Today, I tried a bottle of Rogue's Shakespeare Stout that I picked up at the corner store, which, I have discovered, has a pretty impressive selection of beer.
Overall, this beer was slightly bitter with hints of dark chocolate and toasted malt, but unlike the last few beers I have tried (Sam Smith's Oatmeal Stout and Ninkasi’s Believer Double Red), the hops definitely stood out a bit more this time.
The flavours were crisp and earthy, but not as well-blended as I would have liked. It also had a bitter, semi-dry finish. Nevertheless, it was highly drinkable and surprisingly smooth.
I would definitely recommend this to people who like to sip dark, slightly bitter beers with a touch of sweetness.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
ninkasi's believer double red
Today, I sampled a bottle of Ninkasi's Believer Double Red, and while it's definitely not like any of the few reds I've had before, I really enjoyed it.
It has an intense hoppy bitterness that blends into a smooth malty finish. The malt also adds a hint of caramel sweetness that ties it all together nicely.
All in all, this beer has strong, complex flavours that are surprisingly well-balanced. I'd highly recommend this to people who like to sip a rich, well-balanced beer that's bitter yet sweet.
It has an intense hoppy bitterness that blends into a smooth malty finish. The malt also adds a hint of caramel sweetness that ties it all together nicely.
All in all, this beer has strong, complex flavours that are surprisingly well-balanced. I'd highly recommend this to people who like to sip a rich, well-balanced beer that's bitter yet sweet.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
labor unrest in france
It seems the French take labor negotiations seriously. Apparently, workers at a factory operated by 3M in Pithiviers, France, held their manager hostage for more than 24 hours amid labor talks aimed at securing "better severance packages for those being laid off and better conditions for those keeping their jobs" (French strikers hold 3M exec hostage amid talks).
And this isn't an isolated incident, either. The article states that: "In France, it is not unheard-of for striking workers to hold company executives as a way of winning concessions from management. The hostages are almost never injured. A similar situation ended peacefully earlier this month at Sony's French facilities."
It's certainly an interesting approach, but not one that I'd recommend, especially where I work. Rumour has it that our VP has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. You'd be luck if you got out alive, let alone with any concessions.
And this isn't an isolated incident, either. The article states that: "In France, it is not unheard-of for striking workers to hold company executives as a way of winning concessions from management. The hostages are almost never injured. A similar situation ended peacefully earlier this month at Sony's French facilities."
It's certainly an interesting approach, but not one that I'd recommend, especially where I work. Rumour has it that our VP has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. You'd be luck if you got out alive, let alone with any concessions.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
samuel smith's oatmeal stout
Last night, I sampled a bottle of Samuel Smith's Oatmeal stout while reading "Marx in SOHO." I picked it up from the corner store on my way home. Suffice it to say that I was pleasantly surprised. The $3.99 bottle was worth every penny.
Overall, the beer was hearty, smooth and mildly sweet. The initial rich, malt flavor was nicely balanced by a perfect amount of hops. Neither was overpowering, but the malt definitely took center stage giving it a nice, mild sweetness.
As this is one of the first oatmeal stouts I have tried, it is hard to say how it compares to other oatmeal stouts, but my tastes buds were in heaven. I would highly recommend this to people who like to sip a dark, thick beer after a good meal, or while chatting with friends.
Overall, the beer was hearty, smooth and mildly sweet. The initial rich, malt flavor was nicely balanced by a perfect amount of hops. Neither was overpowering, but the malt definitely took center stage giving it a nice, mild sweetness.
As this is one of the first oatmeal stouts I have tried, it is hard to say how it compares to other oatmeal stouts, but my tastes buds were in heaven. I would highly recommend this to people who like to sip a dark, thick beer after a good meal, or while chatting with friends.
Friday, March 20, 2009
musings to pass the time
Today I was reading a blog that was written by a friend of mine (?), and it has me thinking about some pretty abstract things. I will not pretend that I understand everything he is saying, which is centered on, among other things, the ideological foundation of all of laws and economy, but it has me thinking about what else Nietzsche might have meant when he said:
What does the word "will" really mean? Is it independent of external factors? Is it influenced by them? Both? Neither? Is it possible that the human will is not immutable, but frequently prone to change? If so, what are the causes and conditions that facilitate such changes? And what does this mean in regard to the individual?
To be fair to the truth, I do not know anything with absolute certainty. That is the one thing I am certain of. I change my mind about these things all the time. Why? I have no idea, but sometimes I think that I am little more than the product of my environment and the culmination of ideas and experiences that my senses have taken in during my lifetime. That is part of the reason I sometimes think that the "individual" is nothing more than a useful fiction we utilize in order to communicate and make sense of the world in a relative sense, but one that ultimately falls apart on further analysis.
It may all just be a matter of perspective, but having been influenced by social, cultural, and other omnipresent conditionings, can the "individual" really be said to be individual in the first place? Or put another way: Does a closed-system, biological entity truly exist?
In a certain sense, we have what appears to be a certain amount of autonomy. Will, volition or the creative spark in humankind expresses itself in a myriad of ways, and it is difficult to deny the products of that expression. Nevertheless, can an individual ever be considered a closed-system when they continually interact with their surroundings and vice versa? I fail to see how. And what of will? Can we, with any degree of certainty, say that it is truly independent? Again, I fail to see how.
If, on the other hand, we are open-systems with, arguably, a number of biological and psychological filters, is there any way to truly pull out the "individual" as being something separate? I tend to think not. Why? Because trying to do so neglects much of what makes the "individual" an individual by rejecting the inherent interdependence of their existence. The same applies to the will of said individual.
And then again, perhaps not. As I said, I do not know anything with absolute certainty, and these are just musings that are helping to pass the time. But they have proved useful to me in the past. It is this line of reasoning, for example, that has helped me to see that what happens in the world around me does matter to me as an individual, that trying to be active and change things is useful, even important. I quite like how Dr. Anil Rajvanshi puts it, albeit in a different context, when he says that "... each one of us lead our own separate lives which "dart" randomly depending on the forces acting upon us yet collectively we go forward in a band which is called human evolution" (Free Will, Evolution and Chaos Theory).
What does this all mean? I am not sure if it means anything; but when I try to piece it all together, here is what I get:
Metaphysics aside, my philosophy has always been that it is up to each individual, as far as they are able, to live their own lives and make their own choices. Nevertheless, as a good friend of mine once said to me, it is not the gods who make the world the way it is; we make the world this way. And we can make it into whatever we desire.
Perhaps Nietzsche was right about the human being who "possesses his own independent and enduring will." Perhaps that is the metaphorical godhead of human evolution, to perfect the skill of consciously creating our reality to the point that we eventually transcend our limitations and experience the world in an entirely new way.
Perhaps, then, the problem lies not in the world, but within us, with our desires, our will; self-mastery being the key as well as the goal.
The only question is whether we can master chaos itself.
Only time will tell.
“Let’s position ourselves, by contrast, at the end of this immense process, in the place where the tree at last yields its fruit, where society and the morality of custom finally bring to light the end for which they were simply the means: then we find, as the ripest fruit on that tree, the sovereign individual, something which resembles only itself, which has broken loose again from the morality of custom, the autonomous individual beyond morality (for ‘autonomous’ and ‘moral’ are mutually exclusive terms), in short, the human being who possesses his own independent and enduring will, who is entitled to make promises—and in him a consciousness quivering in every muscle, proud of what has finally been achieved and has become a living embodiment in him, a real consciousness of power and freedom, a feeling of completion for human beings generally.”
What does the word "will" really mean? Is it independent of external factors? Is it influenced by them? Both? Neither? Is it possible that the human will is not immutable, but frequently prone to change? If so, what are the causes and conditions that facilitate such changes? And what does this mean in regard to the individual?
To be fair to the truth, I do not know anything with absolute certainty. That is the one thing I am certain of. I change my mind about these things all the time. Why? I have no idea, but sometimes I think that I am little more than the product of my environment and the culmination of ideas and experiences that my senses have taken in during my lifetime. That is part of the reason I sometimes think that the "individual" is nothing more than a useful fiction we utilize in order to communicate and make sense of the world in a relative sense, but one that ultimately falls apart on further analysis.
It may all just be a matter of perspective, but having been influenced by social, cultural, and other omnipresent conditionings, can the "individual" really be said to be individual in the first place? Or put another way: Does a closed-system, biological entity truly exist?
In a certain sense, we have what appears to be a certain amount of autonomy. Will, volition or the creative spark in humankind expresses itself in a myriad of ways, and it is difficult to deny the products of that expression. Nevertheless, can an individual ever be considered a closed-system when they continually interact with their surroundings and vice versa? I fail to see how. And what of will? Can we, with any degree of certainty, say that it is truly independent? Again, I fail to see how.
If, on the other hand, we are open-systems with, arguably, a number of biological and psychological filters, is there any way to truly pull out the "individual" as being something separate? I tend to think not. Why? Because trying to do so neglects much of what makes the "individual" an individual by rejecting the inherent interdependence of their existence. The same applies to the will of said individual.
And then again, perhaps not. As I said, I do not know anything with absolute certainty, and these are just musings that are helping to pass the time. But they have proved useful to me in the past. It is this line of reasoning, for example, that has helped me to see that what happens in the world around me does matter to me as an individual, that trying to be active and change things is useful, even important. I quite like how Dr. Anil Rajvanshi puts it, albeit in a different context, when he says that "... each one of us lead our own separate lives which "dart" randomly depending on the forces acting upon us yet collectively we go forward in a band which is called human evolution" (Free Will, Evolution and Chaos Theory).
What does this all mean? I am not sure if it means anything; but when I try to piece it all together, here is what I get:
Metaphysics aside, my philosophy has always been that it is up to each individual, as far as they are able, to live their own lives and make their own choices. Nevertheless, as a good friend of mine once said to me, it is not the gods who make the world the way it is; we make the world this way. And we can make it into whatever we desire.
Perhaps Nietzsche was right about the human being who "possesses his own independent and enduring will." Perhaps that is the metaphorical godhead of human evolution, to perfect the skill of consciously creating our reality to the point that we eventually transcend our limitations and experience the world in an entirely new way.
Perhaps, then, the problem lies not in the world, but within us, with our desires, our will; self-mastery being the key as well as the goal.
The only question is whether we can master chaos itself.
Only time will tell.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
impeach the pope
My good friend, Matt, pointed out this strongly-worded editorial in the Washington Post suggesting that the Pope has gone too far:
He is right that AIDS cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms and money alone, but people are going to have sex whether they are Catholic or not, and telling them that condoms increase the problem sends the wrong message.
I think that the Vatican realizes this too. That is why they have apparently edited the Pope's comments after the fact: Vatican edits pope on condoms and AIDS solutions
Hell, I can't say that I disagree. I think that saying condoms increase the problem of AIDS in a country where 22.5 million people are living with HIV is, well, misguided to say the least. As a matter of fact, I would say that it is downright irresponsible.Enough! No--Too much!
Amid all the justified outrage we all feel at Bernie Madoff and the AIG bandits, let us save some intense outrage for Pope Benedict XVI.
After insulting Muslims by declaring in 2006 that Muhammad had brought "things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," after reiterating (through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) in 2008 that the subject of the ordination of women is not even open for discussion and declaring that anyone involved with the ordination of women will be automatically excommunicated, after lifting in January of this year the excommunication of Holocaust-denier Richard Williamson, now Benedict XVI opens a visit to Africa by telling the people of a continent decimated by AIDS that the distribution of condoms "increases the problem" of the spread of AIDS.
I am a Catholic and the idea that such a man is God's spokesperson on earth is absurd to me.
There are, of course, no provisions in the hierarchical institution set up, not by Jesus but by men who hijacked his name and in many cases perverted his teachings, for impeaching a pope and removing him from office. But there ought to be.
As I detail in my latest book, "Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America" (Crown), the cardinal sin of the Catholic Church -- a literally deadly sin, if ever there was one -- is its opposition to birth control. Far from being, as the Church contends, part of its moral doctrine, this policy is, plainly, the immoral doctrine of the Church. The use of condoms is a pro-life position.
Why does the Church persist in such a manifestly immoral doctrine? One suspects that it must be the usual twisted thinking about sex and women. The Church's opposition to birth control is largely an outgrowth of its all-male composition and those males' attempts to degrade women's physical powers by asserting that women and the intercourse into which they supposedly tempt men are necessary evils ("It is well for a man not to touch a woman," Paul instructed the Christians of Corinth), the only purpose of which is procreation.
Misogyny may not be "the Church's one foundation," but it is a major part of the base on which it was constructed.
It should be obvious that the sin in an over-populated world is not attempting to control birth, but attempting to control birth control.
And now for the pope to go so far as to indicate that condom use worsens the spread of AIDS -- there's an outrage that tops Madoff and AIG!
Let's start a movement within the Catholic Church to impeach Pope Benedict XVI and remove him from office. While we're at it, let's replace him with a woman.
He reversed the excommunication of a Holocaust denier. Will he excommunicate me for pointing out that he is a misogyny denier?
If this be heresy, make the most of it.
He is right that AIDS cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms and money alone, but people are going to have sex whether they are Catholic or not, and telling them that condoms increase the problem sends the wrong message.
I think that the Vatican realizes this too. That is why they have apparently edited the Pope's comments after the fact: Vatican edits pope on condoms and AIDS solutions
fu aig
All I have been hearing about lately is AIG. It is all over the newspapers. It is all over the radio stations. I bet if I bothered to turn on the t.v., it would there too. I had originally wanted to write a long blog expressing my thoughts on the company, the bailout and the $165 million in bonuses that were recently handed out, but since that would be like beating a dead horse, I have decided to just note a couple of things I think are important:
1. The current financial crisis could have been avoided, and so could have AIG's near failure.
It is rather complicated to explain exactly what happened with AIG, but the bottom line is that AIG's financial sector was paid by investment companies to back up securities that were in turn backed by pieces of mortgages. AIG effectively promised to make up the difference if the investments failed. So where did they go wrong?
It seems that AIG, thanks in part to Gary Gorton, the finance professor who designed AIG's risk models, figured that being paid to take on these risks was "free money" because they never thought they would have to make any payments to cover actual defaults. What they apparently did not take into consideration, however, was the potential write-downs or collateral payments to trading partners (How AIG Failed). But specific regulations dealing with these securities and mortgage default swaps could have possibly prevented all of this. This is where both the company and the government failed.
David Swensen, the person who is credited with creating derivatives or "swaps," eventually paved the way for an entire industry to be built around creating and trading derivatives based on mortgage payments of homeowners (Inventor of the "Swap" blames regulators for Financial Crisis). In the case of AIG, they basically insured these mortgage-backed securities. But the government was seemingly reluctant to regulate these derivatives and the industries that had developed around them, and traders eventually abused them to the point of financial collapse. Part of this was due to the perceived benefit of these swaps by people like former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. As Bob Moon notes, "... he called credit default swaps "probably the most important instrument in finance," because they were supposed to spread risk around and stabilize the market" (Banks deep into unregulated 'gambling').
The sad fact is that stricter regulations and oversight on the part of the government, plus more transparency and less greed on the part of financial institutions, could have prevented much of this from happening, including what happened with AIG. Swensen himself says that he supports "requiring swaps and other derivatives to be traded openly on an exchange" since it would reduce the risk, but surprisingly, this very proposal was "torpedoed by both the Clinton and Bush administrations." Why? Swenson theorizes that "Financial institutions that deal in these things have resisted that because it would make the market more transparent and less profitable" (Inventor of the "Swap" blames regulators for Financial Crisis).
2. Sen. Wyden deserves and honourable mention for attempting to discourage such bonuses.
The current uproar over AIG is that $165 million in bonuses was recently handed out to execs in the same sector of AIG that helped cause this mess in the first place. Everyone is up in arms about this, and there is good reason to be.
But it turns out that, according to one article in the Huffington Post, Sen. Wyden (D) of Oregon and Sen. Snowe of Maine (R) introduced a provision during the crafting of the stimulus package that "would have forced bailout recipients to cap their bonuses at $100,000" and any amount paid above that "would have been taxed at 35 percent" (Wyden: My Bill Could Have Prevented AIG Mess). Unfortunately, the same article states that, "The language made it through the Senate, but during conference committee with the House, it was inexplicably removed."
On the other hand, while I applaud Sen. Wyden's initial effort to discourage these types of bonuses, I do not agree with Congress' effort to penalize the recipients by adjusting the tax code.
1. The current financial crisis could have been avoided, and so could have AIG's near failure.
It is rather complicated to explain exactly what happened with AIG, but the bottom line is that AIG's financial sector was paid by investment companies to back up securities that were in turn backed by pieces of mortgages. AIG effectively promised to make up the difference if the investments failed. So where did they go wrong?
It seems that AIG, thanks in part to Gary Gorton, the finance professor who designed AIG's risk models, figured that being paid to take on these risks was "free money" because they never thought they would have to make any payments to cover actual defaults. What they apparently did not take into consideration, however, was the potential write-downs or collateral payments to trading partners (How AIG Failed). But specific regulations dealing with these securities and mortgage default swaps could have possibly prevented all of this. This is where both the company and the government failed.
David Swensen, the person who is credited with creating derivatives or "swaps," eventually paved the way for an entire industry to be built around creating and trading derivatives based on mortgage payments of homeowners (Inventor of the "Swap" blames regulators for Financial Crisis). In the case of AIG, they basically insured these mortgage-backed securities. But the government was seemingly reluctant to regulate these derivatives and the industries that had developed around them, and traders eventually abused them to the point of financial collapse. Part of this was due to the perceived benefit of these swaps by people like former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. As Bob Moon notes, "... he called credit default swaps "probably the most important instrument in finance," because they were supposed to spread risk around and stabilize the market" (Banks deep into unregulated 'gambling').
The sad fact is that stricter regulations and oversight on the part of the government, plus more transparency and less greed on the part of financial institutions, could have prevented much of this from happening, including what happened with AIG. Swensen himself says that he supports "requiring swaps and other derivatives to be traded openly on an exchange" since it would reduce the risk, but surprisingly, this very proposal was "torpedoed by both the Clinton and Bush administrations." Why? Swenson theorizes that "Financial institutions that deal in these things have resisted that because it would make the market more transparent and less profitable" (Inventor of the "Swap" blames regulators for Financial Crisis).
2. Sen. Wyden deserves and honourable mention for attempting to discourage such bonuses.
The current uproar over AIG is that $165 million in bonuses was recently handed out to execs in the same sector of AIG that helped cause this mess in the first place. Everyone is up in arms about this, and there is good reason to be.
But it turns out that, according to one article in the Huffington Post, Sen. Wyden (D) of Oregon and Sen. Snowe of Maine (R) introduced a provision during the crafting of the stimulus package that "would have forced bailout recipients to cap their bonuses at $100,000" and any amount paid above that "would have been taxed at 35 percent" (Wyden: My Bill Could Have Prevented AIG Mess). Unfortunately, the same article states that, "The language made it through the Senate, but during conference committee with the House, it was inexplicably removed."
On the other hand, while I applaud Sen. Wyden's initial effort to discourage these types of bonuses, I do not agree with Congress' effort to penalize the recipients by adjusting the tax code.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
watchmen
I went to see Watchmen yesterday and I have to say that it was better than I expected. I finished reading the graphic novel the day before, so it was still fresh in my memory when I went to see it, and while certain elements were changed in order to fit the entire twelve issue series into a two and a half hour film, Snyder retained enough of the story and faithfully reproduced the visual aspects of the series that it felt pretty true to the original.
Much of the dialogue is straight from the series, and the parts that are not still fit reasonably well within the original story arc so that it does not distract from the overall theme of the series itself. The same goes for the ending, which, although is slightly different, still imparts the central message that the original ending does.
For me, the message that I think Moore was trying to convey is the most important part of the series. Others, of course, might disagree; but all in all, I was not disappointed. It was not only a good movie but it carried much of what made the series what it was, which, among other things, was a social commentary on the Reagan-era. The underlying message, however, is timeless.
As for Dr. Manhattan's digitally animated nude scenes, I had no problem with them. There were a fair amount of those scattered throughout the series as well, although his genitalia was not as defined, but I am surprised that so many people found them uncomfortable. I could hear a lot of the people in the audience snickering at them in the theatre (OK, I chuckled a little too), and I have since read a lot of negative comments written about them online.
I do not have a problem with male nudity in general (I noticed that nobody snickered at the Silk Spectre's breasts), and considering that it was in the series, I really do not see what the big deal is besides the fact that he was pretty hung. Apparently, seeing things like broken bones protruding out of the skin, arms being sawed off and human bodies literally exploding are less disturbing than seeing a digitally animated penis. Strange, really.
Much of the dialogue is straight from the series, and the parts that are not still fit reasonably well within the original story arc so that it does not distract from the overall theme of the series itself. The same goes for the ending, which, although is slightly different, still imparts the central message that the original ending does.
For me, the message that I think Moore was trying to convey is the most important part of the series. Others, of course, might disagree; but all in all, I was not disappointed. It was not only a good movie but it carried much of what made the series what it was, which, among other things, was a social commentary on the Reagan-era. The underlying message, however, is timeless.
As for Dr. Manhattan's digitally animated nude scenes, I had no problem with them. There were a fair amount of those scattered throughout the series as well, although his genitalia was not as defined, but I am surprised that so many people found them uncomfortable. I could hear a lot of the people in the audience snickering at them in the theatre (OK, I chuckled a little too), and I have since read a lot of negative comments written about them online.
I do not have a problem with male nudity in general (I noticed that nobody snickered at the Silk Spectre's breasts), and considering that it was in the series, I really do not see what the big deal is besides the fact that he was pretty hung. Apparently, seeing things like broken bones protruding out of the skin, arms being sawed off and human bodies literally exploding are less disturbing than seeing a digitally animated penis. Strange, really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)