Came here to say this. Leaving grumpy because this sucks.
3 Likes
Kangaroo breeding is water dependent. When water is plentiful, they breed like rabbits, but when the droughts come their reproduction drops drastically. They’re capable of holding a developing embryo in stasis while they wait for the rain.
There are actually more kangaroos in Australia today than there were before the British invasion. The establishment of agricultural dams across the outback sent their reproductive instincts totally haywire.
The usual solution to the dryness of the meat is to cook it very fast and very rare. Roast kangaroo, hot English mustard and some good bread makes for a spectacular sandwich. 
3 Likes
I prefer rare meat with a seared crust, in general, so that is a cooking tip i’ll gladly follow. 
Sounds like a brilliant sandwich. I’ll have to try it.
Would it be a crime to sneak in a thin slice of applewood smoked aged cheddar? or would you keep it simple?
I often do a garlic and black pepper and salt dry rub before grilling red meats.
edit: oh and i got so hungry thinking about that sandwich i forgot to thank you for the fascinating info about kangaroo reproduction. I’ve heard that at times their populations can be hard to manage, probably during the booms.
camels seem to have adapted to australia as well, more camels there now then were they were imported from.
we can get camel meat here as well, it is quite good.
and crocodile, and emu and ostrich…no koala bear though!
1 Like
That all sounds good to me.
If I’m eating roo, it’s usually as a steak or a roast. For the steaks, you get a hot pan or grill, slap it down for a few minutes each side and then you’re done. Wrap in foil and let it rest a few minutes before plating.
It is a bit of a fine line to get it right; the margin between overdone and dangerously raw is measured in seconds, not minutes. Basically, you want it cooked enough so that it won’t kill you, but no more.
Roasts are a bit simpler to do. You don’t just stick a random lump of roo in the oven, though. You want something like this:
Marinades and pepper sauces are commonly used on roo, but personally I usually just prefer a bit of mustard. Restaurants tend to over-sauce it so much that you can barely taste the meat.
For the basics, see http://gourmetgame.com.au/our-recipes/cooking-guide/
2 Likes
No idea how the rabbit I had was sourced, but yes very lean. (Except in pate form). Eaten at restaraunts in DC and SF.
1 Like
Exactly. Social democracies like Denmark and Sweden are different from other so-called socialist “people’s republics” because the latter seem prone to turning into authoritarian regimes ruled by either a new commissar elite or, worse, into dynastic or crony rule where actual democracy is a sham at best. The latter kind of regime isn’t exactly living up to the ideals of socialism, and as you say tends to get dysfunctional (and often dystopic) very quickly.
1 Like
The main difference I see between capitalist and socialist dictatorships is the extent to which the latter are able to consistently bamboozle the bamboozleable about their merits, right up to the point at which they go totally tits up (Venezuela, North Korea).
And even afterward. The number of Che t-shirts for sale exceeds the number of Batista t-shirts by a pretty wide margin.
1 Like
The main reason European social democracies are different from socialist states like Venezuela is that they’re not socialist at all, they’re fundamentally free market capitalist systems with decent social welfare systems. Progressive Americans love to point to Scandinavian countries in particular as if they’re some kind of socialist paradise, but that’s not the reality at all, in fact the US actually has a more progressive taxation system than the Scandinavian countries - they have the highest VAT rates in the EU for example (25%), and in total Denmark and Sweden are both significantly more regressive than the US (the tax burden on low earners is higher, and the top earners pay a lesser % of the overall tax take), Norway less so due to the tax revenue it gets from oil (but it’s still more regressive than the US).
Now the US could certainly spend it’s money differently, starting with spending less on the military, but it’s not really valid to compare small EU countries to the US in terms of taxation, and there’s little reason to believe that the US taxing more would be successful in funding bigger government social programs, this is not backed up by the example of the Scandinavian countries (where higher taxation in the past led to very poor growth leading to the current highly regressive state of affairs).
The US is of a similar size to the entire EU, and the EU works so well partly because there’s a lot of diversity within the different nations, in fact most of its countries tax significantly lower than both the US and the Scandinavians, Germans, French, British (plus a few others). The US could learn a lot from this by devolving a lot more power to the states, reduce the power of the president and congress/senate, some states would probably be able to afford much better social welfare systems if this happened, and other states could focus on growing their economies with competitive advantages to those more successful states. The current system basically allows the bigger states to remain at the top of the pile with the smaller states living off their table scraps. I’ve never even heard anyone suggest this as an idea though (has anyone else?), so it’s even less likely than the US implementing free 3rd level or universal health care any time soon.
1 Like
Except that the opinion is that NK flipped to fascism at some point before Kim Il-Sung died.
I’ll accept Venezuela and China are somewhat socialist (and are doing it in ways that I oppose), but not North Korea
I’ve been saying this here for years. To no avail
That’s why I (and most on BB) make the distinction between social democracies and the various flavours of socialist “people’s republics” (e.g. Venezuela, Cuba, N. Korea, the late unlamented USSR) where the government’s democratic legitimacy, if paid lip service at all, is a sham. There are also examples of “free” market systems where democracy is considered a hindrance, of course (Libertarian/alt-right sugar daddy Peter Thiel is famous for opining that democracy and capitalism are incompatible)
The consensus on BB tends to recognise the value of the kind of social welfare programmes that are missing in the U.S., and if they call countries like Denmark “socialist paradises” it’s usually tongue-in-cheek mockery of how they’re portrayed by American conservatives and Libertarians.
You’re correct that the U.S. tax system is on its face more progressive than those of the Scandinavian countries. However, the American reliance on expensive and inefficient private insurers, which results in worth healthcare outcomes, is an informal regressive tax all on its own. In most civilised OECD countries, people understand the value of paying a higher VAT when they know that the funds are being applied to something that’s a basic necessity for all. In any case, the thrust of the Sanders Dems seems to be funding it in part through an income and wealth tax on individuals with more than $21-million in assets – not something that’s going to destroy growth, even in a country where middle-class people think that it’s natural for them to own 3500sqf McMansions.
You’re also correct that the disparity between geographic regions is a problem, but you can’t really equate the US with the EU on the basis of size alone. The scourge of nationalism is still strong in the individual member states of the EU in comparison to the individual U.S. states. Ask a random Parisian his nationality and you’re likely to hear “French” and not “European”; ask a random Houstonian and you’re likely to hear “American” and not “Texan.” Even the poorest nation-states in the EU would be willing go it on their own if kicked out, but the poor and backwards (and not co-incidentally red) states like Mississippi would fall even further into squalour and cry like babies if denied transfer payments from the wealthy and progressive (and not co-incidentally blue) states of the Union.
That situation in the U.S. may change as the economic duress (brought to us and accelerated by conservatives) increases. But that would only please those in the U.S. and abroad who are actively rooting for the demise of the Union.
This is actually exactly the problem as it happened, as I understand it. For decades Venezuela has been able to base pretty much its entire economy on its huge ability to export oil. After Crimea happened and the US started to flood the market, oil prices dropped and haven’t returned, so now everyone in Venezuela is working in the not-so-lucrative oil industry and they don’t have the money to import the food and goods they’ve been importing for ages.
1 Like
Yes, this is where I was going with this thought…lol
1 Like
But they are cute 
Hasenpfeffer!
1 Like
While you’re correct there is an effective extra tax on health care due to the high insurance premiums Americans face, it’s not correct to state that the only way to fix that is single-payer (and neither is it a guaranteed fix, it would very much depend on how it was implemented, compare Canada to the UK for example), one of the main reasons for the high prices is regulation preventing effective inter-state competition among insurers, reform of this area is a lot more likely to find bipartisan support than single payer as well (though without campaign finance reform even that might be difficult, given the power of the insurance lobby).
In most civilised OECD countries, people understand the value of paying a higher VAT when they know that the funds are being applied to something that’s a basic necessity for all.
No other OECD countries have VAT rates as high as Scandinavia, and people in those countries don’t all agree that paying higher VAT is a fair system (I certainly don’t), recent VAT increases in many countries have been a consequence of austerity and aren’t at all popular (the OECD VAT average has more than doubled since the 80s).
Personally I think it’s highly immoral to force those earning the least to suffer a higher tax burden when higher earners are more than capable of paying for their health care out of their own pocket, single payer + regressive taxation = low earners subsidising high earners health care, this is patently ridiculous.
In any case, the thrust of the Sanders Dems seems to be funding it in part through an income and wealth tax on individuals with more than $21-million in assets…
The notion that you could fund it solely from a tax on the very rich is pie in the sky stuff, the only way to make it work would be across the board tax increases (if for no other reason than rich people are very good at avoiding taxes), you’d have to make the US system far more regressive, and thus not only directly hit low earners but tank the economy into the bargain. Progressive-only funded single-payer rarely works well in practice, and I think the US is less likely to succeed with it than most countries, what actually tends to happen is that countries who attempt to do this end up with ballooning debt problems (not just due to health-care, higher pension/dole payments making things worse), and they have to turn towards regressive taxation to fix it.
You’re also correct that the disparity between geographic regions is a problem, but you can’t really equate the US with the EU on the basis of size alone. The scourge of nationalism is still strong in the individual member states of the EU in comparison to the individual U.S. states.
…which is why I wasn’t advocating breaking the US up, but simply devolving more power, increased devolution has been happening in many EU nations in recent years, it’s not been seriously looked at from a systemic point of view in the US since the federal system was first thought up (just small bits and pieces here and there down the years).
I’m not in principle against single-payer, but it very much depends on the economic context, which is why it would make a lot of sense to roll it out on a state by state basis as long as the budgets make sense, over time you could then expand its reach when possible.
Cute and tasty.
1 Like
Something that fluffy i never thought they’d be aggressive 
In part.
A-yup.
