I honestly have no idea exactly what this PSA was going for. Apparently somebody in the employ of MTV Canada has decided that the best way to scare Canadian stoners straight was to point out that marijuana makes you want to make out with your brother, or that making out with your brother is a better idea than driving while you're high, or that pot makes you gay, or that getting high on pot is nothing compared to the buzz you get from breaking deep-seated social taboos. Or maybe the guy in the back is just hallucinating and the point of the ad is that it's going to be really awkward when he tries to explain why he was talking about them making out with each other when he was high and that its why you shouldn't smoke pot. Your guess is as good as mine.
(Via Julian Sanchez)
Friday, May 11, 2007
Daniel Davies likes Budweiser. So does Matt Yglesias.
I've never really cared for Bud, but perhaps it may be time for a critical reapprasal of the King of Beers.
Davies provides an extensive defense of Budweiser's authenticity and points out that Budweiser does indeed have a different chemicial composition than urine. And both take their swings at microbrews. But one topic remains unaddressed - what Budweiser actually tastes like, and I don't meant the crude metaphors about piss.
It had been a while since I had drank Budweiser, so I stopped on the way home from work to pick up a 6-pack (cans) of it to refresh my memory and see if Bud has been unjustly maligned.
Observations and underinformed opinions:
-Works well with cans. Most beers I'd rather drink out of a bottle, including many in the same price range as Bud (ex Labatts, the various Miller beers), but Bud tastes better out of a can.
-Finely filtered. This isn't unique to Bud or either good or bad in and of itself; it affects the mouth-feel, contributing to the crispness of the beer.
-Mildly hopped, but you knew that.
-Tastes somewhat bland, although it's crisp when cold, but also kind of sweet, which I don't like, and the sweetness persists in the aftertaste. I though it would taste better if it were more acidic, so I added a bit of lemon juice to it, which improved the flavor by offsetting the sweetness. Groundless speculation: This may be related to why the aluminum can works well, since aluminum is a Lewis acid.
Conclusion:
Bud isn't horrible, but it is bland and the sweet aftertaste isn't very appealling. It's certainly drinkable, but beyond its alcohol content, there really isn't much of a reason to drink it. The combination of mild flavor and light body makes the beer unobjectionable, but minimizes the taste. The scorning of Bud may have taken on a social significance beyond what the flaws of the beer itself merit, but it simply isn't very good beer.
I've never really cared for Bud, but perhaps it may be time for a critical reapprasal of the King of Beers.
Davies provides an extensive defense of Budweiser's authenticity and points out that Budweiser does indeed have a different chemicial composition than urine. And both take their swings at microbrews. But one topic remains unaddressed - what Budweiser actually tastes like, and I don't meant the crude metaphors about piss.
It had been a while since I had drank Budweiser, so I stopped on the way home from work to pick up a 6-pack (cans) of it to refresh my memory and see if Bud has been unjustly maligned.
Observations and underinformed opinions:
-Works well with cans. Most beers I'd rather drink out of a bottle, including many in the same price range as Bud (ex Labatts, the various Miller beers), but Bud tastes better out of a can.
-Finely filtered. This isn't unique to Bud or either good or bad in and of itself; it affects the mouth-feel, contributing to the crispness of the beer.
-Mildly hopped, but you knew that.
-Tastes somewhat bland, although it's crisp when cold, but also kind of sweet, which I don't like, and the sweetness persists in the aftertaste. I though it would taste better if it were more acidic, so I added a bit of lemon juice to it, which improved the flavor by offsetting the sweetness. Groundless speculation: This may be related to why the aluminum can works well, since aluminum is a Lewis acid.
Conclusion:
Bud isn't horrible, but it is bland and the sweet aftertaste isn't very appealling. It's certainly drinkable, but beyond its alcohol content, there really isn't much of a reason to drink it. The combination of mild flavor and light body makes the beer unobjectionable, but minimizes the taste. The scorning of Bud may have taken on a social significance beyond what the flaws of the beer itself merit, but it simply isn't very good beer.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Eugene Volokh has a great piece on why the slippery slope matters with regards to the Second amendment.
"I think we're dying," he said in the 5-minute tape, obtained under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act.
"We made brownies and I think we're dead, I really do," [Cpl.]Sanchez [of the Dearborn Police Department]continued.
He told the dispatcher he had never made marijuana brownies before, but had previously used marijuana.
Then, he asked the score of the Red Wings game on television that night, explaining, "I just want to make sure this isn't some type of, like, hallucination that I'm having."
The Freep has the story, including charming local commentary and audio from the 911 call. Via The Agitator.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Apparently, Barack Obama really likes corporate welfare (WP).
Jonah at The Frontal Cortex justly gives the senator grief over his blatant pandering to big corn and big hybrid-driving yuppie (the most dangerous yuppie of all). And to Obama's credit, he doesn't cave to the subsidy-craving coal producers of his home state.
However, I part ways with Jonah in his description of Obama's speech as "tough talk to Detroit". Obama just offered to pay off 10% of GM's outstanding healthcare liabilities for their retirement plans. If this is "tough talk", I have a car loan that could use a stern lecture from Sen. Obama. Of course money from the government always comes with strings attached, but the requirement that auto companies merely spend half that amount on manufacturing equipment to make cars, be they fuel efficient or not, isn't exactly stringent.
On top of this, it would just encourage other companies to follow in the automaker's footsteps and fail to adequately plan for providing the benefits they have promised their retirees with the expectation that a government bailout will be provided if they come up short.
I've actually found Sen. Obama to be preferable to most of the presidential field, but this isn't helping is case. It's bad enough that most of the candidates aren't interested in removing ADM from the government teat, but a willingness to add GM to it differentiates Obama in an unflatering way.
Jonah at The Frontal Cortex justly gives the senator grief over his blatant pandering to big corn and big hybrid-driving yuppie (the most dangerous yuppie of all). And to Obama's credit, he doesn't cave to the subsidy-craving coal producers of his home state.
However, I part ways with Jonah in his description of Obama's speech as "tough talk to Detroit". Obama just offered to pay off 10% of GM's outstanding healthcare liabilities for their retirement plans. If this is "tough talk", I have a car loan that could use a stern lecture from Sen. Obama. Of course money from the government always comes with strings attached, but the requirement that auto companies merely spend half that amount on manufacturing equipment to make cars, be they fuel efficient or not, isn't exactly stringent.
On top of this, it would just encourage other companies to follow in the automaker's footsteps and fail to adequately plan for providing the benefits they have promised their retirees with the expectation that a government bailout will be provided if they come up short.
I've actually found Sen. Obama to be preferable to most of the presidential field, but this isn't helping is case. It's bad enough that most of the candidates aren't interested in removing ADM from the government teat, but a willingness to add GM to it differentiates Obama in an unflatering way.
Early in 1930, American newspapers in the south and midwest began to report on a strange new paralytic illness that eventually had affected some 20,000 people. This first major epidemic was soon linked to the consumption of Jamaica ginger commonly referred to as "jake" by those using the fluid extract as an alcohol substitute during the prohibition years.
A tale of toxic prohbition, adulterated cooking oil, the blues, organophosphates, and America united in a willingness to drink just about anything as long as it gets you wasted. More at MOTD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)