Andrew Gatt’s insanely simple hack for preventing kitchen spills goes viral

Cooking up a great hack! Man’s VERY simple hack for avoiding liquid drips in the kitchen goes viral

  • TikTok user Andrew Gatt shared the trick on the video-sharing app last week 
  • After pouring the eggs into the pan, he demonstrates how to put the bowl back on the counter without any of the leftover egg dripping down the sides 
  • Instead of simply righting it, he turns it all the way upside down and rights it on the opposite side, so the egg drips back into the bowl
  • The video has been viewed 1.7 million times so far 

Amateur home cooks who are tired of kitchen messes may be relieved to learn a seriously simple kitchen hack that keeps leftover liquid from spilling onto the counter.

TikTok user Andrew Gatt shared the trick on the video-sharing app last week while frying up some scrambled eggs on the stove.

After pouring the eggs into the pan, he demonstrated how to put the used bowl back down on the counter without any of the leftover egg dripping down the sides.

Ta-da! TikTok user Andrew Gatt shared a trick on the video-sharing app last week while frying up some scrambled eggs on the stove

Ta-da! TikTok user Andrew Gatt shared a trick on the video-sharing app last week while frying up some scrambled eggs on the stove

Next steps: After pouring the eggs into the pan, he demonstrates how to put the bowl back on the counter without any of the leftover egg dripping down the sides

'If I pour this egg into this pan and turn it back this way,' he says, gesturing to indicate turning the bowl back upwards in an expected way, 'and put it down on the counter, it's gonna drip down the side'

Next steps: After pouring the eggs into the pan, he demonstrates how to put the bowl back on the counter without any of the leftover egg dripping down the sides

Andrew’s video focuses in on the stove, and as it begins, he is finishing pouring a bowl of beaten eggs into a skillet.

But before he puts the empty bowl — which just has a bit of raw egg still clinging to it — back on the counter, he pauses to narrate.

‘If I pour this egg into this pan and turn it back this way,’ he says, gesturing to indicate turning the bowl back upwards in an expected way, ‘and put it down on the counter, it’s gonna drip down the side.’

‘And it’s gonna be on the outside,’ he says.

This would me a few droplets of egg — or whatever other liquid a person might have in a bowl after pouring — would end up on the counter and need to be cleaned up.

'If I continue to turn like this, the drip will go back into the bowl,' he says

Here, he demonstrates not setting the bowl back upward, but continuing to turn it until it's entirely upside down, then righting it in the other direction

‘If I continue to turn like this, the drip will go back into the bowl,’ he says, continuing to turn it until it’s entirely upside down, then righting it in the other direction

'I can put it on the counter and I don't have an extra mess to clean up on the counter,' he says, showing how the egg doesn't spill over the rim

‘I can put it on the counter and I don’t have an extra mess to clean up on the counter,’ he says, showing how the egg doesn’t spill over the rim

But, Andrew notes, there’s another way. 

‘If I continue to turn like this, the drip will go back into the bowl,’ he says.

Here, he demonstrates not setting the bowl back upward, but continuing to turn it until it’s entirely upside down, then righting it in the other direction.

‘I can

Read more

Andrew McCarthy: Anti-Trump derangement of House Democrats has unintended consequences

The unintended consequences of the House Democrats’ anti-Trump derangement, in both infantilizing congressional oversight and foolishly pleading with the federal courts to meddle in it, are becoming manifest.

On Monday, the Justice Department declined a request by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., that it send top officials to testify at an oversight hearing — or at least what was portrayed by the House as an oversight hearing; it was depicted by DOJ as more election-year political theater.

DOJ’s position traces to two developments in July.

DOJ REJECTS NADLER’S REQUEST FOR TESTIMONY FROM SENIOR OFFICIALS CITING BARR TREATMENT

First, as I recounted here, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Mazars, which involved subpoenas issued by House committees for President Trump’s personal financial information.

The dispute over this information pitted the Congress’s broad authority to seek information for legislative purposes versus the president’s legitimate interest in carrying out his weighty responsibilities free of both undue burdens and the pretextual exploitation of Congress’s oversight powers for partisan political advantage.

T

More from Opinion

hat is, it was the type of legislative/executive tug-of-war that the political branches have worked out between themselves since a time out of memory — such that Chief Justice John Roberts was moved to observe that the case marked the first time in 233 years of American constitutional governance that the high court had been asked to resolve such a controversy.

Regrettably, rather than demur, as it should have, the justices, by a 7-2 majority (including all four of the court’s liberals, along with Roberts, and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh), ruled that courts could wade in.

In doing so, lower-court judges will now have to apply the vague guidelines the majority prescribed for refereeing these political brawls.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

The non-exhaustive list of considerations includes assessing how much Congress really needs the information in question, whether the subpoena is narrowly drawn, whether the information Congress sought was available from other sources, and so on.

That is, the courts, rather than the people’s representatives, will decide the legitimacy of the latter’s inquiry; and the courts, rather than the elected president, will decide whether the burden on the presidency is reasonable.

To be sure, the Mazars case focused on the president’s personal papers, not information generated by the executive branch, including its departments and agencies. Nevertheless, the case signaled a new era in oversight.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Henceforth, rather than grapple with a process of accommodation between the two sides, the executive branch has the option of telling lawmakers that if they really want information, they can subpoena it and try to get a court to enforce the subpoena after weighing the myriad concerns about legitimacy, overbreadth, burden, etc.

By using oversight as a political weapon and dragging the courts into it, House Democrats have made oversight more halting and complicated, concurrently diminishing Congress’s control over this core constitutional function of the legislative branch.

CLICK HERE TO

Read more