Hoppy Birthday, America!

I decided to grow my own hops for homebrewing back in 2001. I grew Fuggles back then. Unfortunately a few years into the project, I found I needed a new septic field and the old hop plants did not survive. In 2004, I planted four new varieties: US Goldings, Cascade, Hallertau and Nugget. These are doing very well, now. In the picture above and to the right, the plants are just beginning their new lives. The picture was taken on May 19, 2008.

I have been using my own hops for beer for several years but this year, due to the hop shortage, I have decided to use my own hops exclusively. It will save me a bunch of dough! I have made several ten gallon batches this year, using only my own hops!

Next year I plan on extending the trellis by adding a central pole and running the hops up that to a height of near twenty feet. It may make it easier to keep the different hop varieties from getting tangled up together. I should also divide some of the roots. If I do, I will have them available for others interested in the hobby (stay tuned!).

The second picture shows the hops as they look today. The flowers are fuzzy little things at the moment but will morph into hops cones in the next week or so. In August they will ripen and I will pick and dry them for freezing. I will record the process this year for the blog. Each variety ripens at a different time, just to make things interesting!

So sometime in September I will be able to celebrate Hop Independence Day!

Happy Birthday, America!

On this anniversary of the founding of our nation, the birth of self-rule and the creation of the Hope-there's that word again!- of the world, it is essential that we reflect on what made this experiment work and why we need to return to those principles before the experiment fails...miserably.

"That government is best which governs least." This quote by Thomas Paine really sums it all up for me. Individual freedom and restrictions on governmental power are what made this country the astounding success of the enlightenment and the bright and shining example towards which all free-thinking peoples have aimed over the past 232 years. Those principles are threatened today by an attitude and ignorance that would have astounded the Founders and made them question the sacrifices they made to create this system of governance.

Think in terms of the finishing words of the Declaration of Independence, where the signers pledged to each other, "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence", their lives, fortunes and scared honor. These words were not written or pledged in a hollow fashion. This political rhetoric is wholly different from that of our current crop of political functionaries. These men actually risked their lives, their families lives, all of their possessions and their "scared honor" in pledging to overthrow the rule of Great Britain and create a new nation and form of government. Many lost some or even all of these during the course of the war. But the cause prevailed.

Examining that cause today is somewhat disappointing. We seem to have gotten so far afield of our founding principles that the resulting colossus is almost unrecognizable. With full-time professional legislatures, the near elimination of "state's rights", an imperial presidency, taxation beyond any sensible measure and a budget and fiscal attitude that can only be described as ridiculous, does anyone think the Founders would recognize their creation in our current condition?

Every day, all around this country, full-time, professional tax-spenders are creating laws. And with each new law there is a new tax, a new criminal or a new deficit. Why is this the norm? Why do we now shrug and say, "Oh well. That's just the way it is"? These kinds of tyranny would have resulted in open rebellion two-hundred years ago!

We as a citizenry are at fault. We have taken to settling for unprincipled and unethical politicians that appeal to our basest instincts in order to gain office and retain their power. Most often these people count on our collective ignorance or our prejudices and differences to maintain and expand their power. The ignorance of the population regarding the incredible brilliance of our form of government and what trials and tribulations went into creating it is perhaps why these attitudes are so prevalent.

We have accepted schools and colleges that teach social diversity and politically correct rewrites of history, rather than the Truth. My children, who graduated over the past five years, did not have a Government or a Civics class. In place of this, the system offered a class called, "American Democratic Institutions", taught by teachers that couldn't pass the simplest test on the Constitution. We have accepted cults of personality, rather than good public servants. We have accepted an intolerance of religion rather than a tolerance of all faiths (including no faith). We accept hyper-sensitivity to all of our differences, rather than celebration of our much more considerable similarities.

Everyone should take the time to expand their knowledge of our Founding at this time of the year, if not at other times. Teach your children what they will not learn in our public schools. Talk about freedom and the principles of small, effective government and elect people who are principled and ethical, from the local dogcatcher to the President of the United States. If that movement ever catches on, the Founders might think the experiment was worthwhile after all.

What's Happening

First off, I want to apologize for the dearth of posts over the past few months. I've been busy and I also have been blogging at Right Michigan, so the posts have been missing in action. That doesn't mean I haven't been busy at making beer, though. So here's a rundown on what's been happening on the brewing front:

The two lagers I made late last year were entered in a couple of contests. One was the National Homebrew Competition, the largest homebrew contest (by far) in the world. Click on the link to see the results (I won a second place in Dark American Lager). Just click on first round winners and find me in the Great Lakes Region and wish me luck in the Second Round!

The second competition was a local one, the World Expo of Beer homebrew competition (the first year of what I hope is a long-lasting tradition). This one took place at the Frankenmuth, Michigan, World Expo of Beer, an annual beerfest and commercial competition. I have attended several of these festivals over the years and have judged at least twice in their commercial competition, where commercial brewers vie for medals in several beer categories. I also judged in the competition I entered, though not the actual categories. I took two second place awards for the two lagers I entered. My new homebrew club took several medals and overall was very successful. Now, if we only get a few other members to enter competitions, we could rock the Michigan homebrewing world!

I made an Irish Red Ale in May and an American Amber Ale a few weeks later. I tried a taste of the IRA, yesterday and it is scrumptious. A malty, yet crisp example of the true Irish Ale (not Killians, which is a lager that masquerades as an Irish Ale). A friend wanted a brew to serve at his daughter's open house and this was what I cooked up. I will be bottling the other five gallons, today.

I should also rack the Amber Ale into a secondary this week and see how that tastes, eh? Stay tuned...

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!

BDS and Other Insanities

The Left is awash in Bush Derangement Syndrome. It is the overriding belief that no matter how far removed from the problem at hand, everything on earth that goes bad is Bush's fault. Now, I don't mean to denigrate those who've made a living or a name out of this behavior (Rosie O'Donnell, Sean Penn, and Liberal Larry come to mind...), but now that Bush's final term is winding down and he won't be running again, it is a bit silly to continue to blame everything on W.

Thinking about this topic, as I was today, I realized that this syndrome is probably based upon an emotional response to what Bush and his policies seem to be to the majority of the people who feel that way. This is no scientific study but I tend to think of most of the BDS sufferers as liberals and anti-war types, who are also likely not very religious or are actually secular humanists/atheists. These folks see Bush as a "cowboy", a misspeaking misanthrope and a religious nut that wants to rule America as a evangelical theocracy. Most of their anger and distrust of Bush comes from one or more of these views of his "agenda".

Full disclosure: I have photos of Bush and his wife on my basement wall, next to my brewery and my wife framed our Christmas card from the Bush's a few years ago. I admired the man very much for his leadership after 9/11 and his aggressive stance in the War on Terror. In truth, I probably embraced Bush almost as much for the anger he engendered in liberals as for the agreements I had with his positions. I was also very disappointed in many of his positions and decisions over the course of his two terms and am much more disillusioned in the man and his policies now. I see his good points and his bad by using reason and not emotion when I try to do the evaluation. That logical evaluation is the key.

That is what is missing from the Bush Derangement Sufferers and, consequently, what is missing from those who blindly support Bush and his policies when they are wrong. Supporting Bush when he presses for amnesty for illegals, for increased governmental powers and less freedom for Americans and for spending our progeny into the poorhouse is as deranged as any Truther position that Rosie spouts. If you really think that increasing the powers of the presidency and allowing the government to improve their ability to spy on US citizens is a good thing, it's only because you trust George W. Bush. I trust him, too, for the most part. But I don't trust the government and I certainly don't want powers given to Bush to be handed over to Hillary Clinton in a year or so. See my meanin'?

I was thinking lately that while this federal government continues to tell us that they need to be able to intercept emails and phone calls at the drop of a hat, in order to keep us free and safe from the terrorists, that argument really doesn't square with the facts. The fact is that our government, like all bloated, flabby, brainless bureaucracies, will not be effective with the tools we give it and will abuse those tools given half a chance. This will happen and is happening in Bush's term and will be much worse if a liberal Democrat wins the White House.

Now, I know many of my conservative friends will say that the federal government needs to be able to spy on us for our own good and that there have been no documented cases of actual citizens being spied upon by the government using the expanded powers of the federal government provided by the Patriot Act and its successors. They will say that the government isn't interested in our petty emails and phone calls; they are trying to stop the next Al Qaeda attack. Furthermore many of them will say that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. I'm sure that was a common statement of J. Edgar Hoover and COINTELPRO.

Rather than arguing that the government is overstepping its bounds, as I believe it has (see this article and others at JWR by Nat Hentoff for clarification), I would rather argue that we can't trust the government because of its bungling, corrupt nature and ineffectiveness, regardless of whether it is deliberately invading our privacy against the strictures of our Constitution.

Take 9/11, for instance. Many people have argued that our government did not have the tools to prevent the attacks prior to that event and argue that we need these new tools to keep us safe. Hogwash! Remember that phrase "connect the dots"? The dots were there prior to 9/11 but we didn't connect them. Even the Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell admitted in September, before Congress, that if those "dots" had been connected, "9/11 should have and could have been prevented". Arguing for more governmental power in light of this statement sounds a bit contrived, doesn't it? If we had all the data we needed before 9/11 but failed to put it together, would more power to access more data actually help us in the future? And at what price?

In this month's Reason magazine, Jeff Taylor writes a brief article about the FBI's inability to stop 9/11, though they had all of the necessary information beforehand. It's an excellent, short treatment of the ineffectiveness of one of our top federal police agencies during the weeks leading up to that dreadful day. To paraphrase his article, federal agents on the ground knew that hijackers Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi had sought pilot training. They knew that Zacarias Moussaoui had sought the same sort of training and that he was carrying 747 manuals when he was picked up on immigration charges. McClatchy Newspapers' Greg Gordon reported on 9/10/2007 that information in Moussaoui's notebooks, for which supervisors at FBI headquarters refused to seek a warrant (against the pleadings of special agent Harry Samit), would clearly have exposed the hijackers and prevented the attacks. Samit, himself, blamed the "obstructionism, criminal negligence and careerism" as the roadblock in his own investigation. Increased surveillance powers will not improve those problems, will it?

Finally, as we head up to the next presidential elections and Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner among all candidates, do we really want to give this clearly corrupt, immoral and power-mad person the keys to our newly hopped-up terrorist hunting (and civil liberty destroying) hotrod? I think not!

Noble Prize

Alfred Nobel , when he died in 1895, left some money in his will that created the funds to award the prizes that will forever be doled out in his name. He was presumably all tore up over what he perceived would be his legacy as the inventor of Dynamite and wanted leave a different sort of namby-pamby legacy, instead. Now, why he would want to be so embarrassed by his legacy as the inventor of one of the most important inventions the world has ever known is beyond this writer. After all, Jimmie JJ Johnson isn't ashamed of his trademark, "DYNOMITE!", is he?

Anyway, the guiding principle of these awards seems to have been Nobel's guilt at having created so destructive a force as...he-he-he...Dynamite. He wanted to be remembered for his prizes, which have since been awarded to more commies and fruitcakes than you can shake a stick of Dynamite at. First, let's see what the criteria of these awards was supposed to be, as defined by Alfred's will:

"The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

At least for Literature, the criteria seem to be somewhat political, don't they?

one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency

None of the other criteria seem to have any value judgments, do they? So I guess we can forgive the Norwegian Nobel Committee for awarding the majority of these (Literary) prizes to communists who have enjoyed little or no commercial success and have done little other than skewer the beliefs and values of a majority of the world's peoples in their inconsequential works. But how do we square the incredibly political bent of the committee in awarding all of the other prizes? I guess we just chalk that up to the Leftist-intelligentsia of Europe.

To illustrate we should look no further than the Peace category. Here are the past few years winners:
2007-The IPPC and Al Gore Jr. for scaring the hell out of everyone and prodding a guilty West into supporting a Luddite visions of the future, while allowing certain enlightened visionaries to continue to enjoy life's technological largesse.
2006-Muhammed Yunus and Grameen Bank for setting up a "bank" that supposedly gives loans with no collateral to poor subsistence farmers in Bangladesh or somewhere. And supposedly this "bank" is making a profit! Ok, you know this is impossible, right? It sounds so uplifting, though and makes me feel warm all over.
2005- International Atomic Energy Agency and Muhamed ElBaradei for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way. Leaving aside that they have not been one whit successful and that no one wants nuclear energy to be used in an unsafe manner, what exactly have these folks done to merit a prize of any kind?
2004-Wangari Maathai for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace. "Sustainable development" is eco-speak for methods that third-worlders can't afford. It's just fine for San Francisco liberals to work on sustainable development, but Kenyans and other Third-worlders need to develop at any cost. They certainly don't need to worry about diversity, eco-friendliness or any of these weakly defined hippie concepts.
2003-Shirin Ebadi for her efforts for democracy and human rights. Hhhmmm, maybe...but why her? Aren't there plenty of people working for this in the world and probably doing much more good than Ms. Ebadi? Let's look at the Nobel Committee's press release:
Ebadi is a conscious Moslem. She sees no conflict between Islam and fundamental human rights. It is important to her that the dialogue between the different cultures and religions of the world should take as its point of departure their shared values. It is a pleasure for the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award the Peace Prize to a woman who is part of the Moslem world, and of whom that world can be proud - along with all who fight for human rights wherever they live.
Well, now it's clear as mud!
2002-Jimmy Carter Jr. for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development. Don't these reasons start sounding awfully similar after awhile?

It would seem that these prizes are awarded more for the recipients absolute failure to achieve any objective at all than for any actual achievement!

In fact, it might just be that the recipients of the infamous Ig Nobel Prizes may be more deserving of an award than the Nobel Prize Winners, at least in some cases. At least these prize winners caused a laugh or two, unlike most of the Nobel Prize Winners (Jimmy Carter and the carnivorous rabbit, excluded).

Political Theater

Warning: long article with interest only to Michigan taxpayers ahead...

I have resisted writing about the current state of affairs in our state government in Michigan, lately. This is partly because I am very busy these days and partly because the issues are extremely conflicting for me. Full disclosure: I am an employee of the State of Michigan. This means I am paid by the taxpayers and I provide a service for all of those taxpayers. I am also one of the people whose salaries are a current drain on those same taxpayers. As our lovely Governor is wont to point out, there are two sides to a budget equation: revenues and expenditures. I am an expenditure.

The reason the issue is conflicting is that I am very much in favor of cutting state government. On the other hand I am a part of that government. The argument I make, then, sounds a bit self-serving if not disingenuous: I am in favor of cutting state government, just not my job. There how does that sound? Lame, I know. But that is just my argument. You see, I work for a portion of the government that really can't be privatized. I work in the state's prison system and, as such, we have the power of life and death over our inmates. If an inmate tries to escape, it is my duty to stop him by any means necessary, including the legal use of deadly force. I am of the opinion that the state can't delegate this power to a private entity. There are plenty of arguments to the contrary. Good ones, in fact. My own views are primarily based on the explanation given above and the poor record of those corporations that have been given that power by other states.

So, I am in favor of the portion of Michigan's government that wants to cut expenditures, before even thinking about raising revenues (That's raising taxes, in plain-speak). I am confident that-given the information and the opportunity-I could easily cut 2 Billion in fat out of the state's budget. The people who think like me on this issue are almost all Republicans.

The current crisis in Michigan's government is of course, nothing new. This summer the same sort of thing was happening in Pennsylvania. A liberal governor, Ed Rendell, threatened to shut down his state's government if a budget deal was not reached that would include his pet tax hike, an energy tax. Sound Familiar?

Here is a quote from the linked article that indicates just what was happening at the time and shows also, what is happening right now in Michigan: “It doesn’t have to be this way,” said Rep. Curt Schroder of Chester County. “The governor is using state employees and government services as pawns in an attempt to garner support for tax, fee and spending increases that fall outside the General Fund budget. It is absurd that the governor is using the livelihood of state workers to leverage support for unpopular proposals.”

I understand that Granholm and Rendell are quite friendly with one another. Perhaps she thinks that a government shutdown would be no less injurious to her and her Democrat congress than it was for Rendell. Of course that remains to be seen, as Pennsylvania voters have shown a propensity to "vote the bums out", in the past. Michigan voters, however, are mostly sheep and continue to vote primarily for liberal Democrats, even though the state's future is seriously at risk by following this prescription. For example, the Michigan state legislature (and the Governor) voted themselves a 35% increase in their wages in 2001 and there was no backlash as in the cited Pennsylvania case. (Actually, the mechanism for salary increases for our legislature and executive branch is extremely sneaky. It requires a vote by the appointed Civil Service Commision, and can only be overidden by the legislature once awarded. So the legislature didn't vote the increase, they only failed to vote against it!) In short, Granholm's gambit will probably work.

She wants a tax hike as opposed to making the truly tough decisions to make the cuts necessary to bring the budget under control. She wants to continue to make state government the tool for change in this economy, when it is actually the millstone around this economy's neck. Her "cool cities" initiative is one good example. Let's give money that the state doesn't have to cities that want to initiate changes that make them "hip"! WTF? All the while making it more difficult and costly to do business in the state. Granholm threatened the Republicans that if they don't support her "revenue" increases, she would attack state business interests by closing tax loopholes advantageous to businesses. Yikes! A state that is leaking jobs like a sieve is going to attack the only businesses who remain? Yup! That's progressive action, people! After all, we can't cozy up to the corporations, publicly. We're Democrats, after all! We'll just keep talking about the evil corporations, while eliciting quiet campaign contributions from all of the CEOs of those companies. It isn't as if we will do anything for those contributions...

There are hundreds of unnecessary, high-paid, state employees. There are hundreds of congressional staff members that are also unneeded for the actual performance of government business. Legislators earn unnecessarily high salaries, work unnecessarily long hours, earn unrealistically high retirement benefits for ridiculously short careers and unnecessarily high health care benefits. Visit the state government website to see the plethora of agencies and departments that comprise our state government. There are nineteen departments within the executive branch of our government, some of which are entirely unnecessary! All our governor has done to "streamline" these departments is shuffle high-paid administrators from one department to the other. No real reduction has taken place during her tenure. Any person that thinks it makes sense for the regular, blue-collar state employee to receive cuts to bring their compensation packages down to what the average private sector employee receives, should be outraged at what the higher end state employees are getting.

Michigan's state government is huge and it could stand a whole helluva lot of trimming. We pay many, many people over one hundred thousand dollars a year for things that have dubious benefits for most state residents. The job of General Manager for the Michigan State Fair comes to mind. This job pays over $101,000/year and includes an attractive benefit package. It doesn't rival what a general manager in the private sector might get but the job is not a private job. Here is the difference, people. These jobs are not given to people based upon their abilities, qualifications or their work histories. They're given on the basis of political considerations and cronyism. For this reason more than any other, these jobs should be up on the block during tough political times.

Could the state government privatize the state fair's operation? Yes. Could they sell some fo the millions of acres of state land they have? Yes. Could the state cut the salaries of the legislature and halt the payment of retirement wages to some of these people whose work histories don't even reach ten years of service? Yes. Instead of these hard decisions, our governor wants to keep the status quo and raise taxes.

In order to get the public to support a tax increase, she wants to show them how bad things can get. You won't be able to buy liquor! No lottery sales can be made! Certain bridges will be shut down! Scary, huh? Now, don't you think a tax increase is better than all that? Not only that, but the governor and her party (which is the majority party in our legislature) wants to force Republicans to vote for the tax increase so that key, vulnerable Democrats can vote no or decline to vote, to help maintain their seats next election!

As a libertarian, I don't care if government shuts down. In fact, I like the idea. Most of the government is doing me harm when they're working, anyway! Still, the governor's gambit has paid off. There will be a tax increase and the only people that will pay for their crime of raising taxes will be fiscally irresponsible Republicans.

I was notified on Friday that I am a non-essential state employee. I was told not to report to work on Monday, unless the budget is resolved. I am to watch the news and check the website at Michigan.gov. I will be losing even more money to act in the governor's political theater. So far, I've received cuts in my wages of over $6000 in just one year, during Ms. Granholm's tenure. 2005 marked the first year in twenty years that my wages actually dropped from the previous year. Oh well, when the going gets tough, the fat cats circle the wagons!

Hsu: Latest in Clinton Body Count?

A mysterious illness, disappearances in the dark of night and allegations of serious corruption involving the Clintons, should come as no surprise any more. The same scenarios have played out numerous times over the past fifteen years with a host of characters. Just Google the Clinton Body Count for some very interesting reading. Really, one can't help coming away from such a visit without being convinced that the Clintons and their people have been involved in some very nefarious activities.

Now, on the verge of Hillary's entry into the Big Leagues, Hsu surfaces and throws more bad publicity her way. Who can be surprised if he suddenly comes down with a mysterious illness that doctors can't seem to explain and which just keeps getting worse? It certainly wouldn't be the first time. Take Ronald Miller, for example. Mr. Miller was preparing to implicate President Clinton's Chief of Staff, Thomas F. McLarty III in Oklahoma-related scandals, in his upcoming testimony before a congressional committee in 1997, when he suddenly became ill with "flu-like" symptoms. He deteriorated and died ten days later, though the cause of death has never been identified. Ricin poisoning was suspected and ruled out, as well as anthrax. Miller had also tape recorded Gene and Nora Lum and turned those tapes over to congressional oversight investigators. The Lums were sentenced to prison for campaign finance violations, using "straw donors" to conceal the size of their contributions to various candidates. This is exactly the strategy currently being alleged in the indictment of famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian attorney, Geoffrey Fieger.

Much like Mother Nature, it just does not seem to pay to piss off Hillary Clinton. The list of casualties is long and the stories are convincing. Conspiracy theories abound about these poor dupes who met their demise after crossing or agreeing to cross the Clintonistas. Consider Jerry Parks, who was murdered gangland style in a hail of bullets while driving in a suburb of Little Rock. Two months earlier, while watching a news broadcast on Vince Foster's apparent suicide, Jerry muttered under his breath in the presence of his son, Gary, "I'm a dead man". His home had been burglarized three months earlier and the only thing stolen was a pair of files on Clinton's sexual escapades during the late 1980's. It seems that Hillary had tired of Bill's philanderings and was about to divorce him in 1988. She hired Jerry Parks to follow him and gather evidence and contacted Vince Foster about writing up the divorce paperwork. It was that evidence which was stolen in the break-in.

Anyway, Fieger and Hsu had better watch their backs. It's not nice to fool Mother Clinton!

Culture of Corruption

I was watching Hannity and Colmes the other night and they were discussing the efforts to reduce earmarks and other slimy congressional behaviors. They had a fellow on from California, U.S. Rep John Campbell (R-CA) who had challenged Mr Murtha (D-PA) over the latest earmarking extravaganza in what was passed as a Defense Spending bill. There were 1337 earmarks worth some 3 Billion dollars in that bill, including $150 Million to Murtha's district. Murtha, of course, vigorously defended not only the earmarks in that bill, but the entire earmarking process, saying that they "go over every single earmark" and that such earmarking legislation amounts to a "competitive bidding process" which results in technology which would be owned by the U.S. I have since been unable to find evidence of any such U.S. owned technology resulting from any of these "competitive bidding processes", though. Sounds a lot like Pelosi's euphemism thing being tried again. Let's not call them earmarks, let's call them "competitive bidding processes", mm-kay?

Now, leaving aside all of the hypocrisy over the newly elected Democrat majority's pledge to clean up congress and provide the most open and honest congress in history, Mr. Murtha's comments are seriously over the top in many other ways. He told a whopper about the nature of the earmarking process itself, he bristled and angrily dismissed the reasonable questions asked by Mr. Campbell and he basically told the American people to "bugger off" if they don't like the way things are done in his House. This guy's behavior is truly outrageous! But the military loves him, right? Not exactly. Military contractors in Pennsylvania love him, though.

But the thing that really got me going in watching the H&C coverage of that event on the House floor, was Alan Colmes's attempt to imply that Republicans think only Democrats are earmarkers. Of course he laid that little charge on Mr. Campbell, who was brave enough to actually come on the show and discuss his actions in the debacle, unlike the earmarking champion, John Murtha. Campbell told Colmes straight-off that earmarking is definitely a bi-partisan problem and that Republicans do it as often as, or maybe more than, Democrats. He followed that up with an interesting point, though. He said that there is a group of congresspeople that are dedicated to ending earmarks-as-usual in the legislature and that they are all...Republicans!

Isn't this the point? Sure, there are congresscritters of all parties out there gaming the system by back-scratching lobbyists, each other, and peddling their influence in oh, so many ways. But it seems as though the only ones seriously challenging this earmarking, pork-barreling, business-as-usual in the congress are...Republicans. Witness the recent attacks on these practices (which, I know, no one has heard about, because it just isn't important to the mainstream media) which have all been produced by a dedicated minority of lawmakers, and note that the only lawmakers with one-hundred percent support for these anti-pork amendments are...Republicans.

The Club for Growth congressional Re-Pork Card shows the records of congressfolks in voting for anti-pork legislation and lists some of the amendments proposed by the anti-porkers against some of the most egregious hunks of swine fat in this year's legislation. Check it out carefully! It clearly details the battle over earmarking and shows who the real reformers are. Of course most of the amendments (49 out of 50) proposed to curtail pork-barrel or earmark spending failed miserably, but at least these courageous legislators tried. These fifty amendments were proposed by John Campbell, Jeff Flake, Jeb Hensarling, Scott Garrett, and David Obey. Obey, the only Democrat, proposed one of the fifty amendments and then proceeded to vote against it! The rest of these Representatives are...Republicans.

So, yeah, the corruption in Congress is a bi-partisan problem but the solution, so far anyway, seems to be purely...Republican!

The Opposite of Loser is...

There have been several years of US activity in Iraq for the public to criticize. Much of the criticism is entirely appropriate. Still, it seems that for the last couple of years the Democrat Party has based its entire party platform on the US losing the war. They say we have already lost, that it's become a civil war, that we need to withdraw because our presence is making matters worse, there, etc. All of their energy is focused on getting the US out of Iraq and accepting the military loss that they have already proclaimed. All this because...a US loss is a Bush/Republican loss.

Many snarky Republicans have said over the years that the Democrats want the US to lose in Iraq, and most reasonable people-me included- have said, "No. That can't be true." I think the jury is in on this one, though. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. Good news on our progress from Petraeus would be "a real big problem for us", said the Congressman. Is Mr. Clyburn alone? I think not.

It is absolutely clear that leading Democrats do not want to see any good news coming from Iraq. Even if there is any good news, they'll go out of their way to dispute it. Witness our good friend and ABSCAM bribe ponderer, John (I support the troops!) Murtha
Murtha dismissed the claims of two longtime Iraq War critics who cite improvements in conditions in Iraq. Now if this was a considered, studied and intelligent refutation of flawed statements by the "longtime critics" of the war, I'd say agreeing or disagreeing with Mr. Murtha would be an individual choice, based upon one's opinion of the war and our progress. Since it was, rather, a knee-jerk reaction to some rare good news about the war, I'd say most of us should cry, "Bullshit"!

I don't know if the situation is actually getting better or if it's Global Warming that's assisting the lower death rates. I don't know if the situation in Iraq is stabler and safer as the Brookings Institute observers said, or if they were simply in the right place at the right time. I know what I want to see happen, though. I want to see things get better for the Iraqis and for the US. I want to see more stability and freedom in the Middle East. I want to see a group of sane nations stand up against insanity all around them. I want the US to win the peace in Iraq and then I want our troops to come home as the heroes they truly are.

That's the opposite of losing, in case any Democrats ask you how you'll know when we've won!

Summer's Cauldron

Here are the Lyrics to "Summer's Cauldron", a song written by Andy Partridge of XTC and performed by XTC on the album "Skylarking":

Drowning here in Summer's Cauldron
Under mats of flower lava
Please don't pull me out this is how I would want to go
Breathing in the boiling butter
Fruit of sweating golden inca
Please don't heed my shout I'm relax in the undertow

When Miss Moon lays down
And Sir Sun stands up
Me I'm found floating round and round
Like a bug in brandy
In this big bronze cup
Drowning here in Summer's Cauldron

Trees are dancing drunk with nectar
Grass is waving underwater
Please don't pull me out this is how I would want to go
Insect bomber Buddhist droning
Copper chord of August's organ
Please don't heed my shout I'm relax in the undertow

When Miss Moon lays down
in her hilltop bed
And Sir Sun stands up
raise his regal head
Me I'm found floating round and round
Like a bug in brandy
In this big bronze cup
Drowning here in Summer's Cauldron

Now that's the way I feel on a lazy summer day, floating in my pool, with a cold homebrewed beer in my hand! Yup! And here's the beer I want to be drinking when I next do that:

Summer's Cauldron II (Kolsch)

22 Lbs. Belgian Pils
2 Lbs. German Wheat Malt
.5 Lbs. Belgian Biscuit
.5 Lbs. Flaked Maize
.5 Lbs. Rice Hulls

Mashed (single infusion) at 152 F, for 60 minutes.
Batch Sparged and drew off 11.5 gallons of 1.046 Wort
Boiled 60 Minutes with the following hop additions:
60 minutes-1.5 oz. Hallertau
45 minutes- 1 oz. Hallertau
15 minutes- 1 oz. Hallertau
5 minutes- .5 oz. Hallertau

Irish moss at 10 minutes left in boil.
OG-1.048 FG-1.009
4.7 SRM
5% ABV
23 IBUs

A nice summer-colored, summer-flavored brew!

Kolsch beer is a beer that was originally made to compete with the enormously popular lagers coming out in the late 19th century. It is a top-fermented beer (ale) with a straw color, light alcohol content, crisp and clean palate and a subtle fruity character. It is lightly hopped and fairly dry in finish. The appellation, Kolsch. is protected by the twenty or so breweries in Koln (Cologne) Germany, that make the style, and by the organization they formed, the Kolsch Konvention.

I have been homebrewing for seven years this month. I will be bottling a Belgian Trippel I made several weeks ago today as well as making this wonderful Kolsch described above. Look for more posts about beer as the Michigan Summer Beer Festival will be coming very soon (July 27 and 28th)...

Pardon Me

Ok, I don't blame Bush at all for commuting the sentence of "Scooter" Libby. Libby's "crime" will be more than made whole by his $250, 000 fine and probation, not to mention his loss of respect and ability to practice law (as if those two were not otherwise mutually exclusive).

I agree with the decision. What I can't understand is why he hasn't commuted/pardoned a whole bunch of folks that deserve it. The man ain't running for anything anymore. What's he got to worry about?

Thanks to Cato.org, here are some other worthy people for Bush to pardon/commute...

• Marsha Cunningham
  
  Like Kemba Smith, Cunningham, who was arrested in 1997, had no prior offenses. Nor was there any evidence that she had ever participated in a drug deal.
  
  Yet when police found powder and crack cocaine in the Dallas apartment that Cunningham shared with her boyfriend, and her boyfriend was caught with crack while driving her car, federal mandatory minimums kicked in. Now, Cunningham is serving 15 years in prison.

• Dane Yirkovsky
  
  Yirkovsky is serving a 15-year sentence for possession of a single .22-caliber bullet.
  
  In December 1998 he found this bullet while doing remodeling work for a friend who was giving him a place to stay in exchange for the work. Yirkovsky put the bullet in a box in his bedroom. Later that month, the police found the bullet while searching Yirkovsky's room after a call from his former girlfriend, who claimed he had some of her possessions. Because of Yirkovsky's prior convictions for burglary, federal prosecutors charged him under the Armed Career Criminal Act, although he had not threatened anyone and did not have a gun.

• Weldon Angelos
  
  A year ago this week, 24-year-old Angelos was sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling two small bags of marijuana to a police informant. During the transaction, Angelos was carrying a pistol in an ankle holster, although he did not threaten anyone with the weapon. Nonetheless, the law imposed a severe mandatory minimum for gun possession during a drug deal.
  
  In sentencing Angelos, U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell of Utah, a conservative Republican appointed by President Bush, also ran through the maximum penalties for hijacking an airplane (25 years), a terrorist bombing intending to kill a bystander (20 years), and kidnapping (13 years). The judge noted that just two hours earlier, he had imposed a sentence of 22 years in a case where a man beat a senior citizen to death with a log.
  
  "Is there a rational basis," Cassell asked, "for giving Mr. Angelos more time than the hijacker, the murderer, the rapist?" Cassell called the 55-year sentence "unjust, cruel, and even irrational" but said that the law left him "no choice."
  
  Of course, President Bush need not free Angelos immediately—a crime was committed—but he has the power to reduce Angelos' sentence. Surely one mistake is a poor justification for taking away most of a young father's life.

• Robert Blandford, Diane Huang, David McNab, and Abner Schoenwetter
  
  Three American seafood dealers and one Honduran lobster-fleet owner are currently doing hard time for importing lobster tails that were the wrong size and that were packaged in clear plastic bags rather than in cardboard boxes. They ran afoul of the Lacey Act, a federal statute that makes it a crime to import fish or wildlife taken "in violation of any foreign law."
  
  The U.S. government argued that they had broken Honduran law because some of the lobster tails—3 percent, to be exact—were less than five and a half inches long, and because a Honduran regulation required that the lobster tails be packed in boxes. Yet Honduran officials testified that no laws had been violated.
  
  Nonetheless, Blandford, McNab (the Honduran national), and Schoenwetter, three small-business men with no previous criminal records, were sentenced in 2001 to eight-year terms. Their "partner in crime," Huang, got off easy: two years' incarceration for the mother of two young children.

Oh, and also the two border guards, but they're already getting plenty of press, aren't they?

OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES, OUR SACRED HONOR

Can anyone imagine any of today's serious candidates for President making the pledge elicited in the title above...and meaning it? That pledge made by the fathers of this country, the 56 signatories of the Declaration of Independence would melt the tongues of the present politicians that mean to serve this nation. I cannot imagine our present politicos risking their livelihoods, property and their lives on anything, much less their sacred honor (something worth far less than was reflected in the signing of that most illustrious of documents).

When I make those disparaging remarks about our present crop of politicians, make no mistake, I do not spare Republicans. The current rage among conservatives is Fred Thompson, an actor for the most part. I do not for a minute expect that man to be the savior of this country, as the patriots who sacrificed their all did to build this great nation. In fact, I don't expect Fred Thompson to be much of anything. Perhaps he will be a preferable evil to Hillary Clinton. If so, he will probably be huzzahed by the great majority of right-thinking conservatives in this country-and perhaps deservedly so. They need something to believe in after the current dipstick's shenanigans (can you say No Child Left Behind, Harriet Myers, Shamnesty, a broken veto pen, and on and on and on...?).

What can one expect out of today's politicians? Can one expect a politician to be honest, self-sacrificing and dedicated to serving the people of this country, in this day-and-age? Well, certainly one might be able to find such a rare soul in our population, but could one expect that rare soul to make it to the ballot of the first presidential primary? I think you see my point.

I don't trust Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. Of course, I trust my trash collector more than I trust John Edwards, Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton. Obama's raised a lot of money and it has been honestly raised by small donors. That's no mean feat. Still, the man would do the wrong thing for this country, nearly every single time he chooses to act (whether he acts honestly or selfishly means little when his honest action is simply wrong). Hillary is nothing but a power-hungry pol, willing to do anything to get elected, including paying off those who assist her in any way possible, once in office. How could you expect anything else from someone who has already shown her willingness to do this as a first lady and a Senator?

I will vote for the honest politician that agrees most with my vision of the best direction for this country. If the politician is not honest (and I can detect bullshit from a mile away, thanks to twenty-three years of working with convicts), I will not vote for them. I don't care who's running against them and I don't care who will win if I vote for a third party candidate, instead. Simple as that. I'm voting for the one that honestly wants what I want for this country and my children and future grandchildren. Right now, that's Ron Paul. He says what he believes, not what he thinks will get him elected. Can you say that about any of the other candidates?

I could see Ron Paul chancing his fortune, life and sacred honor for the protection of this country. I can't say that about any other candidate at this point. Maybe somebody will step up and surprise me, but I doubt it very much.

Good Day for Americans

The defeat of the Shamnesty Bill was a great victory for all Americans. This nation could ill afford-just economically-another Bush-Kennedy collaboration! And this one would have far-outdistanced the NCLB previous collaboration in both monetary costs and the costs associated with decreased security. The efforts of thousands of conservative bloggers and activists defeated this bill, make no mistake. "Kill Bill 2, the sequel" was launched by grassroots conservative organizations and individual bloggers. Just one such group, "Grassfire .org",
made millions of contacts to the Senate.

Grassfire actions included:

• Presenting nearly 750,000 petitions to key Senate leaders
• Over one million contacts with Senators including:
• Personal visits to Senate offices
• Hundreds of thousands of phone calls - contributing to a complete overload shutdown of the Senate phone system
• Hundreds of thousands of faxes.

And that is just one group dedicated to winning this battle. There were many more. I thank them all. Heck they even convinced Debbie Stabenow to vote against the bill!

I see an awakening of the people occurring in this country. We don't trust what politicians tell us anymore, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. We won't get fooled again, again! Bush tried to ram this incredibly expensive (in all ways) measure down the throats of the electorate, arm-in-arm with his politico-pal, Ted Kennedy and we shoved back! There's no limit to what a fired up grassroots group can do when they want to. What's next on the agenda?