Jun 27 2008
Jeff Wright at the Rocky Mountain News has written a great article on what Ron Paul has done for the Republican Party and why this service is so desperately needed.
Well worth a read.
Jun 27 2008
Now before you leftists get crazy angry at all conservatives, allow me to say that many of us have never denied there is a great deal messed up with our current health care system. Our point has been that the government, as is usually the case, is not the answer.
The government is not known for making wise spending decisions. When the government is given a task, it seems that their answer is always to throw more money at the problem. When they run out of allocated funds, rather than question their current spending habits, they want to raise taxes. “We need a program. We have no money. Give us money.” It’s simple, but not the solution for health care, public schools, or…well…anything else. I’m not sure I have the answer, but I’m pretty sure the answer involves getting rid of insurance companies. Let me tell you what happened to me yesterday.
I have obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). What this means is when I hit a certain stage of sleep, my throat relaxes so effectively, it closes off my airway. This makes it rather difficult for my involuntary bodily functions to operate. The oxygen levels in my blood drop significantly (also known as “O2 Sats”), which is not good for me. Part of the reason I have sleep apnea is because I carry extra weight. I’ve modified my eating habits in order to help lose the weight, but the greatest invention to help us OSA-sufferers is the CPAP machine. (CPAP stands for Continuously Positive Air Pressure.)
What this machine does is blow air up my nose all night, keeping my airways open. Sounds uncomfortable, and there are some people who really can’t get used to it, but I love this machine for several reasons. First off, it helps me breathe. Anything that helps me breathe is good in my book. Second, it’s white noise. Not a lot of noise, mind you, but enough that it definitely helps Kim and I sleep. When I’m not there, she has a hard time sleeping without the noise. Finally, I’ve conditioned myself in sort of a Pavlovian manner with this mask. When I put the mask on, my body knows it’s time to sleep. Used to take me hours to get to sleep. Now, I don’t know how long it takes me, but my guess is approximately 20 minutes. I love this machine, and have had relatively few problems with it, even when we went to Scotland.
However, things do wear out, no matter how awesome they are. My molded plastic mask is one of those things. It’s cracked in a couple places, and since I’ve had it for about 4 years, I think it’s time for a new one. I call my insurance company, and they tell me I need to see my Primary Care Physician to get a prescription for a new mask. No problem. I go see him, he congratulates me on my impending fatherhood, and I get my prescription. No muss, no fuss.
The doctor’s office steers me toward a certain healthcare provider, to whom they fax my prescription, and tells me I should wait for a call from them. I get the call from them, and they’re asking me which machine I wanted to order. This sort of takes me aback, since the prescription was not for a new machine. I don’t need a new machine. Most importantly, I don’t want to pay the 50% copay for a new machine! I just need a new mask, I tell her. She is sort of surprised, but switched gears pretty fast. She wanted to know what model of mask I needed, and what model of machine I had, so I could be sure I got the correct filters. I had to call her back the next day so I could find the information on my CPAP machine. When I let her know everything the following day, she let me know how much this was all going to run me with my 50% copay for durable medical equipment.
$113.
Now, what this means is that they’re going to bill me $113, and then will turn around and bill my insurance company $113. For those with the same public school education I got, I’ve already done the math. The cost for a mask, a hose to connect it, and 3 filters (2 disposable, 1 reusable) is $226 total. Doesn’t seem too bad, right? After all, this thing helps me breathe. You really can’t put a price on that, can you? No, but others can.
In my research to figure out which model of mask I already had so I could just get a replacement, I discovered a site that seemed to be an online store for CPAP machines and accessories. The mask itself cost $69.99 from this online store. I checked with their policies, and they don’t even deal with insurance companies. I was sort of flabbergasted at this. I went through the site and found everything I was planning on ordering from the healthcare provider and added it all to my shopping cart. The filters were the same but came in a 2-pack for the reusables and a 6-pack for the disposables, and the hose I was getting was one of the top-quality hoses with less internal friction resulting in less noise. So I’m getting better and more, and the total cost was……get this…..
$108.
That’s right. Not $108 for me, $108 for the insurance company. $108 total! Now, explain to me how a company can sell the same equipment, brand new, for twice the cost like this? Simple, insurance companies. Because no single person is bearing the cost of this equipment, companies like this healthcare company feel they can make a LOT more money by marking up this equipment to ridiculous amounts. Obviously, the free market would dictate a much lower price for this equipment. After all, the online store from whoch I ended up purchasing my equipment is still making a profit. It’s not like their motives are entirely altruistic. (They do have an information forum they maintain as well as a 1-800 number for anyone to ask questions about CPAP equipment on for free, but they are still in it to make money.) Ultimately, I’m going to do everything I can to avoid going through healthcare providers that deal with insurance companies, to see if the free market will net me the same equipment for lower prices.
As I said, I ultimately bought my new mask, hose and filters from this site, which is http://www.cpap.com. I’m saving money by going through them, and so is my insurance company. I’m making the request today to be reimbursed for my out of pocket expenses, but I saved them over $50 on the deal. They shipped my order the same day, and I should have it by the middle of next week.
I’m all for getting rid of insurance companies, but I still don’t think government is the solution. If I don’t go to the doctor in 5 years, I shouldn’t have to keep paying insurance premiums, which go to someone else, just so my insurance company can balk at paying claims when I do need them. I’ll save my monthly premiums and pay for my own healthcare when it comes to it. I know this doesn’t address people with chronic and costly problems, though I wonder whether saving the insurance premiums and gaining interest on this money would be a better solution for them as well. I’m not purporting to have the answer, but this price gouging is ridiculous. Government, however will just be another form of insurance companies, only it’ll be illegal to not pay their premiums, because they’ll come in the form of huge taxes….bad solution.
Jun 26 2008
I didn’t really go into detail when I announced the Brew Day earlier this week because I was in a hurry. That is something I intend to remedy with this post.
You would think that after a couple brew days, I’d be less happy about having another one. To be sure, there are aspects of brew day I’m not looking forward to. For one, it makes a tremendous mess. For two, there’s a lot of equipment cleanup involved. And finally, I don’t usually brew for a small group. Lots of people means doing something large for lunch and/or dinner, which is more work and cleanup.
However, each brew day, there’s been a new piece of equipment that I’ve been eager to test. This brew day is no exception. This weekend will be the first run of my new brewing kettle, which I first talked about here! (Pictures to follow.)
Many of you have seen the kegs that brewers put beer in for distributing to pubs and such. Well, there are a couple of nice things about kegs that make them ideal for turning into brewing kettles. One of them is that they are designed to have contents under pressure. This means that the walls and floor of these kegs is thick enough to help distribute heat. They also often have handles at the top, for easy transportation. Finally, they’re a LOT cheaper than commercial kettles. All told, I paid well under $100, while a good kettle will run you $300.
The guy who did my kettle conversion cuts the top of the keg out with a plasma torch. He then punches a bunch of holes in the top to create a grain screen. From there, he basically creates some plumbing, which connects the center of that screen to the outside. It’s hard to explain, but I’ll have pictures after this brew day.
This allows me to mash and boil in the same kettle; a prospect of which I’ve two minds. On the one hand, having a proper mashing tun will allow me to mash a much larger amount of grain than I could in my 5 gallon cooler. (The kettle is 15.5 gallons.) On the other hand, since I only have the one kettle, I’ll have to drain the mash liquor from the keg/kettle, fly sparge the grain, and then clean our the grain for the boil. It requires me to have a vessel ready to hold the resultant liquor as well as a vessel for heating the sparge water. I’ve ended up with a couple food-grade buckets, which will be what I use, I think. I need my old kettle for heating the sparge water, for sure. It’s going to be tricky, I think.
The long term solution, of course, is to get a second keg/kettle and a second burner. We’ll see if that ever happens. :)
As I mentioned in my title, this will be a chocolate oatmeal stout. It will be my first all-grain stout, which is exciting enough. However, this is also my first experience with a non-traditional brewing ingredient. In 1516, the City of Ingolstadt created the Reinheitsgebot, or the Bavarian Purity Law. This law allowed for only 3 ingredients to be used in the production of beer: water, barley, and hops. Yeast was not included in the law, since the microorganism had not been discovered yet. Brewers originally used sediment from previous batches to provide the fermentation. If sediment was not available, they used special vats, relying on natural yeast to provide the fermentation. So while the Purity Law did not allow for yeast, it was out of ignorance, rather than any desire to ban yeast.
This recipe I have sort of adapted calls for a couple of things. For one, flaked oats, which would NOT have been allowed under the Purity Law. This should add a sort of creamy mouthfeel, which is the reason for including oats in batches. (Many brewers say that this is more psycho-somatic than anything else.) The recipe I adapted from called for wheat, which I’ve also never used. I’m not entirely sure what the reasoning is behind this addition to the mash, aside from the fact that malted wheat is definitely a different flavor than malted barley. Could lighten up the body a bit. It may have been used to help counteract the viscosity that all the other ingredients will lend. Finally, I will add some amount of cocoa powder to the recipe. This will add most of the chocolate flavor, and should result in quite the tasty brew.
I’ve never brewed with chocolate, and have no real guidelines as of yet to work with. I’ve found a couple pages that will hopefully give me some ideas, but in the absence of anything else, I’ll add an amount to the mash and see what it does! This could be a recipe I fine-tune over several batches.
I’ll keep you all posted as to what all goes down this weekend!
Jun 25 2008
I know it’s a little sudden, but we’ve decided that we can brew this weekend. I’m really looking forward to it!
I’m brewing an Oatmeal Chocolate Stout, and using my new brewing kettle, converted from a keg!
I’ll let you all know how it goes!
Jun 24 2008
I heard a sermon this morning from Pastor David Jeremiah on Gideon’s trial of faith. For some reason, this is a passage that I’ve heard many sermons on. One of the weirdest aspects of this particular event in history is the method God used to whittle down the army to the numbers He wanted.
Pastor Jeremiah mentioned that God’s entire goal in this exercise was to demonstrate that when Israel triumphed, it was due to the hand of the Lord, and not their own strength.
The Lord said to Gideon, The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast over me, saying, My own hand has saved me. - Judges 7:2
We must understand all of God’s activities based upon the purposes He has set forth. If He says that His intent here was to demonstrate that it was the power of the Lord that won against the Midianites, then we can ascertain that His goal in whittling down the army was NOT to cull the herd of the more unfit soldiers.
However, this was my problem with Pastor Jeremiah’s message. He did a great job in explaining that the Lord was the reason for the victory of the Israelites. He explained that thinking that God’s goal in reducing the numbers of the Israeli army was to demonstrate His power and remove the Israelites’ ability to boast is not mere conjecture. The above quote shows that to be the case. However, when he came to the part where God uses an admittedly odd method for deciding who stays and who goes, Pastor Jeremiah seems to have forgotten about God’s goal.
This is the passage I am speaking of, here:
And the Lord said to Gideon, The people are still too many. Take them down to the water, and I will test them for you there, and anyone of whom I say to you, This one shall go with you, shall go with you, and anyone of whom I say to you, This one shall not go with you, shall not go. So he brought the people down to the water. And the Lord said to Gideon, Every one who laps the water with his tongue, as a dog laps, you shall set by himself. Likewise, every one who kneels down to drink. And the number of those who lapped, putting their hands to their mouths, was 300 men, but all the rest of the people knelt down to drink water. And the Lord said to Gideon, With the 300 men who lapped I will save you and give the Midianites into your hand, and let all the others go every man to his home. So the people took provisions in their hands, and their trumpets. And he sent all the rest of Israel every man to his tent, but retained the 300 men. And the camp of Midian was below him in the valley. - Judges 7:4-8
Pastor Jeremiah admits that many commentators will say that there is no reason for the Lord to use this particular test; that it was merely a way to whittle the numbers down to ridiculous amounts. However, he then asks his listeners to assume that there is a purpose in God’s methods, and that this purpose is to choose the best and brightest among the soldiers for God’s army. Pastor Jeremiah explains that God only wanted the best soldiers for his army, and that this test would show who was really worthy for service in defeating the Midianites.
He explains that those who stayed mostly upright would have been more alert, watching out for a sneak attack or anything out of the ordinary. Thus, these people would be better suited to be watching the flanks of the army, etc.
He explains that those who put their face in the water were more concerned about worldly needs than anything else, and thus they were not wholeheartedly serving their commanders, etc.
He says that while God’s army contained less people, it now contained more men. (A point which is mathematically impossible without referring to percentages, which he did not.)
He also said that God wanted people who were willing to go against the majority to do what is right. (Not sure how he assumes that lifting water to your face is more “right” than drinking directly from the stream in such a situation, but that was what he said.)
Ultimately, however, I don’t find these points to be very compelling. Given that God’s purpose was to display that Israel’s victory could not have come from them, I see no reason why God would then attempt to ensure that His army was comprised of the best and brightest. Aside from the fact that Pastor Jeremiah is making parallels to the Christian life right and left, casting a great many problems on his understanding of God choosing only the best and brightest to serve Him, he has completely abandoned the first part of his message…the groundwork that should now be used to understand God’s actions.
At the very least, the Lord is merely reducing Israel’s military numbers to display His power. If you must attribute some reasoning as to why God used this method, I don’t think it’s consistent with what the Lord is doing in that passage to assume that He was trying to retain the best and brightest soldiers.
It’s far more likely, based on God’s stated purpose here, to assume that He is actually trying to retain the least fit soldiers. Soldiers know that when they can get sustenance, they need to get sustenance and get back to work. They know that if they’re without water, and in a desert climate, they need to avail themselves of any ponds or streams that they come across. They may not have another opportunity anytime soon. If a battle approaches, they know they need to be in top fighting shape, and that includes being properly hydrated.
A soldier who, on the other hand, stayed upright and drank from his hand might be more concerned with etiquette, and far less likely to want to get their hands dirty when it came to it.
Such a test would be more in keeping with God’s stated goal of eliminating Israel’s ability to boast in their own power.
However, we need to leave room for the fact that there could be no real purpose in God’s choosing His army by this method or any other. We could be reading much more into this than God intended. One thing is certain: The Lord did not give His reason, so any speculation we make is quite unnecessary. If God had wanted us to know why He chose this test, He’d have given that information to us.
Jun 23 2008
When contending for the faith, I often hear the argument that the Bible ought not be believed because is has been used to justify many past atrocities. Ultimately, there really is no real logic in this argument, and the counter-argument is simple.
If we didn’t know what the Bible taught, there would be no way to objectively determine whether or not these atrocities were justified. But this is not the situation in which we find ourselves. We can easily look at a translation of the Holy Scriptures in our own language and determine whether something like the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or the Witch Hunts, or any other mass killing is condoned by the whole of Scripture. What we find when we delve into the Bible is that such papal bulls as what started the Spanish Inquisition and indulgences such as what were granted to those who participated in the Crusades are not condoned by Scripture. No amount of professing the name of Christ can change that fact.
To begin with, I feel I must present the definitive argument in favor of translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar languages. Jesus quoted the Old Testament exclusively; referred to it as an authority, in fact. However, he did not refer to the original Hebrew translation. The language of the land in Israel in Jesus’ time was Greek, and the version of the Scriptures he quoted was the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. So referring to the Scriptures in English is perfectly acceptable. Manuscript evidence only supports this, though I do not have the time to go into it at this time. For a great argument on manuscript evidence, refer to McDowell’s book, New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. It’s excellent.
Now, Christ’s followers only represent Christ insofar as they adhere to the teachings of Scripture. None of us do this perfectly, of course, and we should not expect that we ever will. We should always be up front about where we fail. We should be up front about our inability to keep the law perfectly…to perfectly obey. However, our sins are easily shown to be sins in light of what the Scripture teaches.
That being said, the Church does NOT represent the teachings of Christ when they condone killings, mass- or otherwise. Whether we’re talking about the Catholic Church, or any Protestant Church. The Church does not possess the sword, to execute evildoers. This does not mean that capital punishment is not condoned in Scriptures. It is, but it is not the province of the church to live by the sword. It’s important to recognize that authority is given to organizations in spheres. It is also not the place of the Civil Government to command its citizens to sin. It is not the place of the Civil Government to hold authority over the Word of God. And it is not the Church’s place to execute evildoers.
In the case of the Crusades, the pope Alexander II had no right to be granting indulgences to anyone whether they died in a holy cause or not. Christ alone can forgive sins, and it isn’t based on our actions. Part of the problem the Protestants had with the Roman Catholic Church is that they claimed authority over the Word of God rather than the other way around.
In the case of the Inquisition, the Gospel is never to be preached using death as an impetus to conversion. The 1st Century Church never used such tactics to convert the lost, and the letters we have from the apostles never encouraged the church to do so.
Ultimately, the Church ceases to be representative of Christ when she leaves the clear teaching of the Word of God. The Church has done many things over the course of history that she ought not be proud of. And the Bible can easily be used to show where they went wrong, without ignoring some passages, or twisting the meanings of verses. The reverse is not true. The only way the Church could prove that they have Biblical support for their position is to do that very thing: twist and exclude. However, it ought to be understood that historically, the Church has not needed to provide Scriptural support for beliefs.
While it is true that Jesus quoted a translation of the Scriptures, such translations were frowned upon by the Church after Jerome’s Vulgate. The people did not have a translation in their language until the work of Tyndale, who translated the Bible into Middle English. (There had been translations of the Word of God, partial and complete, into Old English, but they were not readily available due to the fact that the printing press had not yet been invented. Such translations were primarily reserved for clergy whose grasp of Latin was not sufficient to be able to read the Word of God.)
What this means is that the average person in medieval times would not have been able to discern the true teaching of the Word of God. They would have taken any word from the Church as truth. However this should not be taken to mean that the Church always and unfailingly dispensed Truth! What it means, however, is that proof of orthodoxy was not requisite for the Church to issue decrees in medieval times. During most of the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition (as examples), the Church did not provide Scriptural proof for its decrees and papal bulls. This allowed for some damnable heresies to masquerade as accepted Biblical practice for many years.
What all of this shows is that the statement “the Bible has been used to justify thus and such” is really not true. The Bible was not used to justify these types of actions. The name of Christ was used as a seal of approval, but such claims do not hold up under Biblical scrutiny.
In closing, I would urge every one of you to read the Bible for yourselves. Determine what the Bible teaches, and judge actions based on that alone. Remember that if someone names the name of Christ, they are not necessarily a Christian. Christ, Himself, said that on the last day, there would be many who cried out to Christ, “Lord, Lord”, but who were workers of iniquity. The logical meaning of this phrase is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one in reality. Finally, do not hold the actions of sinful man as reason to doubt the teachings of Christ. Read for yourself and find out what is in keeping with the doctrine of Christ and what is not.
Jun 20 2008
My scores (by beer number):
And the revealed beers….
I must admit, the results are surprising in a couple of ways.
So there you have it. I liked Coors above a micro-brew. The micro brew in question was horrible, sadly. I’d like to put Bud or Coors up against a Newcastle, Marzen, Scotch Ale, etc. I don’t think they’ll stand up, to be honest.
Jun 17 2008
I wrote this post almost a week ago; before I learned that Dr. Ron Paul was dropping out of the Republican primary race for the Presidency. It didn’t matter to me at the time whether or not he would be dropping out. As I mentioned, I planned to write him in. However, I have learned some things since then. Namely, write-in votes aren’t even counted in some states unless the candidate registers as a write-in candidate, which Dr. Paul has stated that he will not do. Ron Paul, himself, has even counseled his supporters to not write him in here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=34. So I return to my post title: How does one vote for LIBERTY these days? Here are my choices as I see them:
1. Writing in Ron Paul has one major thing going for it. I know that Dr. Paul would make an excellent president…in fact, I believe out of the choices we’ve been given, Ron Paul would make the MOST excellent president. This ideological certainty is tainted, however. A write-in vote for Ron Paul will not be counted. My goal was to do my part to hear Ron Paul’s name read aloud during election coverage, preferably with a tone of incredulity. (”How the heck did HE get so many votes??”) But that won’t happen with a write-in vote. I wanted McCain to KNOW that he might have gotten more votes if only he stood for small government, lower taxes, and LIBERTY! But a write-in will only deny McCain votes. As someone on the Ron Paul blog said, a write-in for Ron Paul will only give us a result like 34% Obama, 22% McCain, etc. They will in no way be able to claim a mandate from the people, but it doesn’t matter. One of them will win the electoral votes necessary to gain the Presidency, and they will think they have a mandate. No matter the benefits of this option, however, I can’t help thinking that I’m not making the statement that I want to make.
2. Bob Barr is the Libertarian candidate for the Presidency. This would be a no-brainer, but he IS a former Republican. He voted FOR the Patriot Act. He voted FOR the Iraq War. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, he was a huge proponent of the War on Drugs. All of this was while he was a Republican Senator, sure, but it’s his voting record. It cannot be ignored. Granted, he’s reformed now. He’s more of a rank-and-file Libertarian these days. But who’s to say that he won’t get into office and realize there’s a lot more money to be made as a Republican again? I’m not saying that he’ll sell out for sure, but it’s a fear I have when voting for him. He has publicly come out against his former positions, and has lobbied tirelessly for freedom in recent years.
Now, I recognize that there are a couple positions which my readership, such as it is, will not have normally linked to me. Lately, I have begun thinking about traditionally conservative social issues, and realize that I disagree with most of my conservative brethren…specifically those in the church. You can’t legislate morality, people. Morality is something that comes from a changed heart, and a changed heart is not the goal of politics. Preaching the gospel is not the goal of politics. Government and religion ought to be separate. I can see being against abortion. Abortion is murder, and murder is (and ought to be) illegal. But these other issues do not measurably or quantifiably harm others, so how can we justify legislating it? Marriage is between a man and a woman, yes. Homosexuality is a sin, yes. But on what basis does the Federal Government have the right to get involved? On what basis can the government say anything one way or another on marriage? Where does the Constitution cover marriage? (There is a proposed Constitutional Amendment being discussed in the House and Senate that would define marriage at the Federal level, but how is this a good thing? Up until now, it’s been up to the States, and civil marriage has ALWAYS been covered by State Law.) Drugs are probably not a good idea, but neither is alcoholism…neither is beating yourself in the head with a hammer. There are no laws concerning these two things, and there ought not be. The War on Drugs is costly, and has not reduced their usage. If society is so immoral and needs to be changed (and it does) is that the role of the government? NO! It is the role of churches to be outspoken. We can not and should not set up some sort of pseudo-theocracy. There are many in the church who would disagree with me, and I’m sure I’ve not thought everything through, but right now, I’m leaning to the side of liberty. From what I’ve seen, the Constiution leaned that way. The Founding Fathers leaned that way. You think homosexuality is something invented in the last 50 years? The Founding Fathers knew what homosexuality was. They left the definition of marriage up to the States. The Federal Government has no business regulating much of what it already does. Why give it more power? Liberty is the vote I want to cast. Is Bob Barr the choice for Liberty? I don’t know.
3. Given what I outlined above, I am leery of voting for Chuck Baldwin. I like that he campaigned for Ron Paul, but the Constitution Party advocates a Christian-based form of government, which is a pseudo-theocracy. I do not and will not ever support this. The Constitutional party claims that gambling is evil. I disagree with them. I don’t LIKE gambling, personally, but I see no problem with someone entertaining themselves with cards or craps. After all, I’ve spent plenty of money on video games. There’s a form of entertainment with no chance of making back some money. It could be argued that gambling is a form of entertainment with a slim chance of paying off. But my point with gambling is that I don’t think it ought to be outlawed. I don’t think the government has the right to say what I do with my money. I don’t know that I can vote for Baldwin for this reason alone. (They want the Federal Government to legislate far more than they really ought to, and they want them to for purely moral reasons.) We are not, and we ought not be, a theocracy. So I don’t know whether I can vote for him, given that he represents a party that appears to want to create a man-invented version of the Jewish Civil Government. As my friend Ryan told me last night,”didn’t Jesus say, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’?”
As I said above…if I felt things were immoral, then I would say it is the job of the church to preach the gospel. It is not the job of the government to legislate morality. What is the church doing to combat evils like homosexuality? Not enough, if all they’re trying to do is legislate it. Making it illegal for gays to marry is not going to result in winning souls to Christ, people!!! Preach the Gospel to all, but don’t think that if only it were illegal for someone to marry someone of the same gender, your job would be easier. Preach the Word of God, and when the Lord converts them, they will hate the sin.
4. I could just not vote. This would effectively be the same as option #1, since writing in Ron Paul’s name would not be counted anyway. However, voting is a duty of every eligible American citizen. We’re not voting directly for the President, no, but we are voting to determine where the electoral votes of our state will go. (Ostensibly. As I understand it, many states do not even require their electoral representatives to vote any certain way…I need to look at this.) I don’t think I can, in good conscience, not vote.
I don’t like Barr’s voting history, but can a person change? I know I have in the last year or so. Given how hard he’s worked to reverse decisions he once had a part in making, I think I may be voting for Barr, though I’m by no means final on this. Regardless of how I vote, I will be taking my vote away from McCain and the Republicans. I’m doing this because they have left their original platform of small government and low taxes. I’m doing this because they are tyrannical and don’t desire our freedom. Land of the free, remember?
Jun 16 2008
I’m actually really excited about a couple things I have planned for this week.
To begin with, this past weekend was Father’s Day. I called my dad and stepdad and wished them happy Father’s Day. I was wished happy Father’s Day by my in-laws. lol. Got a book! WOOT! We had dinner with my in-laws on Sunday. It was a good weekend.
My father and I, however, almost never celebrate Father’s Day on the weekend of Father’s Day. For awhile, we’d take him out one night in the week following Father’s Day to eat at a restaurant of his choosing. With us trying to conserve money, however, this isn’t the best option for us anymore. This week, though, we’re having my dad and his fiancee, Karen, over for dinner, and I have a very special event planned.
In addition to showing him the radness that is Rock Band and Grand Theft Auto IV, we’re planning a comparative, blind beer tasting for this Wednesday. Here’s how it’s going to work:
We’re going to get Budweiser, Coors, Kona Longboard Lager, and Gordon Biersch Pilsener. Two of those are mass-produced, domestic brews. The other two are what I would consider premium, micro-brewed, domestic lagers. (The Pilsener is technically not a lager per se, but it’s a lager-style beer, so I think it’s fair game.
Kim will assign each brew a number, 1-4. She will mark the clear plastic cups with numbers, 1-4. Then, she will pour a small amount of each brew into the cups and distribute. We will discuss the aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel of each brew. I will create scorecards that we can mark of each number. I will allow whoever wants to the ability to write any particular flavor comments on each card. Then, after each brew is served, we will have a palate-cleanser of some sort to prepare for the next brew. At the end, we will have the reveal.
I have always been one to bash Bud and Coors. I can’t help it. It’s always my perception that they’re inferior beers. I love the taste of ales so much better than that of pilseners and lagers that there’s really no point in comparing. However, that is the point. Comparing the flavor profile of something like a Newcastle Brown Ale to something even like a Heineken is comparing apples to filet mignon. You can’t expect the taste of a Pilsener to be anything near the flavor profile of an ale of any sort. That brings me to why I’m doing this.
I want to settle once and for all the question of whether Bud or Coors are worth the cans or bottles they’re usually drunk from. I want to be assured, in my own mind at least, whether I would ever prefer Bud or Coors over the micro-brews I always hype. I’ve always said that my problem with Bud and Coors is that there are so many better beers out there. I’m often asked why they’re still the most sold beers out there, and my only answer is that the general public is unaware that there are lighter-colored beers out there that are SO much more flavorful. But perhaps these beers really are worth a taste now and again. Perhaps they are worthy of my palate.
I’m going to compare Bud and Coors, which are lagers to Kona’s lager and Gordon Biersch’s pilsener. The panel of judges will be:
Gabe Houser - Gabe Houser made a name for himself by effectively overdosing on Kilt Lifter one night. (Henceforth termed the Original Night of Radness.) Since then, Gabe has tended to the side of moderation, but enjoys big beers. A one-time beer hater, Gabe was won over by the “Bud” of the micro-brewery industry, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. The huge hop character of his “first love” set him on the path to big, hoppy beers. He enjoys face-melters like Racer 5, Hopsickle, and Arrogant Bastard.
Chris Dow - Chris Dow is the Ale Evangelist. Not content with beers that others make, he prefers to create his own taste sensations, regardless of whether they’ll sweep the nation. (He homebrews.) Chris’ beer loves run to the racial, since his Scottish butt loves the good ol’ Scotch Ales. Whether he’s imbibing a McEwan’s Scotch Ale, sipping a Moylans’ Kilt Lifter, or creating his award-winning Crazy Hamish Scotch Ale, he loves the malt. A former hoppist*, Chris has overcome his hop-hating tendencies to embrace the hoppier pale ales that America seems to have fallen in love with.
Robert Dow - A former Bud-only guy, Bobby has been known to sample the darker side of beer now and again. While he appreciates the varied characters of these beers, he often returns to his tried-and-true American mass-produced beers, though has been known to enjoy a Hefeweizen at Outback Steakhouse on occasion.
Karen LaCour - Karen is more of a wine-drinker, but she has been known to drink the mass-produced, American beers. She dislikes the darker beers, however, so her reaction to the theoretically more aggressive Kona and Gordon Biersch could well counterbalance the palates of Chris Dow and Gabe Houser.
Keep your eyes peeled to this spot for the results of the evening. May the best beer win.
* A Hoppist is someone who hates hops unreasonably and for no other reason than “they’re bitter”. Most often used of true beer lovers who for some reason can’t stand the taste of hops. All “fizzy yellow beer” drinkers are, by definition, hoppists, so to apply that term to them is obviously redundant.
Jun 13 2008
It’s been a long time since I sat down and just had to write. It’s been a long time since I had so much to write about that I had trouble organizing it. Stream of consciousness has always suited me, anyway.
I just finished watching P.S., I Love You with my wife. I bought it for her for her birthday. It was something she’s been wanting me to see for quite some time. She saw it when we first got back from Scotland, and knew I would like it. We don’t often go to the movies, though, so we never got to watch it together.
Tonight, I didn’t really want to watch it. I knew she would make me, though. I bought it for her, so I can’t really complain. I knew I’d have to watch it…and there was something inside of me that wanted to watch it. But that something inside me didn’t want to watch it today. I don’t know whether it was the fact that I knew what it was about, and didn’t want to get emotionally entangled in a movie just now. Actually…I do know what it is. Slight spoilers ahead. I knew these things before I saw the movie, though, and I can say that they didn’t ruin it for me.
The basic premise of the movie is that a man dies at 35, and leaves letters to be delivered to his wife. He has created a plan for her to get her back into living life. That’s what I knew going in.
Now, obviously, they’re not going to write about a couple who was likely ready for divorce, and who didn’t have a great relationship. I knew that this would be a relationship that you want to go on forever. I knew that his death would be the major theme throughout the movie. THIS is what I didn’t want to see.
I love my wife. I don’t know what I’d do without her. Actually, I do know, and what I would do is nothing. It’s not that I couldn’t live without her. It’s that there’s no life without her. Next Saturday is our 5 year anniversary, and I feel like I’ve known her my entire life. I feel like I’ve known her for longer than I’ve been alive. I feel like we’ve been together since before the Lord created the universe. This is no bad thing. This isn’t like waiting in line at the DMV. This is like waking up and realizing it’s Friday…every day. It’s that much of a pick-me-up. It’s like hearing from an old friend…every day. It’s that heart-warming. It’s like finding another Crunch-Berry in your cereal when you thought they were all gone. It’s that trivial. It’s the little things…it’s the big things….my relationship with my wife is everything to me. In the movie, there’s a line that struck me. “I am a man because you loved me.” That says it, and doesn’t say it all. No one can say it all. It cannot all be said. I don’t love her more than I love the Lord. But the Lord has given me my wife that I might better see how He loves me. If marriage is a picture of how much He loves His people, how can this NOT be the deepest relationship possible among mankind?
This movie made me think every 5 minutes about how horrible life would be without her. It was hard…every 5 minutes. This was the part I dreaded. Don’t get me wrong…it was a REALLY good movie. I’m glad I saw it. But I teared up every 5 minutes, and it had little to do, for the most part, with what happened on screen. I would definitely be lost without my Kim… :) The Lord would get me through whatever He throws my way, of course, but from where I stand, I couldn’t make it.
Sorry to be a downer…I do love my wife, and I’m happy as heck that I was able to help her have a good birthday today. :) I woke up this morning, and made her pancakes. I was actually able to get to the point where I was about to put them on the griddle when I had to go in there to wake her up. And I surprised her when I asked her how many pancakes she wanted. :) That was fun. Then I gave her the movies I’d gotten her for her birthday. She was happy about that. Then she went to work, where the office gave her a very nice card and very pretty flowers. After that, she went to lunch with her mom. She liked that a lot, too. Finally, when she got home, I made her bacon-wrapped filet mignon with Kentucky-style bacon, a meatier, less fatty bacon. It was quite tasty. (Whenever we go to a steakhouse, she has the filet.) :) Then we watched the one movie she’s been bugging me to see for months. :) She said it was a good birthday. I had fun being a part of it.
===============
Scotland…those of you who know me are sick of hearing me go on about it. I’ve got a friend named Brian whom I don’t see all that often. Really tall, blonde guy who I used to hang out with a lot in High School. He swings by my parents’ house every now and again, and he did so a couple weeks ago. My mom told him that I had gone to Scotland. He said, “Ohhh…his dream trip. He’s been wanting to go there forever.” I have. Still do.
See, in this movie, there are some scenes in Ireland. That’s all I’ll say about that. I’ve seen the pictures we have for sale at http://www.dowimages.net/store/ many times. They still remind me of the wonderful time I had. But seeing Ireland in the movie tonight…It filled me with such a longing.
You know, when I went to Scotland, I halfway hoped that I would “get it out of my system”. That I would go to Scotland, come back, and get on with my life, without this silly yearning to visit a land I’ve never seen. This goes to show how little I really know me.
I still yearn for Scotland; now more than ever. I yearn to be around the people. I yearn to see the majestic mountains. I yearn to see the mountains running straight into the wild lochs. No matter when I’m asked this question, if I’m asked where I’d go if I could get away, the answer is the same: Scotland. In a heartbeat. Without looking back.
I’ve mused on this plenty of times, and I still don’t know why I am pulled to Scotland. I still don’t know why a simple description, the touch of a Scottish accent, or even green, rolling hills can so tug at my heartstrings. One of the times I teared up in this movie was one particular scene where the camera followed some green meadows right to the edge of a lake in Ireland. It so looked like Loch Lomond in Scotland that my eyes filled with tears, and my vision swam. I fell just short of sobbing with longing, but only just. Watching Braveheart, or Dear Frankie is just not enough to quench that thirst. It only intensifies the longing. It only deepens the ache.
We’re going back to Scotland. We’re already planning the trip. I don’t know when it will be. Not for 20+ years, most likely. But we’re going back. My heart is there, and I need to go get it back.
Powered by FireStats