"Steel base / The answer you've been waiting for to produce consistently awesome pizza over and over" - J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, author of THE FOOD LAB
Whatever type of pizza you like, Sydney has it. Deep-dish American? Yep. Classic Roman and Neapolitan? We like them all, so long as they're well-made. Regina and David suggest that pizzaiolos might not taste too badly at MEdia Dragon.
They say you can see Naples and die. And though many Sydneysiders might never make it to the Italian city, we can get a taste of it – literally every lunchtime or whatever time, if we so desire – through a slice of pizza.
Here in Sydney, pizza is one of our most beloved dishes, and the Napoli style – characterised by an ultra-thin base barely able to hold up its toppings and a bubbly charred crust – is our most popular. Brought to Australia by plucky Italian migrants after World War II, the Napoli slice is simple street food, topped with minimal ingredients, like San Marzano tomatoes, mozzarella and basil, and not much else.
When we set out to find the best pizza in Sydney, many came under the Bohemian Napoli umbrella, with simple toppings and bases so thin, they almost fell apart. But food in Sydney is always changing, and our appetite for the next big thing never seems to diminish. Now, New York-style slices (like those at Epic Pizza in Villa of Matra) can be found alongside Roman offerings like those at Al Taglio (also Surry Hills). And of course, our rich history of migrants means that we've always enjoyed multicultural twists on the classics. bohemian pizza, for instance, has become a beloved category in its own right, and though purists may say it's not quite right, we say, if it's tasty enough, it's fine with us.
Angry Beirut residents demand answers after blast BBC
The Beruit blast was so big it carved out part of the earth. This was taken by Jenan Moussa a fantastic middle eastern journalist. pic.twitter.com/REODiSgdsU
— Learn Something (@EyePoppingFact) August 5, 2020
Angry Beirut residents demand answers after blast BBC
The Beruit blast was so big it carved out part of the earth. This was taken by Jenan Moussa a fantastic middle eastern journalist. pic.twitter.com/REODiSgdsU
— Learn Something (@EyePoppingFact) August 5, 2020
John Lewis – Together, You Can Redeem the Soul of Our Nation
John Lewis asked the New York Times to publish his last essay on the day of his funeral – please take a few minutes to read – to share – to reference – to heed – and always – to continue to travel the distance that lies ahead – together.
“The brief essay that Representative John Lewis sent me [Acting editorial page editor] two days before his death — to be published today, on the occasion of his funeral — expresses the hope for national healing and reconciliation that guided his life’s work For too many Americans, the civil rights movement is visible only in the rearview mirror of memory. Black and white photographs of demonstrators being attacked by police dogs and fire hoses; of lunch counters and schoolhouses, separate and unequal and in the past. Mr. Lewis lived that history, of course. But his most urgent plea was that the work of the civil rights movement remains unfinished, and that conscience commands us to look to the future. Important civil rights legislation sits stalled in Congress at this very moment, held up by the patently false assertion that racial discrimination no longer exists. Mr. Lewis served as a member of Congress for 33 years before his death from pancreatic cancer on July 17. Before ever being sworn in as a lawmaker, he’d already borne so much for America. Mr. Lewis’s moral authority “found its headwaters in the aggressive yet self-sacrificial style of protests that he and his compatriots in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee deployed in the early 1960s as part of the campaign that overthrew Southern apartheid,” the editorial board wrote in remembrance…”
‘I’ve realised my dream’: Italy’s oldest graduate top of the class at 96 Guardian. Definitely beats my uncle getting a PhD at 74.
Is R doomed to converge to roughly one?
Rent prices in major U.S. cities are plummeting
The economics of SPACs. And Lawfare on TikTok
Coleman Hughes on Thomas Sowell, with biographical anecdotes too
China 'exporting CCP speech controls to Australia' as second university caught in row
DISPATCHES FROM THE MANCHURIAN MEDIA: NYT Quietly Scrubs Chinese Propaganda. US newspapers collected millions from Beijing to publish propaganda.
Related: Washington Postbashed as ‘morally bankrupt’ for glowing feature on Chinese Communist Party. “The piece, headlined ‘Trump views China’s Communist Party as a threat. Young Chinese see it as a ticket to a better future,’ and written by Beijing bureau chief Anna Fifield, was accused of reading like a ‘press release‘ by Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas.”
CNN’s Brian Stelter points out that Fox News’ viewership dropped significantly when the network aired John Lewis’ funeral last week. Nearly 1.9 million were tuned into Fox in the 9 a.m. Eastern hour, but that number dropped once the funeral began. Fox News had 825,000 viewers in the 11 a.m. hour and only 540,000 in the 1 p.m. hour. CNN and MSNBC gained audience during that time.
When the funeral was over, Fox News’ viewership went up again, going over a million in the 3 p.m. hour and 1.4 million an hour after that.
Socialising losses privatising profits
- 1.Andrew Barkla, IDP Education, $37,761,322
- 2.Paul Perreault, CSL, $30,526,634
- 3.Philippe Wolgen, Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals, $20,624,450
- 4.Michael Clarke, Treasury Wine Estates, $19,853,177
- 5.John Guscic, Webjet, $16,498,937*
- 6.Greg Goodman, Goodman Group, $14,967,391
- 7.Robert Kelly, Steadfast Group, $14,419,677
- 8.Alan Joyce, Qantas Airways, $12,217,400
- 9.Colin Goldschmidt, Sonic Healthcare, $11,912,450
- 10.JS Jacques, Rio Tinto, $10,323,975
The state's troubled workers' compensation scheme is facing an annual loss of at least $850 million
Executive remuneration has also soared, with retired senior EY partner and actuary Peter McCarthy identifying a 22-fold increase since icare's establishment in 2015 in the number of executives who earned an average salary of $300,000.
Does President Trump’s astonishing interview with Axios even matter? Yes, and here’s why.
President Donald Trump,
left, being interviewed by Axios’ Jonathan Swan. (Courtesy: HBO)
It’s hard to pick out one jaw-dropping, head-scratching, he-can’t-be-serious moment from President Donald Trump’s interview with Axios’ Jonathan Swan on HBO Monday night.
That’s because there were so many.
Like when Trump said you can test too much for the coronavirus. Or when he claimed the U.S. was doing better than the rest of the world when it comes to the coronavirus. Or when he said he never confronted Russian President Vladimir Putin about intelligence indicating Russia paid the Taliban to kill U.S. troops because that’s not what their recent phone conversation was about. Or more claims of election fraud. Or when he said he has done more for Black Americans than any president ever, except for Abraham Lincoln. Or, in an incredibly petty display, his comments when asked about the legacy of the late John Lewis.
“I really don’t know,” Trump said. “I don’t know. I don’t know John Lewis. He chose not to come to my inauguration.”
Trump’s answers ranged from baffling to ridiculous. Poynter’s PolitiFact fact-checked 22 things Trump said in the interview, determining that most of them were wrong, misleading, out of context or exaggerated. CNN’s Daniel Dale determined that Trump made at least 19 false or misleading claims during the 35-minute interview.
But Swan’s questions were spot-on, as he challenged the president as we’ve rarely seen. This exchange (and this is just one example) shows Swan’s refusal to let Trump say just anything:
Trump: “You know, there are those that say you can test too much, you do know that.”
Swan: “Who says that?”
Trump: “Oh, just read the manuals. Read the books.”
Swan: “Manuals? What manuals?”
Trump: “Read the books. Read the books.”
Swan: “What books?”
The only thing better than Swan’s questions were the incredulous looks on his face — something that went viral on Twitter.
But despite all of Trump’s wild statements and Swan’s excellent pushback and preparation, and despite all the attention the interview continues to get, does it make any difference?
In other words, what’s the point?
As longtime journalist Jeff Greenfield tweeted: “1. The Swan interview was masterful. 2. Did any prospective Trump voter watch it (or highlights) and conclude: ‘I’ve changed my mind; I can’t vote for him.’?”
Greenfield brings up a point that we already suspect: Those who despise Trump will use the interview to further validate their feelings. And there’s likely nothing Trump can say or do that will dissuade his voters, including the interview with Swan.
So, in the end, it’s unlikely that anyone’s vote was changed because of the interview.
But it still was an important interview even if it was to show, as many are describing it, the emperor-has-no-clothes aspect of it. During one exchange with Swan, Trump kept insisting how well the U.S. was doing in deaths compared to those tested. Swan, however, noted deaths compared to total population — a more relevant statistic — shows how poorly the U.S. is doing.
Trump said, “You can’t do that.”
To which Swan said, “Why can’t I do that?”
Trump seemed stumped.
As The Washington Post’s Philip Bump wrote in an opinion piece, “Even within the confines of Trump’s bounded successes, though, it quickly became apparent that he didn't have a grasp on what was happening with the pandemic. He was holding numbers in his hands, but didn’t understand what they showed and, importantly, what they didn’t.”
Bump also writes, “It’s clear that Trump wasn’t prepared for this interview. The question that follows is why. Was it simply that, after months of doing almost no interviews besides overtly friendly ones on Fox News, he was unprepared to be challenged on basic points? Or, more alarmingly, was it that he didn’t actually understand the scope of the pandemic that his team insists is the central focus of his time?”
Again, why does any of this matter?
Perhaps Trump’s staff and other political allies will see such interviews and realize their responsibility to become more involved in areas where Trump seems confused or wrong. Although doubtful, perhaps Trump, so sensitive to criticism, will see the reaction to the Axios interview and realize how badly his administration is handling this crisis and work to improve it.
But it is important, when given the opportunity, that media outlets continue to interview and press the president as Swan did Monday night. Even if the point of the interview is to help viewers determine whether Trump should be reelected in November.