a game at the Staples Center between the Los Angeles Clippers and Lakers, the Chargers' logo was shown on a scoreboard and was "booed heartily".Chargers tight end Jeff Cumberland was also "jeered" by the crowd when featured on the big screen.
The photo of Eric’s parents is a work of art (is that Tuileries? Luxembourg Gardens?) What a blessing to have such a remarkable color pic from that time!
It seems like the elimination of gas appliances for electric, and the development of a new White Sox park, would be perfect subjects for an independent financial analysis. I mention this because, as reported in the Sun-Times, Chicago has such an office headed by an independent financial analyst. However it seems alderman Jason Ervin wants to replace that person with one of his own. The analyst has a 4 year term that expires in June. Since he won’t resign, Ervin has placed him on administrative paid leave. Ervin won’t say hy he wants to replace him, or why he can’t wait until June. Something smells about this.
One of the abiding myths about Britain is that all British people drink tea, Coffee has been the most popular non-alcoholic beverage in the UK for some time. Tea may still be the most popular among the old in the UK. I am very old and I dislike coffee intensely,
(Another myth is that of British "warm beer." Decent bitter served not ice cold can be had but young British people mostly drink swill like Budweiser and Stella.)
There is no secret to making good tea--boiling water and tea are the only necessities.
Boiling water is fine if it's black tea. But for green or white tea the water should be around 175-180º.
Eric, I think you need some perspective on the water situation that you should already have being from a city watching kids get sick from drinking water out of old lead pipes. I haven't drank a single drop from the taps where I live in years. Sometimes it comes out brown and smells. The company in charge of the water in our town claims it's safe while sometimes providing- wait for it!- bottled water! I suppose you'll say the solution is to fix the plumbing. Well, until landlords, water companies, and towns do this, I'll save my environmental efforts until the pipes give out something safe and desirable to drink.
I just now put 253 ml of cold tap water in a ceramic cup and put it in my microwave for 90 seconds. At the end I measured the temperatures near the top and near the bottom with my instant read thermometer. It was 180F near the top and 155F near the bottom. Of course, the water could be stirred to even out the temperature.
I am not a tea drinker, but my wife is. There is always a kettle on the stove, so it is just as easy to use that.
It had to be the rhomboid tweet. Why? Because (believe it or not) in the wee hours of the morning I was wondering what the adjectival form of rhomboid is. (It's "rhomboidal.) I'm odd that way.
I prefer rhomboiditudinous. I think both are acceptifiable though.
Not too long ago my wife and I stopped buying bottled water, her before me but I came around. We both have nice water bottles to carry around which can be expensive. Given the environmental and health issues with plastic and understanding the cost of refillable, would it make sense for the city or state to provide portables to all (if not free, at a discounted price) before banning single use bottles? There would of course be an up front cost but “short term pain, long term gain” might apply. I also know that the state and city seem to be hurting for money, so this might be a pipe dream, but when I see pictures of the “plastic islands” floating in the oceans I think….why not?
I never understood why anyone in Chicago bought bottled water. Gallon and larger size bottles probably have some use, particularly distilled or deionized water. Banning bottled water might be a good idea, but there is zero reason for the taxpayers to buy reusable bottles for people that are currently paying tens to thousands of times more for their throw away water bottles.
Growing up in Chicago, we always brought a couple gallons of tap water to gift when we visited South Suburban friends.
I was also a huge proponent of tap water -- hate the plastic proliferation and ridiculous expense of bottled water. Then, after enjoying the tap water in my north side 2-flat for 10+years, I took up the City on the offer to test my water for lead and found it had really high concentrations and filtering is recommended. Although I figure any damage to my brain is long done, I now have 2 plastic (ugh) pitchers, spend ~$200/year on un-recyclable (ugh) filters, and I spend time every weekend to filter 8 gallon jugs (more plastic) of water for weekly use. It drives me nuts but I certainly can't afford to replace all the pipes. I just resign myself to it and won't rent to anyone with small children for whom lead is really problematic. Sigh.....
(Someday I'll share my education about the lead levels I discovered in my backyard soil that I'd been growing veggies in for years.)
This is so disturbing on a variety of levels. I have lived in the "Village" for more than 40 years and walk by this spot almost daily. And now it became a tourist destination! The insidiousness of social media is demonstrated with this as a prime example. Did this same person want to come to our house and take a picture of the initials we put in the sidewalk? Also who cares - are people that clearly bored with visiting the Art Institute or Cloud Gate or Garfield Park Conservatory that they want to come and see a sidewalk marking? I guess the answer is yes? Then of course someone filled it in to get more attention - so insane!
Whenever I see or hear a news report about this stupid subject, I can only think how much a waste of time all this hoopla has become. Every news report, newspaper accounts and social media post after post after post. I’m as much of a jokester as the next guy, but come on…give it a rest. If that was my house that was getting disturbed, and garbage being strewn about I’d be out there at zero dark thirty with a sledge hammer.
https://youtu.be/huiuUxdBmKw?si=g-SApnMdtMQgbCXI
I think the Sox moving to The 78 is generally a good idea if, like you say, the sate/city doesn't spend out money on it they way they did the park by the freeway (I really have no idea what the current official name is) and the hideous Soldier Field.
But the area also needs transportation infrastructure improvements that should be funded by the Sox and the developers to make it easy to get there without a car and to improve pedestrian and biking experience in the area. Roosevelt needs a total redesign to make it better for buses, peds and bikes/scooters. It is a speedy highway in its current form.
Before the stadium is built there needs to be a funding an construction of the proposed Red Line stop at 15th & Clark and a station built on the site for Metra trains. That Metra line will eventually also serve trains from Orland Park when other infrastructure projects are complete, so that would serve a lot of South Siders and southern suburban fans. There also needs to be an improvement in bus service on that stretch of Clark, where it is currently infrequent and has no weekend service. And I think there should also be consideration of building an Orange Line stop at 18th & Clark (I don't know how possible this is).
Do all this and you could have an urban ballpark/entertainment center with better connectivity than Wrigley. But too often in this city we are promised infrastructure upgrades as part of projects like this and then we don't get them or they are half-assed. What absolutely should not happen is a stadium with a huge amount of parking. That would make the area unbearable with traffic.
i'm in gen'l agmt with EZ's position on the possibility of bldg a new ballpark for the White Sox in The 78. when i first heard of the initiative, i thought it was ... let's say, not sensible. but the more i've heard and read about it, the more i like the idea. it could be a boon [or a boondoggle] for the City.
i agree with no public financing/subsidies, other than improvements to Roosevelt Rd and 18th St, and follow thru on the Red Line stop at 15th. the WS shd not have to bear any of that cost. i agree it shd have a dome - but rhy shd the WS have to bear the incremental cost of a dome, if the dome's primary purpose is to make events feasible when the WS aren't playing there, especially in the off-season? if the WS are responsbile for the incremental cost of a dome, they shd be getting a cut of the revenues from non-WS baseball events.
and i disagree that it's the WS' responsbility to plan for the repurposing of GR Field. The WS need to be part of the solution - but i think it's primarily the repsonsibility of the City and the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority.
This is the first big Chicago development project in some time that's gotten me excited, and not just because the Sox could use a major mojo injection. I think it makes a lot of sense in the abstract. New Comiskey was developed at just the wrong time. It was well after the dismal dome era, thankfully, but just before the Camden Yards-style urban charm thing came into its own. We can finally fix that historic boo-boo and inject vitality into a South Loop area that, while very nice, is sort of dead, a bedroom community on the edge of downtown. I hope Johnson has the will and acumen to see it through responsibly, assuming it's feasible and a real possibility.
Congrats to your parents! As someone married for 51 years I agree that respect is a key element of a long happy marriage.
It also explains my pet peeve at marriage ceremonies when the bride and groom push a piece of cake into each other faces. This display of public disrespect does not bode well for the future.
I wonder if there is a study that records how long cake pushing marriages last versus non pushing ones.
My wife and I just celebrated our 45th anniversary and I remember like it was yesterday her admonishing me beforehand to NOT do that cake thing. I think it’s dumb anyway. And gross.
First of all, congrats to you and your wife. Second, great decision at the start of your marriage.
I was lucky enough to be married on my grandparents’ 63 anniversary. And they lived long enough for Paul Harvey to announce their 70th.
We had all electric in my house in SC (natural gas lines were not even run in our subdivision). I didn't mind cooking on electric so much but the electric water heater and dryer were expensive to operate. No furnace, only a heat pump (basically air conditioner works in reverse).
The thing I wonder about switching to all electric up here is whether it will actually be better for the environment. After all, we produce the electricity largely with - wait for it - natural gas! Is it a big environmental savings or 6 of one, half dozen of the other?
I have heard that most of Illinois' electricity comes from nuclear and coal. No greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear.
Nuclear is being phased out (sadly) and coal plants are being converted to natural gas because it is so much cheaper
There is controversial move back towards nuclear (fission) and (hopefully) soon to fusion.
Fusion is still a pipe dream!
It’s only 20 years away now! I first read that in 1970, and most every year since. They’re sticking with that story.
52% of the electricity in Illinois is generated by nuclear, 22% coal, 13% gas, 12% wind, 1% other. Environmentally, gas is better than coal, wind is better than gas, and nukes are best. Requiring a transition to electric for any fossil fuel will require massive new generation capacity. in addition to that required to replace the current coal and gas. In my opinion nukes are the best solution, but they are opposed by activists and weak-kneed politicians (like our governor).
this govt meddling is unlikely to achieve its stated goal of reducing GHG emissions. i'm assuming Marc M's post [below] is accurate as to the %'s of each form of fuel for electricity generation. so highly unlikely that banning gas stoves will have a net positive impact on GHG emissions. and, as MM also states, nuclear capacity is being reduced [wrong-headed], and there is not enough new, clean electric generating capacity coming online.
Am I the only one who can't see the visual tweet of the week winner? I've look at both the email and web versions of the PS and there is a blank where the winner should be.
I can’t see it either.
Nor I.
Me either ( me neither?!)
The latter.
I screwed that up! You can see all the all the entries and the vote totals here https://ericzorn.substack.com/i/140839954/ya-gotta-see-these-tweets and I will be correct the online version and post a correction next week
Lots of things besides water come in plastic bottles. So are our juices, teas, and soft drinks also full of plastic bits?
YES
And I would think that most of the other stuff is more corrosive to the plastics, so maybe they have even more.
Yeesh!
The Chargers are in Los Angeles now
Yeah, I'm stuck in pre-2017 America. Found this in Wikipedia about the change: The move drew some controversy. Los Angeles Times columnist Bill Plaschke welcomed the team to town by writing "We. Don't. Want. You.", noting that "The Chargers aren't even the second team in town behind the Rams. The Chargers aren't even the third team of interest here behind the Rams and Raiders. The Chargers might not even be in the top-five favorite NFL teams in Los Angeles." At a game at the Staples Center between the Los Angeles Clippers and Lakers, the Chargers' logo was shown on a scoreboard and was "booed heartily".Chargers tight end Jeff Cumberland was also "jeered" by the crowd when featured on the big screen.
Tweets were pretty funny this week!! A couple of them even made me laugh out loud!!
A Great round of Tweets! Voted for all but 2-on the bottom.
The photo of Eric’s parents is a work of art (is that Tuileries? Luxembourg Gardens?) What a blessing to have such a remarkable color pic from that time!
He said Rome, I think.
D’oh! I was so distracted by the photo’s content that I failed to read the full caption! Thanks for the correction.
Your parents are always just heartwarming. And I want your Mom's jacket.
It seems like the elimination of gas appliances for electric, and the development of a new White Sox park, would be perfect subjects for an independent financial analysis. I mention this because, as reported in the Sun-Times, Chicago has such an office headed by an independent financial analyst. However it seems alderman Jason Ervin wants to replace that person with one of his own. The analyst has a 4 year term that expires in June. Since he won’t resign, Ervin has placed him on administrative paid leave. Ervin won’t say hy he wants to replace him, or why he can’t wait until June. Something smells about this.
Everything smells about anything any alderman does. They're as crooked as Al Capone!
How does Ervin have the power to lay off individual city employees other than within his own aldermanic office?
It's Chicago, so aldermen get away with anything they want to!