March 20, 2006
ALG’s Quote of the Day
“The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.”
-Bertrand de Jouvenel
This is one of those cutting quotes that’s deeper than one might think. On its surface, it’s a basic libertarian quote. But deeper, you have to ask about how the State makes you think it is the former, when it is really the latter. Lenin talked about the “useful idiots” in the west, eager to apologize for the crimes of the communists, knowing full well the useful idiots would be slaves of the state if the revolution made it to their shores. Lenin knew what communism meant, but the people advocating for it did not. Here in the west, people advocate redistribution of wealth. In fact, I am a proponent of the voluntary redistribution of wealth, through private charities, from the rich to the poor. But when 20-30% of your income is forcibly removed, to call yourself anything but a slave to the state would be inaccurate.
But commentary on quotes is not where I’m going with this one. Today, I received my free T-shirt from Americans for Limited Government. I completed a short survey there in exchange for the shirt (as I should point out, there ain’t no such thing as a free t-shirt). I’ve corresponded a bit over the last couple of months with the folks over there, and consider them an ally in the War on Statism. The quote came from their semi-weekly email newsletter, something I’d highly recommend to join. They provide links to editorials on a host of libertarian-oriented subjects. Check them out when you get a chance. Just don’t forget to come back here when you’re done!
March 19, 2006
Sold the VW
A 1.5 ton paperweight is no longer taking up space in our garage. After a couple of months of trying, we’ve finally unloaded the Passat. As a testament to the information age, of course, we had it listed in both Auto Trader, and on craigslist. Every person who came to see the car (about 6-8 inquiries in all) came from craigslist. Dead tree classifieds are going the way of the dodo. The Auto Trader ad cost $50 for 12 weeks, and the craigslist ad was free. The Auto Trader ad had 1 black & white grainy photo, while craigslist allows 4 full-color photos.
So I can finally start parking my truck in the garage again! Now that it won’t be exposed to the elements, I can even wash it! I won’t wash it, of course, but it wouldn’t be a waste if I did 
March 17, 2006
Following the Logic
Doug, over at Below the Beltway, is talking about gay marriage and polygamy. It seems that there’s been a dustup between some prominent bloggers and some prominent op-ed columnists over whether the government sanctioning gay marriages will eventually lead to polygamy. It appears that Doug, like I do, doesn’t see a way to accept the validity of the former and not of the latter. And it also appears (although I may be reading into this) that Doug, like I, doesn’t see a problem with that. See his entry for the various links (debates between Charles Krauthammer, Andrew Sullivan, and Ann Althouse), but here’s one of the specific things that Doug wrote:
One of the strongest arguments in favor of gay marriage that I’ve encountered is the one that says that the government has no right to intrude into the personal relationships of consenting adults and forbid them from entering into a legal status, in this case marriage, that they wish to enter into freely. This doesn’t mean that government is endorsing the relationship, any more than it endorses a producer of pornographic films who forms a corporation to run his busines. It merely means that the government is allowing people to engage in consenual activities that affect nobody but themselves. The logic, if you accept it, seems to me to be unassailable and its hard for me to find an argument that says that polygamy is per se different.
The way I look at this, it’s coming, and it’s going to happen in the relatively near future. You can make peace with it, you can fight it, or you can try to play at the margins a little to allow both camps to accept it. Although, for some people, they’ll never accept that others are living lives a little differently than they are, but that’s too bad for them. That’s freedom.
I think the answer is simple. Make marriage what it’s supposed to be, a religious covenant. Leave the state to doing one thing, and one thing only: sanctioning civil unions between consenting adults, whether it be two adults or several. Yes, it’s going to be messy, as the laws for next of kin, for inheritance, etc, are not yet developed. But they will be.
Here was my response on Doug’s blog (although the comment doesn’t seem to be going through, as Blogger has just crashed again):
We’ll probably have gay marriage in the US within 5 years (in some states), and pretty well within 20 years nationwide. 20-25 years after that, we’ll have legally sanctioned polygamous marriages. Whether or not they’ll be officially called marriages by the governments providing the license, remains to be seen. But this is coming, whether people like it or not.
We can either fight the battle as one of morality between christians and “those heathens”, which is bound to eventually be lost by the christians, as they’re creating a system by which their religion confers upon them benefits that are being denied to others wrongfully. Alternatively, we can understand and trumpet the idea that marriage is a religious concept, and that the state shouldn’t be involved. If the religious folks really want to protect the sanctity of marriage, they’ll divorce it from the State (pun intended )…
Personally, I don’t really care if two gays or 8 polys want to “marry” each other. It doesn’t affect me either way. Although, I can imagine what the introduction of QINKs (quad-income-no-kids) will do to real estate values!
The simple fact is that the line of reasoning that says if you accept gay marriage, it will lead to people demanding the government recognize polygamous marriage, is right on. All the common arguments in support of gay marriage apply just as strongly to polygamous marriage, and all the arguments against polygamous marriage apply to gay marriage. They’re a package deal (although they won’t be accepted at the same time, one will lead to the other). You can’t rest in the middle on this one, you either support both or you support neither. And since I can’t really see any logical issues with allowing two or more consenting adults to contractually agree to what I would call a civil union, I’ll have to count myself in the camp of supporting both. If the religious folks really want to “save” marriage, they’ll put it back in the church’s hands, not in the government’s.
A Stitch in Haste linked with On Krauthammer on Polygamy
Online Freedom of Speech Act — Delayed?
I posted about how important of a vote this was on Wednesday, in anticipation of it happening yesterday. Looks like the vote didn’t happen, and the House isn’t in session today. According to the schedule, this should be the first order of business on Monday.
Now, there are two possible explanations. It looks as though they were following the schedule, and that they may have simply run out of time. On the other hand, they could be stalling for a chance to let the lobbyists come in, so they can do some backroom negotiating between HR 4900 and HR 1606. It’s unclear which is occurring, but the added time gives our Congress the option of doing the latter, even if that was not the cause of the delay.
What’s the difference between the two? HR 1606 says the internet will be free from regulation under BCRA. HR 4900 says that the government has the legitimate purpose of regulating the internet, but tries to set the limits of regulation such that it won’t affect most individuals. As I do not recognize their right to limit freedom of speech in this area, I choose HR 1606. As I know that regulations have a tendency to widen over time, I also choose HR 1606, because I know that narrow regulations today will be wide regulations in the future. It’s time to make sure our Congresspeople know where we stand.
March 16, 2006
If Only it Ran WinCE
Gates Has Harsh Words for $100 Computer Project
Bill Gates apparently doesn’t think much of MIT’s $100 computer project, where the low-cost units are being developed (with some backing of Google) for use in developing countries. At the Microsoft Government Leaders Forum in Washington yesterday, after Gates demonstrated a Microsoft-backed $1000 ultra-mobile PC (UMPC), he promptly launched into disapproval of MIT’s $100 computer project, criticizing the size of its “tiny little screen.†That was noted as particularly ironic since the UMPC screen is just about the same size—7 inches. Said Gates:
“If you are going to go have people share the computer, get a broadband connection and have somebody there who can help support the user, geez, get a decent computer where you can actually read the text and you’re not sitting there cranking the thing while you’re trying to type.â€
Sorry Bill, we know what really pisses you off is that the $100 computer is running Linux. I’m sure if they’d picked CE, and were putting those licensing fees in your pocket, you might change your tune.
Someone’s Gotta PAY…
…For Curtis Gokey’s stupidity!
He just wants to make sure it’s not Curtis Gokey.
Man Hits His Own Car Then Sues Himself
LODI, Calif. – When a dump truck backed into Curtis Gokey’s car, he decided to sue the city for damages. Only thing is, he was the one driving the dump truck. But that minor detail didn’t stop Gokey, a Lodi city employee, from filing a $3,600 claim for the December accident, even after admitting the crash was his fault.
After the city denied that claim because Gokey was, in essence, suing himself, he and his wife, Rhonda, decided to file a new claim under her name.
City Attorney Steve Schwabauer said this one also lacks merit because Rhonda Gokey can’t sue her own husband.
“You can sue your spouse for divorce, but you can’t sue your spouse for negligence,” Schwabauer said. “They’re a married couple under California law. They’re one entity. It’s damage to community property.”
But Rhonda Gokey insisted she has “the right to sue the city because a city’s vehicle damaged my private vehicle.”
In fact, her claim, currently pending at Lodi City Hall, is for an even larger amount — $4,800.
“I’m not as nice as my husband is,” she said.
Personification, according to Wikipedia:
Personification is a term used in literary criticism to name the figure of speech which involves directly speaking of an inanimate object, or an abstract concept, as if were a living entity, often one with specifically human attributes. These attributes may include sensations, emotions, desires, physical gestures and expressions, and powers of speech, among others. As a figure of speech it has a very long history; its Greek name is prosopopoeia. Common examples include: “The pencil flew out of my hand,”, “The tree jumped into the road in front of my car,” and “With an evil scowl, the stormcloud thundered its disapproval.”
“The city’s vehicle damaged my private vehicle.” Well, maybe you should send that vehicle to its room without dinner, so it will think about what it has done. And when it’s ready to apologize, perhaps you can forgive it.
If this one works, I’m going to join the police force, beat myself up while in uniform, and sue the city for police brutality. I’ll make MILLIONS!
A Stitch in Haste linked with Working Class Twit of the Year
March 15, 2006
Online Freedom of Speech Act
I have a post up on The Liberty Papers regarding HR 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act. If you want to see how Congress is talking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to freedom of speech, check it out.
Fiery Latin Tempers not a Stereotype!
Now THERE’S a couple that knows how to fight!
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – A Mexican couple were recovering separately after a marital spat got out of control and saw them firing guns, throwing knives and hurling homemade bombs, Mexican daily Milenio said on Monday.
In scenes taken straight out of hit romantic comedy “Mr. and Mrs. Smith,” starring Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Juan Espinosa and Irma Contreras fought until their house blew up in a homemade gasoline bomb explosion, Milenio said.
Yikes… I wonder if their homeowners insurance has a “destroyed by gasoline bomb in marital dispute” clause in it?
But at least they kissed and made up afterwards… Okay, maybe not:
Espinosa told reporters he was glad his wife had suffered burns, while Contreras said she was only sorry she had not “hacked off his manhood” during the fight.
Something tells me that in addition to the cost of losing a house, there are going to be some hefty divorce lawyer bills in their future!
March 14, 2006
Must’ve Been a Union Plumber
Woman gets beer from her kitchen faucet
OSLO (AP) — It almost seemed like a miracle to Haldis Gundersen when she turned on her kitchen faucet this weekend and found the water had turned into beer.
Two flights down, employees and customers at the Big Tower Bar were horrified when water poured out of the beer taps.
By an improbable feat of clumsy plumbing, someone at the bar in Kristiandsund, western Norway, had accidentally hooked the beer hoses to the water pipes for Gundersen’s apartment.
“We had settled down for a cozy Saturday evening, had a nice dinner, and I was just going to clean up a little,” Gundersen, 50, told The Associated Press by telephone Monday. “I turned on the kitchen faucet and beer came out.”
However, Gundersen said the beer was flat and not tempting, even in a country where a half-liter (pint) can cost about 25 kroner ($3.75) in grocery stores.
I’m reminded of the game Monopoly— A bank error in your favor: Collect $200. You know, one of those lucky things that never happens to me?
But then I was reminded, I already have a faucet which pours beer in my kitchen. While it may not be free, it is cold and carbonated…
Mmmm… IPA!
I tasted the first of my homebrewed IPAs today. There has been a lingering harshness in my first two batches, and I wasn’t quite sure what it was, until today. The first two batches were brewed with tap water. I used Crystal Springs drinking water for the IPA, and DAMN is it good!
The first two batches, it was barely drinkable at two weeks (from bottling day), with the harshness getting mellower as it reached 3-4 weeks. The IPA? At 10 days it is phenomenal. I think I’ll never use tap water for my brewing again!
I can’t wait to brew my Ruination clone!
Happy World Pi Day!
Or so I was told in an email from my mother… I might have expected as much from a fellow geeky engineer, but my mom? What is the world coming to?
Carnival of Liberty XXXVI
Yes, friends, it’s that time again. Another week gone, and we’re onto the 36th Carnival of Liberty. I’ve hosted before, Carnival #1 and Carnival #20. I must have forgotten how much work it is, because not only have I volunteered to do it again, I think I’m going to have the honor of hosting the Carnival’s 1-year anniversary on July 4th! Next week, the Carnival travels to the home of Obi-Wan, Forward Biased.
One of the perks of hosting, though, is the ability to give myself top billing. I’ve championed the idea that the internet and the march of technology is the greatest hope to save liberty in this country. It’s apt to showcase a post this week in which I discuss more of the personal aspects of how the internet affects our lives:
Every day, humanity seems to be traveling faster and faster, learning more and more. What it will mean for the future of the world, I can’t say. But I can say personally, it’s given me access to information and knowledge far ahead of my years. And as the internet matures, it’s worth as a tool for increasing the rate at which I can find information grows. As 1 billion, then 2 billion, and eventually 6 billion people in the world all start to have access to this knowledge, the availability of information will not grow two-fold or six-fold, it will grow exponentially. The implications of that are profound, and knowing that it’s likely to occur in my lifetime is an exciting realization.
On to the fun!
Leading off is Different River, with a quickie. His post references the author of Shiloh Musings, who is apparently being evicted from her town in Israel. It’s a short post, but his point about a bit of a double standard is a good one:
No, of course she’s not a Palestinian terrorist – if she were, to evict her would be a human rights violation. It’s nothing personal, and it’s nothing she did – she is being evicted for being a Jew living in Shiloh, the pre-Davidic capital of ancient Israel – where Jews “aren’t supposed†to live anymore.
The Radical Libertarian, up next, does his best to debunk the statist concept of equality. One of his closing paragraphs sums up a common thought amongst libertarians, the thought that even if it were moral to enact liberal social programs, entrusting it to bureaucrats serves the bureaucrats first and society second:
In practice, however, liberalism does not offer such a system. Resources are stolen by the government bureaucracy (with the force of the gun if needed) and then redistributed according to the politicians’ interest, not in accordance with any supposed social need. And usually, the interest of politicians, liberal or conservative, does not lie in these supposed social needs, but rather to serve the popular, the rich and the powerful. So they tend to have the opposite effect – the so-called “middle class” is put in jeopardy most often than other “classes” (if you believe in social classes at all).
Batya of Shiloh Musings, referenced two posts above as getting evicted by her own government in Israel’s “disengagement”, discusses Eminent Domain. She gives the garden-variety definition of eminent domain (i.e. land taken for public uses such as roads, etc), and points this out:
That wasn’t Disengagement. None of the purposes a government normally has for the land confiscated, or should I say: “None of the purposes a normal government has for the land confiscated” could be compared to what the Israeli Government did to the land and property it confiscated from the hard-working, loyal citizens who had been living in Gush Katif and the Northern Sinai.
…
The principle of Eminent domain does not cover giving land won in a defensive war to terrorists whose aim is the destruction of the “giving” country.
Gullyborg at Resistance is Futile goes local on us, with a post asking Who is Gene Hallman. Given that I’ve never heard of Gene Hallman, it’s lucky that he answers the question for us. “Quite possibly the most dangerous man in Oregon politics!” Given the litany of positions Gullyborg gives us, I’m inclined to agree.
Over at Ogre’s Politics & Views, we’ve got a full round-up of all the barnburner races for the North Carolina legislature:
* crickets chirping *
That’s about it. As the Charlotte Observer notes, the majority of candidates for the North Carolina General Assembly have already “won” their elections because they face zero opposition. Many of those that do only have a primary race, so there’s not much to be decided on election day in November.
Why? Primarily because of gerrymandering. The districts are specifically drawn so that there is no competition. The current legislators are picking their “constituents” instead of the people electing people to represent them. Why? Because the legislators are part of an elite class that knows better than you what you need.
The New World Man follows Jonah Goldberg’s lead and takes on an issue that I always stay away from: abortion. But he asks a pretty interesting question, how people can be pro-life “except in the case of rape or incest”:
He concludes that the real answer is probably populist: that “huge majorities of Americans just detest the idea that women should have to have children from rape and incest.” But: “If you’re prolife,” he says, “but think when really big majorities favor killing it’s ok, you need to think things through a bit more.”
Ed, the robot guy, has an interesting post about sovereignty and property rights. I.e. what if you go to a deserted island, that a bunch of governments have decided is unclaimed land. You homestead that island, mining it and selling the minerals on the open market. Does that become your land? If you desire to be a sovereign nation, how would you go about it? Well, substitute “planet”, “moon”, or “asteroid” for “island” in all the above, and that’s what makes his post interesting:
I, too, think that if private businesses are successful in attaining space and making claims on extraterrestrial property and actually working the land, then an independent space colony/nation is inevitable; if one such colony is started there will undoubtedly be many to follow; and thus, there will be many such nations in space, each independent from earthly governments. Oh, sure, there will be some squawking from Outer Space Treaty signatory nations, and perhaps even embargoes on space colonies early in their independence – but let’s ask Saddam Hussein just how effective embargoes are.
The Charlotte Capitalist relates a story by another blogger of the pressure on workers to contribute to corporate charity drives. It seems that in many companies, there is an implicit threat against people who may choose (or simply be unable to afford) contributions to those charity drives, and they’re choosing between paying their bills and contributing to charity. That’s a choice nobody should be forced to make.
Surprisingly, the first Dubai ports post comes this late in the Carnival. RG Combs of Combs Spouts Off wonders what the fuss is about. He thinks this is much ado about nothing, and that in the long run, losing this deal is going to be a net negative. But, you can easily see whose purposes were served here:
No matter. Whoever the buyer is, this means container terminal operations in those six ports won’t become as efficient, modernized, and secure as they would have under DP World management. But the gutless, unprincipled Republicans can breathe a sigh of relief, the Democrats can puff out their chests over their newfound national security stones, the nativists and xenophobes can turn their attention back to Mexicans, and the longshoremen’s union can gloat about all the featherbedding jobs that have been saved.
Michael Hampton of Homeland Stupidity takes on the Patriot Act. Do we have to fear its abuse, or do we have to fear the incompetence of those using it? It seems an Oregon lawyer was mistakenly charged with being a part of the Madrid train bombings, and while that may have been an honest mistake, the use of the Patriot Act made it much more difficult for him to clear his name.
Doug of Below The Beltway has a three-part series in store for us on Eminent Domain. First, in a particularly heinous offense, the government of Long Island, NY, is considering eminent domain proceedings to seize a private golf course. What public work is going to replace this property? A municipal golf course! Hmm, the state seizing private businesses and taking them over? I seem to remember this sort of thing happening in China and Russia… Next, he has an update on Virginia’s attempts to curb eminent domain, followed by Marylands non-attempts to do so. We need to keep the heat on, folks! The politicians aren’t going to take their medicine unless we force it down their throats…
Dan Melson of Searchlight Crusade brings us two posts. His first post (as he is in the mortgage industry) discusses the possible factors that will sink a loan. If you’re planning on purchasing property or refinancing a loan (as I am), you need to read it. His second post is new lyrics for Tom Lehrer’s song Who’s Next? Dan champions the spread of democracy in his own version:
Afghans got the freedom and that was good
For they love peace and brotherhood
Iraq got the freedom and that’s okay
The world is safer with Saddam AwayWho’s next?
Georgia got the freedom,
have no fears
No Old World trail of tears
Ukraine got Orange Freedom,
don’t you grieve
they’re on our side
They BELIEVEWho’s next?
Tom Rants reacts to the ACLU’s threat to tie up the developers of a proposed Catholic town in Florida with lawsuits. It seems some people might choose to freely express their religion, while not actually doing a single thing to restrict others from practicing religion, but since that religion is Christianity, it must be opposed:
The American Civil Liberties Union is outraged that 20,000 residents will have the opportunity to freely practice their religion and that Monaghan will freely control his own property as he sees fit. The far left has an interesting definition of liberty – the liberty to do what they want you to do and their liberty to sue to make you.
So long as the developers don’t violate fair housing laws, either in their sales, their advertising or the restrictions placed on residential lots, there’s not a lot of room or reason for complaint. (I suspect that they won’t be advertising “Catholic only,†because of those fair housing laws.) The solution if ACLU members or non-Catholics want to abort babies or otherwise live lifestyles inconsistent with the new community is much simpler than going to court – don’t buy a house in Ave Maria.
Dr. T of In the Belly of the Beast also gives us two posts, his first being the extended version of the title for Hillary Clinton’s It Takes A Village. Funny stuff. His second is an investigation on how the public-run VHA has skewed their numbers. Ten years ago, the care provided by the VHA was roundly criticized, and so they’ve reformed. Well, they’ve appeared to reform, anyway:
After receiving well-deserved negative publicity and chastisement from Congress, the top administrators of the VHA knew that change was needed. Here’s what was done. First, the VHA asked for and received approval for expanding eligibility among veterans. Why would a healthcare system already in trouble try to increase its patient load? The answer is that Congress uses a very strange formula for determining VHA funding. The budgets of VA facilities are based on the numbers of “uniques.” A “unique” is an active (seen at least twice per year) VA patient. By expanding eligibility and luring younger and healthier veterans to VA healthcare, the VHA budget would increase. Why would fairly healthy veterans use the VA system? Free medications with no copayments. The net effects of adding these less ill veterans were increased budgets (that more than covered the added expenses of the newly eligible veterans) and better health scores for the average VA patient.
Jack Cluth, premier of The People’s Republic of Seabrook, takes on South Dakota’s attack on Roe v. Wade. He wonders how two Supreme Court nominees have given them the cojones to start swinging for the fences:
With John Roberts and Samuel Alito now occupying seats on the Supreme Court, slash-and-burn Social Conservatives are now feeling pretty good about themselves. It was just a matter of time before they could no longer resist the urge to flex their newly-found political muscle, eh? While there has been some debate among Evangelical Republicans about the approach to be taken, there can be no doubt that the goal is to take down Roe v. Wade. Some feel that the most effective and longest-lasting results can be achieved by nibbling at the right to abortion around the edges. Others are convinced that they can take down Roe v. Wade with a frontal assault. South Dakota’s new anti-woman abortion law represents nothing if not a frontal assault.
On a lighter note, the skwib gives us a post that I can’t even begin to summarize, Thag not like politics! So the best I can do is an excerpt:
Weasel then lobbied Onga’s father, Bushenior to force Thag to take her back. The Elder was fairly influential within the tribe, and he told Thag that if he did not take Onga back, he would install his son, Dubyag, as the new leader of the hunters over Thag.
“Dubyag not good hunter,†Thag said.
“Maybe,†Bushenior said, “but he’s my son, and Onga is my daughter. I can convince the other Elders that I am right.â€
“What of hunters?†Thag asked. “Bad for hunters Dubyag lead them. He get kicked in head by wooly rhino. Other hunters get kicked in head. Bad for hunters.â€
Perry at the Eidelblog was giving blood the other day, and in an oxygen deprived haze, made quite a funny joke to a friend. But after he drank some juice and recovered, he explained how the government is killing people:
The need for new platelet donors may become critical if the feds have their way. The Food and Drug Administration has been looking to restrict platelet donors to 24 pints per year, but healthy patients could give up to three pints per visit. Not all give that much, but some blood center officials told ABC News that they fear the FDA’s proposed restrictions could cut platelet supplies in half. Why should the state have any reason to get involved here? Is it not the donor’s decision to donate a pint or three, and the center’s decision to accept it?
The FDA’s restrictions will be just another way by which government kills people, or at least worsen their suffering by denying them easy access to things like non-prescription insulin. Then government does the converse, attempting to appear benevolent and creating the illusion that it’s protecting us from harm, by “approving” new medicines like inhalable insulin. Would it make any difference to my body whether federal bureaucrats decide a medicine is “safe” or “dangerous”? The truth is independent of their decision, particularly since they are known to be wrong.
Finally, finishing up on the same topic we started with, Mensa Barbie brings up Peace for Israel. She links to a video showing Gush Katif, evacuated late last year. But I’m sure the vibrant, beautiful community will continue to flourish under its new management! Uh, yeah…
(Linked to TTLB Ubercarnival)
Mensa Barbie Welcomes You linked with Peace for Israel
the skwib linked with Carnvivial
Searchlight Crusade linked with Links and Minifeatures 03 15 Wednesday - Beware the Ideas of March!
Target Centermass linked with Carnival of Liberty XXXVI
Committees of Correspondence linked with Carnival of Liberty XXXVI
Below The Beltway linked with Carnival Of Liberty XXXVI
The Liberty Papers»Blog Archive linked with Carnival of Liberty XXXVI
March 13, 2006
Eh…
|
You Are Guinness |
 You know beer well, and you’ll only drink the best beers in the world. Watered down beers disgust you, as do the people who drink them. When you drink, you tend to become a bit of a know it all – especially about subjects you don’t know well. But your friends tolerate your drunken ways, because you introduce them to the best beers around. |
I’d say all those statements are true. But Guinness isn’t really that great. Hell, Beamish is a much tastier brew in the same style of beer. And there are a great deal of beers that I’ll reach for before I’ll drink a Guinness.
Of course, I’m probably proving their point, huh?
Hat Tip: Uncle Jack
The AnarchAngel linked with And to go with the best Irish pubs...
Why Dogs Are Better Than Cats
This made my Monday much more pleasant…
March 11, 2006
Happy Day!
I got some work done out in the yard today, and helped a neighbor do some work on his deck (in exchange for some free beer, woohoo!)…
But an even cooler thing happened to me. I won a 5 gal soda keg on eBay for $15, which is just large enough to start kegging my own homebrew! I’ll probably eventually need to convert my kegerator to a two-tap system, but I think one of my next brews will be kegged instead of bottled. All I need now is a system to start brewing all-grain instead of extract, and I’ll be enjoying some true beerliciousness!
« Previous Page — Next Page »
Congradulations on the sale Brad. I hope you got what you wanted for it…
Comment by Lucy Stern — March 20, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
We got close to what we wanted. We were a few percent away from where we wanted our minimum to be, but considering it had been listed for about 2 1/2 months, I think it was better to lose a little bit of money in exchange for not having to worry about it any longer.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 20, 2006 @ 9:22 pm