New Brew!!

This is my inaugural foray into the complex and wonderful world of beer. For those who don't know me very well, I really like beer. No, you clearly do not understand. I REALLY like beer. Usually, I drink small-batch beer from various American and international microbreweries. But when times are kinda lean, I can take it to the streets and drink some Pabst Blue Ribbon or Miller High Life.

Beer has power beyond the ability to get you a little booted. The type of beer you drink can even be interpreted as a political statement. For example, there are some brands of beer I simply refuse to drink even if it is free (anything bearing the racist label of the Coors family). On the other hand, I will gladly pay up to $6 for a bottle of hand-crafted, anti-corporate offering from Rogue Brewery (Dead Guy Ale or Hazelnut Brown Nectar).

The point of this article is to hit my readers to new beers and hopefully get a couple of new beer leads myself. Here are some thoughts on two great beers: Beer Chang and Jubilale 2007.

Beer Chang: Pronounced "Chan, " Beer Chang, which is Thai for "elephant" is one of the most popular beers in Thailand. I first had Chang during my trip to Thailand last summer. One sip and I was a fan. What really made me a fan was that you could find a big bottle of Chang at most places for about two dollars. What REALLY made me a fan was that the Thai version runs about 8.6% alcohol (if I recall correctly). It is crisp and clean lager with just subtle notes of wheat and finishing touches of honey. Whether you are just quenching your thirst because Bangkok is hot as hell or trying to wash down some uber-spicy Thai food, Chang is a solid beer. Microbrewery taste with malt liquor potency, we like it.

I found a local liquor store (more info below) that carries the American version of Beer Chang. It was on the expensive side, but one sip and I was back in Thailand. One noticable difference is that the American version is only 5% alcohol. I am not sure whether that is because the beer is actually different or because international beers measure alcohol content differently. From what I can remember, the Thai version had a more full-bodied flavor. The American version had less of the wheat and malt tones, but had a sweeter finish than the native brew. In my opinion, this beer is a good alternative to the Mexican Pacifico, which tends to run a little too sweet and watery for my taste.

It could just be nostalgia, but the Thai version tasted better to me. Do not get me wrong though, I will be drinking Beer Chang whenever I feel like remembering those steamy Bangkok nights spent eating copious amounts of spicy sea food. I guess I am just a little bent that I got to pay about 2,324% more just to get in the states.

Jubelale 2007, Deschutes Brewery: I first purcahsed this beer upon the recommendation of the of Steven, a really cool liquor store owner. I walked into the store thinking to pick up an IPA of some sort, but he convinced me to get one of the seasonal ales. Steven is to alcohol what Alice Waters is to food: think local, drink local, act seasonally. I already knew that winter ales are only produced in winter (duh). However, I was intrigued when he said that certain ales are remade from natural ingredients ever year. Essentially, in the same way that the same varietals of wine can vary year to year, so can beer. You could say that certain seasonal ales only "exist" once even though the style is produced year after year.

The prospect of drinking a "once in a lifetime" beer seemed pretty cool. Steven recommended the Jubelale 2007 from Deschutes Brewery. I am not all that well versed in winter ales. I know that I like Celebration Ale from Sierra Nevada, but that I really dislike the winter offering from Anchor Steam. That is pretty much all I know about winter ales. After drinking Jubelale, I now have two winter beers that I am quite fond of.

After pouring Jubelale into a glass, I gave it a couple of really good sniffs. I probably looked extremely retarded doing so, but it was fun trying to figure out what aromatics were. I think that Jubelale smelled a lot like a cherry cordial. Scents of dark chocolate and fruit leaped out of the glass.

The taste of Jubelale comes in three stages: initial taste of coffee and malt, second wave of dark chocolate, and a nice little fruit aftertaste (pumpkins and apples?). Although I still enjoy the hoppiness of Celebration Ale, Jubelale's sweeter, smoother flavor is a welcomed departure. Sometimes I like to get punched in the face by my beer, other times I like to savor it.

Jubelale is a great beer that represents winter ales well. It has a little higher alcohol content and a bit stronger flavor than the average beer, but it will surely keep you warm during these cold winter nights. If you are looking to branch into winter ales, Jubelale is a great choice. If you can still find it in stores, it is your lucky day, go buy a lottery ticket. If not, you can always try again next winter and think what could have been.

Click here for more info on the liquor store where I purchased both Beer Chang and Jubelale 2007.

What an Avocado-Bacon Cheeseburger Taught Me About Politics

Last night was a night that I won’t forget too soon. First of all, I experienced the embarrassment of going to Costco and having to leave $150 worth of stuff at the register. It was one of those uber-long Costco trips too. You know, the type where you get all the detergent, soap, toothpaste, bread, and cheese that you will need until the next World Cup (2010 for all those not knowing). Just for the record, I am not broke. I simply forgot that you cannot use a credit card (debit is okay) to pay at Costco. A quick dash to Trader Joe’s easily remedied the situation.

When I got home to put away the groceries, I was a little pissed and in no mood to cook. I don’t know, there is something about going shopping twice for the same stuff that kills whatever culinary ambition you have at the moment.

I felt like a burger and the only joint I know in the new ‘hood is Rod’s Char Burger. Rod’s is your typical So. Cal grease spoon. You know the type: char-broiled burgers, sandwiches, salads, a little Mexican food, possibly a falafel / gyro, etc.

I got to the counter and ordered the Avocado-Bacon Cheeseburger combo to go (easy as ABC). Per my usual routine, I moved over to that little jar of chiles gueros and stuffed one of those little paper envelopes … classic.

There were two women eating at one of the tables, both Latina, possibly in their early forties. In the middle of their table was the front page of the L.A. Times, which they were both reading. Before you go on accusing me of stereotyping my peoples, listen up. I know they were Latina because the following conversation took place … in Spanish (translated for those with limited paisa proficiency):

Woman 1: "Look at Hillary and Obama, they are running pretty close."

Woman 2: "I am going to vote for Hillary. I don’t like Obama, he does not have a lot of experience."

At this point, I was going to jump in their conversation. My spidey-like prO-bama* tendencies were starting to get riled up. I don’t know why I didn’t give my two cents. Actually, I know why I didn’t, the lady talked too fast. Good thing too! The conversation continued:

Woman 2: "I like Hillary, but if she does not win for the Democrats, then I think I am going to vote for Romney."

When I heard that, I thought, “That is the most inconsistent statement ever. It would be like me coming to Rod’s to satisfy my raw oyster and sashimi craving. Not really going to work.” The statement was not a joke. No crack about how he would get the vote because he is more handsome than the other candidates. Nothing. Just as I started to mull the statement in my head, a group of rowdy teens walked in and interrupted my thoughts. My number was called and I was out the door.

The conversation between the two women really got me thinking about the state of American politics. Before I get into the heavy thinking, I want to steer clear of an elitist pitfall that tends to arise in these conversations. Highly-educated, politically-engaged, NPR listening citizens (yeah, that’s YOU and ME) tend to view the average American voter as nothing more than a lemming of a higher order. Joe Blow votes the way Fox News tells him, and Jane Doe blindly tows the same party line she has for years. No thought, just shrewd politicians promising dog biscuits to voters who are all too eager to roll over. Add the fact that these were working-class Latinas and you could assume all sorts of other stereotypes that would further sully your regard for the voting public.

I want to squash those thoughts right now. Our democracy, however flawed it may be, does not function without individuals like the women at the diner. As a matter of general principal, these intelligent and involved women get props for engaging in political discussion when they are arguably the most politically disenfranchised group in the U.S. (poor, woman, and of color). They definitely get more props from me than even some of my “educated” friends who do not vote.

Back to the main question: What is it about the American political system that would make a person choose between two candidates with seemingly contrasting positions? Logic would dictate that if Hillary did not win the Democratic nomination (*crosses fingers*), a Hillary supporter would vote for the candidate whose positions align most closely with Hillary.

Hillary and Mitt have a lot in common. They are both human, carbon-based life forms. I think they each have ten fingers and ten toes. Hillary and Mitt both breathe air (although there is this nasty rumor going around that Mitt actually breathes “Perriair” like the Mel Brooks character in Spaceballs).

I think you get the hint. Hillary and Mitt, as far as I can tell, are not really in agreement on any political issue. The closest they get is that Hillary is pro-choice and Mitt was pro-choice once upon a time. If you need any more evidence of the Hillary-Mitt schism, check this environmental voting guide put out by the League of Conservation Voters.

Again, if you first choice is Hillary, why would your second choice be Romney? Are Obama and Edwards really that bad? More importantly, how many Americans are making this kind of “issue-free” decision?

I really do give serious love to those two women at the diner and not just because they ate their weight in chili cheese fries. They are practicing democracy as every American should. However, are we really picking our presidents based on non-issue factors (race, gender, looks, age)? And if we are picking the prez based on these other factors, what factors should be given what weight? I leave these questions to my loyal readership (don’t look around, this means you).

*P.S. – You know you like that one … prO-bama. Get it? Huh? Don’t steal it.

.... As I Come Back!!

What’s good in the New Year? I hope you all find yourselves in good spirits. Yeah, I know I am tardy as hell with these blog articles. For that, I sincerely apologize. It has been a whirlwind couple months and things are finally settling down. I got a new job and a new crib (Redondo Beach stand up!!). I hereby proclaim 2008 “The Year of the Brand New.” Well, enough of the intro, let me hit you with some new fire. Here is an article on steroids and baseball. More to come in the following days! Welcome back!

Enjoy!!

I Want To See Baseball Players In Jail

Yes, you heard it right. I want to see baseball players in jail. Send Barry to Folsom, Roger to Levenworth, LoDuca to Riker’s, and Gagne to whatever the most terrible Canadian jail is (do they even have jails?).

So give me the late pass. I know the Mitchell Report dropped like two months ago, but I am still so bent (read: pissed) that I got to write this article. For those who are not familiar with the “steroid in baseball” scandal, here is a quick primer: In mid-December, Former Senator George Mitchell released a 400+ page document highlighting the endemic use of steroids by baseball players. There have been other reports on steroid use in baseball, but none more comprehensive than the Mitchell Report. The Mitchell Report actually names baseball players who are believed to have used performance-enhancing drugs. If you want more specific information on the contents of the Mitchell Report, a quick Google search will led you to the actual report.

I do not really have any beef with the contents of the report. The report, from the section I read, is well-written and facts-oriented. The real problem is with the post-report movement (or lack thereof) by Major League Baseball, the MLB Player’s Union, and law enforcement agencies.

I was listening to NPR’s “All Things Considered” the day the Mitchell Report dropped. An entire segment was dedicated to the Mitchell Report, including an interview of Former Senator Mitchell. The interview was conducted by Robert Siegel, who I think is an even, non-B.S. interviewer. The exchange went as follows:

NPR: You suggested Major League Baseball take a very forward-looking approach to this problem. Why? Why shouldn't it clean house? Why shouldn't it go back to what happened in all those years when it didn't have an adequate policy for dealing with steroid abuse?

Mitchell: Well, first, of course, most of the events described in my report are old, from two to nine years old. At the time they occurred, there was not a penalty for a first violation of the program. Under the law, you have to apply the penalty provisions in effect at the time of the conduct, so for many of them, there isn't any penalty.

Secondly, more than half the players have already left the game. They are beyond the jurisdiction of the commissioner. He doesn't have any authority to discipline them even if he wanted to.

Third, and perhaps more important, everybody has to work together and look forward. To be mired in contentious disciplinary proceedings for months and years will keep everyone focused on the past precisely at the time that they ought to be focused on the future.

NPR: Although, while they may not have been violating Major League Baseball rules – they may have been lacking rules – you say this was illegal use of drugs.

Mitchell: It was. But let me tell you that in the last several years, more than 250 professional baseball players have been suspended publicly because they tested positive in a drug test – most of them in the minor leagues, but many of them in the major leagues. Not one has been prosecuted, even though their names are in the papers as having violated the law.

That's because prosecuting authorities in this country – and I was one of them as a U.S. attorney years ago – focus their prosecutorial resources not on the individual end-user, but on the manufacturers and the distributors of drugs. That's been a public policy in place in this country for many years. And it's a sensible policy. Why should we say that with respect to baseball players, the law should apply differently than it does to everybody else in the country? (emphasis added)

After I heard this exchange between NPR host Robert Siegel and Former Senator Mitchell, I thought, “Wow, for being a former senator and U.S. attorney, this Mitchell guy lives on another planet. He probably thinks Ty Cobb is still playing."

Mitchell’s perspectives on drug prosecutions (and thus his proposed remedies for steroids in baseball) are skewed in the worst sort of way. To be fair, Mitchell has a legitimate point. Law enforcement and prosecutors need to make efficient use of their resources. It does not take a Ph.D. in economics to see that the opportunity cost of busting every dime-and-nickel user is that you are not able to prosecute the one or two big-willy, Pablo Escobar types supplying the streets.

On the flip side, Mitchell takes this “efficiency” argument to vindicate all steroid users while drug users still get popped. At the end of the day, both marijuana and steroids are illegal. Yes, prosecutors would rather spend all their time going after the Tony Montanas of the world, but it is not like the guy who gets caught with a couple of dimes gets off easy. There are millions people in prison nation-wide for low-level, drug-related offenses (crimes of use and possession, not distribution). Someone tell the guy who is in jail because he had a couple of E tabs that the focus of prosecutorial resources is not on the individual end-user.

Do not get my statements twisted. While Mitchell provided recommendations for baseball and society in general to “look forward,” he is not the person gets to decide the fate of the steroid-using baseball player. It is up to Major League Baseball and lawmakers to decide how to punish, if at all, steroid users.

In my humble opinion, if the guy who gets caught with a few grams of cocaine gets six months in jail, so should the guy who gets caught with six needles of Wistrol. I am not advocating excessive punishment against baseball players. I am advocating that we treat all drug users the same.

Baseball has always been the barometer of American society. Ted Williams, arguably the greatest hitter ever, had his career interrupted twice when he was called to World War II and Korea. The arrival of Jackie Robinson proved to be the catalyst for a new era of civil rights in then segregated America. More recently, baseball joined America’s mourning in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting by allowing Angels’ pitcher Joe Saunders to wear a VT hat during a game. With this steroid scandal looming over the head of our national pastime, baseball is again a “sign of the times.” The steroid era represents certain individuals who mocked the rules of the game, destroyed the sacred records of legendary players, and, most egregiously, flouted the laws of the land.