A Republic, If You Can Keep It

OK, people, here we go again! All you're gonna hear about (at least from the Clinton faction) is that "every vote must count". You'll be hearing about disenfranchisement of different segments of the community and how the sanctity of our democratic process rests on the "one person, one vote" principle. All of this because of the I-75 corridor cancellation. Michigan and Florida failed to play by the DNC rules and held their primaries early. The candidates agreed to follow the rules and not campaign in those two states. No one figured the vote (and elector) totals would be this close and actually make those two states...important. Oh well, now they are. They could be so at any time. So, really, isn't the calendar placement of each state's primary a wash? More on this later...

Essentially, the entire problem rises from the idea that the primary system unfairly boosts the importance of the states whose primaries occur the earliest. Historically these are Iowa and New Hampshire, with a few others thrown in over the years. The argument (and it's a good one) is that these states enjoy an importance far beyond their meager populations in paring down the number of candidates early in the primary races. I see nothing wrong with this but most do. The Founders did not plan on our nation being infatuated with "democracy" when they crafted our Constitution. They warned specifically against the tyranny of popular opinion. The idea that some of the less populous states might have more power than their population dictates would not have fazed them in the least. In fact that is the entire reason behind such facets of our system as the electoral college and the assignation of at least one U.S. Representative per state, regardless of population.

We are a nation of laws. That was the lesson of the 2000 debacle in Florida. The laws were violated by the Florida Supreme Court in favor of the argument that our government is a democracy. The Florida Supreme Court knelt at the altar of "the will of the people" and decided that that concept overruled the law. Even the U.S. Supreme Court failed to firmly establish the fact that this concept is unfounded. It is not the will of the people-in the form of a popular vote-that decides our governmental makeup. We are a republic, not a democracy.

The rule in the primary system-and I would be happy to entertain arguments that the entire primary system is wrong and serves to do nothing but maintain the power of the two dominant political parties, but that argument is for another day-is that you follow the party and their rules for the primaries. When Michigan and Florida violated those rules, they were told their delegates would not be seated. "Well, they won't really do that", said the party faithful in those states. "They can't do that, it would disenfranchise all those voters", said the pundits. So they went right ahead and had their primaries early. They never expected them to count for much anyway, it was the principle of the thing, you know. They WILL take Michigan and Florida seriously in the next election, by golly!

Now, I understand that there is a good argument that this primary process does not necessarily give Michigan and Florida their due. But the outcome in this year's process is the exception that disproves that point. You can't have it your way every time. Now what do we have? I love the fact that this mess is stirring up dissension in the ranks of the Democrats, because I disagree with their agenda on almost every point, but it could just as well have been the Republicans who were in this mess. Then I would have been upset. Of course, with a candidate like John McCain, I'm not sure the Republicans have a candidate in the race, but that, too is another argument for another day. The point is that we didn't play by the rules, the rules were explained to us before we changed our primary dates, and we did it anyway.

Look at the deliciousness of this situation! Those people who most favor the idea that "every vote should count" and that we have a duty to ensure that no voter is disenfranchised (including felons, illegals and dead people), are actually hollering for disenfranchisement! Obama's folks think the results should stand and those delegates from Florida and Michigan should not count. He is winning without them and counting them would only hurt his position. Hillary-the only person on the ballot in Michigan-wants those votes, even though she agreed not to campaign in Michigan and (it could be argued) shouldn't have even had her name on the ballot. We all know that a Clinton is not beyond quibbling over the definition of "is", if it might benefit their political ambitions.

Watching Debra Wasserman Schultz and Debbie Dingell on Fox News Sunday this morning was so much fun! First of all, is there a congressperson any more dingbatty than Ms. Wasserman Schultz? I would put her against anybody for the least rational, most ditzy congressperson award. Thank you, people of Florida, for electing this entertaining goof! I don't watch American Idol, so I appreciate a good laugh every now and then and watching her squirm over trying to sound dignified and reasonable in debating this situation was much better than watching the latest untalented hack get reamed by Simon! In contrast, Debbie Dingell looked reasoned and intelligent! People, if a popular vote can elect people such as Debra Wasserman Schultz, is that not in itself an argument against such a system?

Obama is going to be forced to argue against seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida. He is going to argue FOR disenfranchisement! Should be fun! Hillary is going to be forced to argue that blacks and young white college students in those two states should not have a place at the table of national politics. That should be fun! What will be the compromise in this decision? What Solomon-like carving can make both sides "happy"? Is a "win-win" even possible? I would argue that it isn't, because people are under the impression that the mechanism of the vote is the same as on American Idol. The most votes wins. I'm sure most people think that is not only morally right but also technically and legally correct. Well, it ain't.

Here's a novel idea and one that you WILL NOT hear anyone arguing for; not in this age of "every vote must count", anyway: Why don't the Democrats allow the two state legislatures to elect their electoral college electors? That's the way it was originally meant to be, anyway. It would be a return to original intent. It would allow the people's elected representatives to choose the electors who will vote for their President and Vice President. Article II, Section I: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." What could be more fair and true to the concepts set down in our Constitution?
Oh, wait a minute. We're talking about the Democrats, here...
Never mind.

Freedom and our Constitution

I have been engaged in a very comprehensive class on our constitution for the past three weeks. It has been very enlightening. Two days a week for two and a half hours each class, we study the origins and meaning of our nation's constitution. I count myself as one of those who knew quite a bit about this document before taking the class but I've really learned a lot. I am also much more attuned to vacuous and inaccurate statements about our nation's origins and form of government from elected officials, judges and politicians. For instance, how often do you hear completely ignorant statements alleging that the US is a Democracy or that the Supreme Court determines the "law of the land"? I used to hear them all the time and not flinch. Now, it's like a punch in the gut!

I recommend everyone spend a day at their local court, watching the proceedings. Watch as your fellow citizens are brought forward and dealt justice by the criminal justice system. See the attention to the rights of the accused, while the system grinds them under its wheels. It is a sad state of affairs, indeed! Think about phrases such as "innocent until proven guilty", "effective counsel" and "a jury of your peers", while watching the spectacle. This exercise should be mandatory for all voters. You might learn some respect for the poor and the cheaply judged in our society.

I had occasion to be in Lapeer's district court the other day and watched the proceedings with a fresh view towards constitutional rights, especially those of the accused, and what I heard and saw was frightening, indeed. Now, I don't mean to say that we don't have crime problems in this country or even in my county of Michigan but the troubles we do have are far less serious endangerments to the public than some of our solutions.

The judge was ruling on the sentence for a young man's second offense drunk driving conviction. The attorney had mentioned that, though it was the judge's routine to give jail time to second offenders, he hoped an exception could be made in the present case. The judge responded by saying that in over twenty-five years he had always given jail time for second offenses. He wanted this known because if the defendant left the court upset at getting jail time, and spoke with others, he would find that there have been no others in his court in similar conditions that haven't also received jail time. He was consistent.

Now, in essence, what the judge was saying is that he doesn't rule on such issues on the basis of the case's individual merits, but rather based upon a preconceived standard that is immutable. If this is the case, why do we need a judge at all. Use a computer database. Plug in the case details and out comes the reliable, consistent sentence. And this man is proud of this policy! His statement reminds of the policy of "zero tolerance", which I equate to "no brainer". Zero tolerance means that in every case, the same result should accrue, regardless of the individual aspects of some potentially very complex cases. Think about this for a second. That judge is saying that over the course of twenty-five years, never has an individual case come before him that did not deserve the sentence of jail time. Not once!

Take also into account the fact that in today's society, for good or ill, a person can be convicted of drunk driving based upon having an alcohol content in their system equivalent to having consumed three beers in an hour. Those are normal, American light lagers, by the way. Now, that might not faze you, but maybe this will. If a person is convicted of two drunk driving offenses-even if they both are reduced to "first offense, impaired driving"-the next time they are charged with any alcohol-related offense, it will be a felony! Even if fifty years have passed between the second offense and the third! No mercy and no tolerance!

Add to these alcohol-related offenses, the new issue of marijuana-related driving offenses and you have a potentially serious new criminal-producing system in Michigan. The new law prescribes "Impaired Driving" and "Driving Under the Influence" charges for people who are pulled over and found to have any level of THC in their system. Of course, the problem with this law is the issue that THC, the intoxicating ingredient in marijuana, can remain in ones system for as long as a month after using marijuana. This means that one may be completely NOT under the influence of the drug, and still test positive for it. The courts will hold you accountable for this violation under the law. If an over-exuberant police force, seriously aggressive towards the local youth population, wants to ruin a young man's life, this law makes it pretty easy to do so, doesn't it? It might be pretty easy to determine the types of kids that are driving around your town, who are more likely than not, marijuana-users. Pull them over and arrest them for suspicion of DUI. Take them down for a blood test and, voila, another dangerous doper off the streets! Never mind the fact that marijuana-influenced drivers are not exactly a public menace these days. Never mind the fact that these kids may not even be under the influence of the drug at the time they are tested. We are talking "ZERO TOLERANCE" laws, here folks.

Later in the day, while I observed the court proceedings, I heard the same judge address a young woman who was there on a hearing for her violation of probation. She had been tested by the probation department upon her arrival at the courthouse that morning and had been found to have alcohol in her system from the night before. This was, apparently her sixth such PV. The judge asked her if she had been drinking the night before with her boyfriend. She said that she had. He asked if they lived together and she answered that they did. He asked if her boyfriend was also in his court for an alcohol-related offense and again, she answered, "Yes". The judge commented that they were perhaps not good for each other and pondered, aloud, whether he should issue a court order that they be separated. Now, if that's not nanny-state behavior, I don't know what is!

This judge was willing to tell this young woman who she could live with! Because they drank alcohol together! Alcohol is still legal in this country, isn't it? Even in Lapeer County? Does it worry you that a judge thinks it is not only his right to tell a person whether they can drink in their own home (a legal act for all adults) but also with whom they can live? Is that freedom?

You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to know that is wrong...

Innerspace

I was reading an issue of Popular Science, the other day and it included an article about a daring caver and exploration specialist, named Bill Stone. He has a company named Stone Aerospace and has been something of an anachronism for years: that rare combination of reckless egomaniac and prophetic seer that produces men and women who actually change "the world as we know it". I could write all day about the fellow but a simple talk he gave recently says a lot more about him than my words could convey. What I am more interested in is the future of this type of thinking and the benefits of going much more boldly, where man has never gone before, than our current government-dominated thinking allows.

You'll see from Bill's company website that he has put his money where his mouth is, so to speak. You'll also see that he has experienced some success, which in turn, garnered him OPM (other people's money), an essential element for anyone's vision. He has even convinced NASA of spending some government money to fund a few of his more adventurous projects. He is convinced, however, that it is private entrepreneurship which holds the most hope for extraterrestrial exploration. While NASA is stuck on slow, stodgily safe and incrementally planned missions, funded by the government, Stone and his counterparts (like Bert Rutan and Richard Branson) see the necessity to take bold chances to get where we need to be in time for the successes to fuel further explorations. And, yes, it is just as likely that failures will further the process as successes. Bold action is required, though and that is most assuredly not NASA's M.O.

Here's to adventuresome explorers who blaze the trails that produce a future that will ensure, not only the continued flourishing of human endeavors but our very survival!

Cheers!

Lager Days

The last two beers I made, including the one I am actually brewing right now, have been lagers. I don't make many lagers but I don't really know why. I LIKE lagers, so why don't I brew them more often? Well, for one reason, they take a long time to ferment and condition. I am impatient and want to drink my beers ASAP! For another thing, they require cool temperatures to ferment. Living in Michigan, cool temperatures should be no problem, right? Well, it's not that the temps aren't cool but that they aren't consistent. For years, now, I've had that problem solved through the use of an external thermostat on my lagering fridge.

Lager fermentation occurs at much cooler temperatures than ale fermentation. For instance, the Classic American Pilsner I made a couple of weeks ago, started off at 60 F and was quickly dropped to about 48 F for the complete time in primary. After secondary is nearly complete, I will drop the temps down to near freezing for a month or so for cold conditioning, then bottle a few bottles from the kegs.

CAP recipe:

16 Lbs. German Pilsner Malt
4.5 Lbs. Flaked Maize
1 Lb. Light German Crystal Malt
1 Lb. Flaked Rice
2 Lbs. Rice Hulls
2 oz. Hallertau (60 Minutes)
1 oz. Hallertau (15)
.5 oz.Hallertau (4)
2 teaspoons Irish Moss (15)
Pitched two half gallon starters of WLP 840 American Lager Yeast

I tasted it at rack-off to secondary and it was good, real good!


Since my fridge is full, this new dark lager will be fermenting in my (currently cold) basement. It is hovering around 50 F, now in the brew room. I hope it stays there! It is a clone of Lowenbrau Dark, but I made it a little bigger and a little hoppier (of course using Cascade hops will change it as well). It should be pretty interesting, to say the least.

Here is the recipe:

16 Lbs German Pilsner Malt
5 Lbs. Crisp English Malt
2 Lbs. Belgian Carapils Malt
1 Lb. German Caramunich Malt
.5 Lb. English Chocolate Malt

1.5 Oz. Homegrown Cascade Hops (60 minutes)
.5 Oz. Homegrown Cascade Hops (15 minutes)
2 teaspoons Irish Moss (15 minutes)

10 days at 50 F
rack to secondary and lager at 38-40 F

Cold condition for a month after fermentation is complete. This beer was made from leftover grains, homegrown hops and used yeast. It cost me a total of $5.95 for ten gallons of beer!

The next lager I make is going to be a bigger, maltier beer. Probably a Marzen (or Oktoberfest), followed by a Doppelbock on the Marzen yeast cake...Oh yeah!

I wish you all could taste this!

Super Wednesday

During this wondrous time, when all hold dear the spirit of Christmas, including such concepts as fairness, non-competitiveness and service to those less fortunate, I would like to suggest that we all follow Senator Hillary Clinton's lead and ask that those who are going to vote Democratic, vote on some date that is past the actual voting date. In the past, I have asked many of the Democrats I know to be sure to vote on Super Wednesday. This has actually been very effective on a few occasions, as those Democrats have told me that they were going to do just that and cancel out my Republican vote. These admissions were made with defiant and proud demeanors, meant to stifle any ridicule I might muster. Well, I can tell you they put me right in my place!

It appears that the good Senator from New York urged her supporters to be sure to vote for her on January 14, in Iowa. I second her motion, here, and hope that in each state her supporters react similarly according to her progressive agenda. I would suggest they stick to a date somewhat less than eleven days progressive to the actual date of the primary, but any progressive date would be helpful to the rest of us.

Just when the conservatives in the country were under the impression that Santa Hillary had nothing in her sack for them, she throws out this gem of an idea! I for one, would like to thank the honorable Senator from New York for doing such forward-thinking work. This behavior is such a marked difference from some of her other noted actions, that it makes many of us marvel at what the Christmas season can do to even the hardest of hearts.

"You show people what you're willing to fight for when you fight your friends."- Hillary Clinton

There, now. Doesn't that just about say it all?

Bonzo Mania!

One of my guilty pleasures is a fondness for the odd or the unpopular, especially if it has genuine quality in it. Well, I can't think of a more odd, unpopular or genuinely excellent musical group than the Bonzo Dog Doo-dah Band. I've been a fan of these patently insane British "musicians" for many a year. Unfortunately, I was not a fan early enough to have actually seen the band, but a friend of mine claims he saw them at the Michigan State Fair in the late sixties. They disbanded in 1970 but did produce one more album in 1971. I became infatuated with their music in the early seventies. Their comic genius-typically British, typically subdued and typically sarcastic-puts one in mind of the Monty Python group. Actually, Eric Idle was a regular "member", as were Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton and many many other famous musicians and comedians in Britain at the time.

The band began with a group of Art College students who loved traditional jazz and dixieland music and formed a band to play it. Their creativity moved them into comical revisions of the genres in which they were originally interested and some very interesting results were obtained. Over the course of their development they became the "house band" on a weekly children's television show called Do Not Adjust Your Set, which featured Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin and Terry Gilliam of Monty Python fame. Later, they began writing and recording some more mainstream (Ha!) Rock music cuts, some of which actually made it on the "charts", in England. Even during this period, they kept tongue planted firmly in cheek, rest assured! If I could suggest one album to listen to it would be Gorrilla, from 1967, but, really, it is impossible to choose and there's no reason to do so. Take a few hours and listen to them all! They run the spectrum in genres from Dixieland Jazz, to Spike Jones, to British Blues, to Psychedelic Rock to Elvis and even some Country Western! Something for everyone, so to speak.

So what brings such a topic up for discussion some thirty-six years after the band's demise? They have re-united again and produced their first new album since 1971! Now, I have bored and amazed my friends for decades by making them listen to the fantastic works of this band at parties and during long travels in the car. Some actually listen and they get it, while others simply get bored because it doesn't match the latest musical trends and they lose interest quickly. They know me as the guy who likes weird music. If it's unusual, quirky or just plain weird, I probably know something about it. The thing is, though, this band is different! They're not only weird and comical (and they are freaking hilarious!) but they have true musical talent and songwriting abilities, as well. Think of them as Monty Python with instruments and much, much more. Supposedly, their stage presence was frenetic and wildly entertaining, often involving skits, costumes, acting and the lot. They were multi-media, then!

Of course no written article can impart the rich, comic and musical genius of the Bonzos to the public without benefit of actually hearing the music, itself. And that would violate many copyright laws and such, so it isn't possible, here. You'll have to search them out and listen to them on your own. They are certainly worth the trouble. One of my Christmas presents will be the new album available here both in downloadable format and for ready-made purchase. Of course, their other albums are still for sale as well.

Enjoy!

Christmas Ale

I brewed a Christmas Ale on October 27th which is a clone of Affligem Noel. I hadn't actually tried that particular Belgian brew before but it sounded good and I had a hankerin' to brew! Last night at the Holiday party for the Pontiac Brewing Tribe (one of the brew clubs I belong to), I actually tried that beer, along with some N'ice Chouffe and some Delirium Noel! They were all pretty special. Add to that some fantastic homebrewed meads, wines and beers and it was a pretty tasty night!

This beer taxed my keggle system as it filled the mash tun pretty much to its capacity, as seen by the picture on the page. I did oversparge, though (based on my Beertools pro recommendation) and ended up with a beer a little less strong than expected (but a lot more of it!). Anyway, here is the recipe for a ten gallon batch (or thirteen):

34 lbs. Pilsner malt
1 lb. Belgian Caramunich
1 lb. Belgian Aromatic
.5 lb. Belgian Biscuit
.5 lb. Chocolate Malt
.25 lb. Honey Malt
1 lb. Light Brown Sugar
2 lbs. White Table Sugar (Beet based)
.4 teaspoon cinnamon (15 min.)
2 teaspoons Irish Moss (15 min.)
1.5 oz. Styrian Goldings (60 min.)
1 oz. Styrian Goldings (15 minutes)
.5 oz Styrian Goldings (5 minutes)
1 teaspoon crushed coriander (5 minutes)
White Labs 530 Abbey Ale Yeast (two half gallon starters)

Mashed at 152 for one hour batch sparged and primary fermented in glass for one week, transferred to secondary (glass) for three weeks and pitched an additional half gallon of same yeast five days before bottling.

I added some 100% cocoa Chocolate (one ounce) in the secondary of the three gallon carboy. I bottled that day before yesterday. It smelled very vinous (winey) but when I tried a bottle today (partially carbonated) it tasted pretty good, just a bit harsh (alcohol). I didn't notice the chocolate but the cinnamon came through subtly. It was sweet and spicy with a caramel malt note and had some characteristic Belgian spiciness in the aftertaste. Hop presence was subued. I can't wait to try it in a month or so (and then again a year or two or so...). At about eight percent alcohol it should age well!

I won't be bottling the other ten gallons for about a week or so, as it is still fermenting!

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!