Beer of the Week (Vol. CLXXVI)

Another edition of Beer of the Week sponsored as always by the well-grounded folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who can help map out the best wines, whiskies, and beers to help you reach your drinking destination.

Our featured beer this week is the first release from Summit Brewing’s new Union Series:

The inspired union of new ingredients and time-honored brewing traditions. Brewing has always been about discovery. For the Summit Union Series, we scour the globe for new (and sometimes rare) hops and malts. Then we add equal parts craft and creativity to bring you a whole new brew. Released in small batches every so often.

It’s called Meridian Session Ale:

Summit kicks off the new limited-release Union Series with Meridian Session Ale. Inspired by Belgian Enkel (single) style ales. Drinkable yet distinctive. Simple in design yet complex in character. Brewed with a single malt, Concerto Pale, that’s a rising star in the UK and a new hop variety called Meridian that was actually discovered by accident in Oregon (more on that story below). Of course, we called it Meridian Session Ale for a reason. So don’t let the whole single-minded thing keep you from ordering another round.

Six-pack of 12oz bottles go for $8.99. Label design is a new one for Summit featuring a simple and smooth craft look.

STYLE: Belgian Pale Ale

ALCOHOL BY VOLUME: 4.5%

COLOR (0-2): Dark gold and partially clouded. 2

AROMA (0-2): Spices with banana and clove. 2

HEAD (0-2): Bright white color with decent volume. Laces the glass quite nicely. 2

TASTE (0-5): Like the smell with flavors of pepper, banana, and clove from the yeast joined by bready malts and earthy hops. More flavor than you would expect with the low ABV. Mouthfeel is smooth and it has a medium body. It’s pretty drinkable, but I don’t know if I’d really consider it a session beer. 3

AFTERTASTE (0-2): Nice follow through. 2

OVERALL (0-6): The flavors of Summit’s Meridian Session are a bit different from a typical Belgian Pale, but I found them to be quite enjoyable just the same. And you have to give Summit credit for getting that much flavor with a low alcohol content. The Union Series appears to be another effort by Summit to get outside their comfort zone and with Meridian Session Ale it’s off to a promising start. 4

TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 15

Sideshow

Imagine this scenario if you will:

A local police department has instructed its officers to pay special attention to cars with progressive bumper stickers-Obama-Biden/Coexist/That silly one about bombers and bake sales/etc.-and issue citations for any violations that are observed. When word of this politically based profiling gets out, liberals are naturally outraged at the unequal treatment that they are being subjected to at the hands of the law. Conservatives meanwhile say that the real problem is not that progressives have been targeted for their political beliefs, but rather that the government has been issuing too many drivers licenses to people who really shouldn’t have them in the first place.

That would be an absurd counterargument, would it not? Yet, that’s essentially the one that many liberals have been making to explain away the abuses of power that have emerged in the IRS scandal. Sure, it was wrong that the IRS specifically targeted conservatives group for extra scrutiny they say, but the real problem is that there are too many 501(c)(4) groups who are trying to undeservedly qualify for tax-exempt status. While that may very well be true-and I can think of a few liberal groups whose tax-exempt status is more than a little dubious-it isn’t relevant to the issue at hand which is that a government agency provided different treatment to American citizens based solely on their political views. We should all be able to agree that such actions are chilling and threaten the basic precepts upon which system of government is based.

An editorial in today’s WSJ provides A Tax-Exempt IRS Primer:

Congress wrote the 501(c) code to provide tax-exempt status to a broad range of groups. While so-called social-welfare organizations are the current object of Democratic ire, the code covers 28 categories of organizations. So 501(c)(3) groups include charities and educational institutions. The 501(c)(4) category covers social-welfare groups. The 501(c)(6) label includes trade associations and chambers of commerce. And there is the Democratic favorite: 501(c)(5)s, or labor unions.

These categories have different requirements, and a few impose stricter rules if organizations want to claim tax-exempt status. Charitable 501(c)(3) groups, for instance, are barred from partisan campaign activities. That hasn't stopped Media Matters for America, the left-wing agitprop outfit, from claiming 501(c)(3) status for its daily attacks on conservatives.

The categories that cover the main players in politics—social-welfare groups, labor unions, trade associations—have the same general rules. The majority of their money (understood to be at least 51%) must go to their "primary" purpose—social welfare, business-community support, union activities.

Beyond that, however, the groups have significant spending leeway, including for partisan political campaigning. The caveat is that they are supposed to pay taxes on their political spending, and the contributions to these groups are not tax deductible as charitable giving (as they are for (c)(3) groups).

Viewed in this context, the IRS targeting of conservative 501(c)(4) groups is even more scandalous. The organizations were singled out for scrutiny not merely from other 501(c)(4) groups, but from all other groups that spend heavily on politics.

The editorial concludes by saying “The tax code would be cleaner, and our politics fairer, if no one enjoyed any tax-exempt advantages.” Amen to that. If Democrats want to put a proposal together that would eliminate tax-exempt status for any group involved in political activities-including of course unions-I have a feeling that many Republicans would be more than happy to make it a bi-partisan effort at reform. But to try to conflate that issue with the current IRS abuse scandal is dishonest and nothing more than an attempt to distract attention from the real problem we are trying to get to the bottom of.

Moving On

Yesterday, the local (and to some extent even national) political scene was focused on the somewhat surprising news that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann would not seek reelection to a fifth term in Minnesota’s Sixth District. As to be expected, reaction to the news was all over the board.

Many Democrats were gleeful that one of their long time bête noires was no longer going to hold elected office. However, their sense of celebration was tempered to a certain extent by the fact that despite all the energy and resources they threw against her, they were never able to beat her at the ballot box. She left on her own terms.

Meanwhile, the response from Republicans was mixed. Supporters of Bachmann were upset and wondering what the future might hold for a woman who has become a standard bearer in the battle for limited government. Other Republicans, especially those in Minnesota, publicly thanked Michele for her years of service, but privately breathed a sigh of relief. Bachmann’s reelection in the Sixth was far from a sure thing and her reputation (both deserved and undeserved) had damaged the GOP brand statewide. I get the sense that people outside the state have a hard time understanding these sentiments so I’ll try to explain where they come from.

First off, let me join those who have thanked Michele Bachmann for her leadership in the House. People always say that want politicians who remain true to their principles and convictions and that has never been a problem for Michele. You may not have always agreed with her, but you had to admire her willingness to say and do what she thought was right no matter which way the prevailing winds of public opinion were blowing. And when it comes to energy, passion, and enthusiasm few politicians can match Michele.

I can still vividly recall election night 2006. The NARN was doing a live broadcast from the Republican “victory” party at a hotel in Bloomington. The mood was somber as the GOP was getting their tails handed to them nationally and in most local races. Governor Tim Pawlenty was barely hanging on in his reelection battle against Mike Hatch and there appeared to be little to celebrate. And then we interviewed Michele Bachmann. Along with Governor Pawlenty, she too survived the 2006 Democratic wave (in fact she beat Patty Wetterling by eight points) and that evening she was a rare beacon of light and hope. Despite the downbeat news, she was upbeat and excited and you couldn’t help but have your spirits lifted by her infectious enthusiasm. Her boundless energy and authentic sense of optimism will be hard to replace.

(And now for the inevitable “but.”) But for the last few years, I had developed a case of what might be called “Bachmann fatigue.” And I’m sure I’m not the only Minnesota conservative to come down with particular malady. It reminds me of the way I felt for the last few years of the second GW Bush term when it became exhausting to constantly have to defend, explain, or justify actions of the Bush Administration. No matter how much we might have liked Bush at one time or how much we appreciated what he had done to defend the country; many conservatives uttered an audible sigh of relief when he left office.

Likewise, it became harder and harder to defend, explain, or justify some of the things that Michele Bachmann said or did. Now to be fair, no one in recent memory has had her words and actions as often mischaracterized, exaggerated, or distorted as often as Bachmann has. So there were many instances when defending her against her relentless critics was both necessary and justified. But even her most ardent supporters should admit that she also said things that were indefensible and worthy of criticism.

Bachmann’s 2012 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination highlighted the mixed emotions that many conservatives have for her. It showed her at her best and her worst. Given the way it ended for her and the way it was portrayed in the media, most people saw a lot more of the latter. As a result, her image both nationally and in Minnesota was tarnished.

No matter how much support Bachmann had in her district or among national Tea Party groups, the reality was that she was not popular across Minnesota. Again, a good deal of this negativity, especially the “crazy Michele Bachmann” label, was both unfair and inaccurate. But it also wasn’t completely illegitimate and as the old adage goes perception is reality. The perception of Michele Bachmann among Minnesota voters was not positive which is why she was (and is) never going to run and win a statewide race. With Tim Pawlenty’s departure from the stage, Bachmann had become the most prominent Republican in Minnesota and this negative perception of her became a drag on the Minnesota GOP. This is why many Minnesota Republicans were privately pleased to see her retirement announcement yesterday.

I wish Michele Bachmann well whatever the future may hold for her. I think she might have been better off to take this route a bit earlier and step aside after the 2012 primary campaign ended. In any event, I believe her decision is the best thing for her and for Republicans in Minnesota.

Tundra Recovery

Later tonight, I’ll join Hugh Hewitt and a number of my former Northern Alliance Radio Network colleagues at an event called “Taking Back the Tundra” at the Marriot Minneapolis Northwest. The main topic of the evening is going to be Minnesota politics, specifically what could/should be done to reverse the tide of blue which has swept over the state. To be accurate, it shouldn’t really be called “Taking Back the Tundra” in terms of a reconquista to recapture lost land as Minnesota was never free of progressive control. Sure there was a time in the early 2000s when it appeared the state was becoming more purple and some even talked about making it red, but if you look at the long view you see that we’ve been a fairly consistent bastion of blue.

When it comes to what conservatives/Republicans/enemies of statism would have to do to tilt the political balance back in their favor the list of areas of improvement is long:

- Messaging
- Organizing
- Getting out the vote
- Fundraising
- Social media

And this is a just a starting point. However, in my view there are two critical areas that Minnesota Republicans must focus on if they want to have any hope of turning things around: candidates and campaigns. More specifically, there are two actions they need to execute in these areas:

1. Nominate good candidates

2. Run good campaigns

Neither are revolutionary suggestions and in fact fielding good candidates and running good campaigns are basic essentials of successful politics. And yet the Minnesota GOP has for the most part failed to deliver on either of them for the last twenty years or so. Nowhere is this failure more obvious than in statewide races. These include the two US Senate seats which are contested every six years and the five state constitutional offices (governor, secretary of state, state auditor, and attorney general) which are contested every four. Going back to 1996, the MN GOP has lost most of these state wide races being beaten by such notable candidates as Jesse Ventura, Mark Dayton (twice), and Al Franken (and another GOP loss to Franken looms in 2014).

There were six US Senate races in Minnesota from 1996-2012. The GOP won one and that was in 2002 with Paul Wellstone’s death and the controversy over the Wellstone memorial service looming large in Norm Coleman’s victory. In 2012, Amy Klobuchar’s margin of victory 34.70% was larger than the percentage of votes that Kurt Bills received 30.53%. All told the MN GOP has a .16 winning percentage in these races.

There have been a total of sixteen constitutional office races from 1998-2010. The GOP won six and one of those was Judi Dutcher’s 1998 victory in the race for state auditor. Dutcher later switched parties and joined the DFL. While the MN GOP has done better here than in the US Senate, the .375 winning percentage is nothing to brag about.

Keep in mind that these results occurred during a period where Minnesota was often considered “in play” politically. Some years have been better for the GOP during this time and some worse. So by winning only 16% of the US Senate races and 37.5% of the constitutional office races the GOP is clearly underperforming expectations.

So let’s get back to basics starting with good candidates. Of the six constitutional offices that the GOP won during this period, two were victories by Tim Pawlenty when he was elected governor in 2002 and reelected in 2006. Tim Pawlenty was a good candidate and the GOP made the right choice by endorsing him in 2002. Some conservative purists view Pawlenty as a RINO because he raised cigarette taxes by fifty cents a pack and called it a fee and because-like most Midwestern pols of his time-he came down on the wrong side on ethanol. Was Pawlenty a perfect conservative? Of course not. Was he a good candidate? Obviously.

Certain local conservative pundits like to say that we never elect conservatives in Minnesota because we really never run truly conservative candidates. Really? Kurt Bills was plenty conservative and he got walloped by Amy Klobuchar. Why? It wasn’t because he wasn’t conservative enough, it was because he was not a good candidate. Being a good conservative is not enough. You need a good candidate to win. If we really want to have any hope of turning the state around, we need to be willing to sacrifice some of the former attribute to make sure we have the latter.

Then there are the campaigns. At times a good candidate can overcome a bad campaign and vice versa. And bad campaigns can sink candidates who should win. With little margin for error this is something the MN GOP afford to have happen yet it has again and again. 2008 was a Democratic year, but Norm Coleman should not have lost to Al Franken. Coleman’s campaign was a mess with muddled messages and indecision about whether to attack Franken’s many weaknesses or play Minnesota nice with him. This failure haunts us to this day (Obamacare) and will haunt us again next year when Franken is reelected. And no whining about how the election was stolen. As Hugh said in his book, if it’s not close they can’t cheat. And running against Al Franken shouldn’t have been close.

You can argue whether Tom Emmer was a good candidate for governor in 2010 or not. You can’t argue whether his campaign was a disaster or not since it clearly was. 2010 was a Republican year nationally and even locally. The MN GOP took control of both the House and Senate yet somehow we couldn’t beat Mark Dayton. Why? Emmer ran a lousy campaign plain and simple. After he defeated Mary Seifert to secure the GOP nomination, there was a lot of back slapping and self-congratulation within Team Emmer about the masterful job they had done and how clever they were. This hubris may have lead them to assume that knocking off Mark Dayton in a good year for the GOP would be relatively easy. Whatever the reason, the campaign struggled to get out of the gate, got bogged down on side issues, and never developed any sense of direction or momentum. Like Coleman’s loss to Franken, this defeat has caused lasting damage to the GOP both in what could have accomplished with control of all three branches in 2011 and 2012 and what could have been prevented this year.

The Republican Party of Minnesota has plenty of work to do to order to become relevant again. But if they don’t identify and endorse good candidates and plan and execute smart campaigns none of the rest of it will matter.

Worth Fighting For

Former SEAL officer Leif Babin on A Tradition of Sacrifice, From Yorktown to Ramadi:

Let's remember on Memorial Day—and every other day, for that matter—that America did not become a nation without a fight. Last week, I found myself in Washington, D.C., admiring a bronze statue of George Washington. The statue shows him as a general, astride a horse, sword drawn at the ready. This was Washington as a true American leader, inspiring those around him by showing that he too was willing to risk death for the cause of victory. The statue brought to mind the thousands of soldiers who marched with him into battle against the British, facing seemingly impossible odds.

It was not the Declaration of Independence that gave us freedom but the Continental Army. America was born from conflict, delivered by soldiers willing to pay with their blood the tremendous cost of freedom.

The dead did not wish to be martyred. They no doubt longed to return to their homes and families. But they believed in the "glorious cause," something far greater than themselves. Despite knowing the dangers before them, they followed Gen. Washington into the fray even when victory seemed hopeless and the cause all but lost.

In America today, there are those who believe that under no circumstances is war the answer. Violence only begets more violence, we're told. The unstated message: Nothing is worth fighting and dying for. History disagrees.

Knowing firsthand the hardships of combat gives me all the more reason to admire and stand in awe of those who marched with Washington and gave their lives for the United States of America. Most will never be depicted in bronze, but their sacrifices matter. The legions of American warriors since then who sacrificed their lives have not done so eagerly, nor have they done so blindly. They acted willingly because they believed in a great nation that is worth fighting and dying for.

Memorial Day is a living monument to them, a recognition of freedom's cost. May we never take those sacrifices for granted.

HWX, with Adam Carolla

The Hinderaker-Ward Experience (HWX) returns for a special Memorial Day weekend edition. John Hinderaker of Power Line and Brian Ward of Fraters Libertas reunite to discuss the BIG issues of the day, including:

 * the IRS scandal, the Benghazi Scandal, the AP wiretap scandal

 * the ability of any political scandal to break though to masses in the modern era

 * scandal fatigue

 * Scandal featuring Patty Smyth (not really)

We're also joined by the great Adam Carolla. He's an actor, a comedian, the #1 podcaster in America, a vinter, and for our money, the funniest guy in show business. He's also a Republican leaning libertarian in Hollywood and we talk about his outlook and experiences in Los Angeles.

Many ways to hear the podcast, including over on the mothership at Ricochet.  You can be sure to never miss an episode by subscribing via iTunes or Feedburner.  Or just use the player embedded in the upper right hand corner of this web site.  If all of these fail, send me an email and I'll come to your house and read from a written transcript.  Hope you enjoy.

Beer of the Week (Vol. CLXXV)

Another edition of Beer of the Week sponsored as always by the sunny folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who can help find the wine, whiskey, and beer you need to bring cheer to celebrate the unofficial beginning of summer in style.

Last month, I had a post noting the news that Minneapolis based Finnegans Charitable Beer Company had recently joined the canned beer revolution. In recognition of my efforts to spread the word about the change to cans and a contest they were sponsoring to promote it, the good folks at Finnegan’s saw fit to drop off a couple of twelve-packs of their newly canned product.

If I were among the class of objective, unbiased, straight down the middle professional journalists I might have to refuse such a generous offer as it could raise the appearance of impropriety. But since I’m merely one among the vast unwashed mass of bloggers I feel no need to adhere to such scribbling standards. As long as I properly DISCLOSE-DISCLOSE-DISCLOSE, the fact Finnegan’s has kindly supplied me with a sample of their product sans charge should in way call in question my credibility or ability to provide a fair and accurate review of their beer.

And so without further ado let’s get to our Beer of the Week, Finnegans Blonde Ale.

12 pack of 12oz cans sells for $11.99. Simple design with gold and white colors and Finnegans’ angelic shamrock.

STYLE: Blonde Ale

ALCOHOL BY VOLUME: 4.6 %

COLOR (0-2): Light gold and clear. 1

AROMA (0-2): Grassy with a little honey. 2

HEAD (0-2): Bright white color. Good volume and retention. 2

TASTE (0-5): Bready malt with yeast and light hop provide well balanced flavors with a bit o’ honey. Finish is crisp and dry. Good carbonation. It has a light body and is very drinkable. 3 AFTERTASTE (0-2): Lingers nicely. 2

OVERALL (0-6): Finnegan’s Blonde Ale is a simple, straightforward beer that’s well made. It’s easy drinking, refreshing yet has just enough flavor to keep you interested. A good warm weather beer and it’s for a good cause. 3

TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 13

Take It Back

Time is running out to purchase your tickets to Take Back the Tundra with Hugh Hewitt:

General Admission & VIP still available!

GENERAL ADMISSION TICKETS

Event starts at 7:00pm, first come first serve seating

Doors open at 6:30pm

VIP TICKETS

Steak Dinner at 5:30pm

VIP seating at event 7:00pm

Today is in fact the last day you buy VIP tickets. The event is next Tuesday, May 28th at the Marriot Minneapolis Northwest. Hugh will be joined by an all-star panel of former and current Northern Alliance bloggers including Brian “Saint Paul” Ward and yours truly. It’s not exactly clear what specific duties we will be performing although it must be important since we’ve asked to wear black pants, white shirts, and bow ties.

Get your tickets now and don’t be stingy with those tips.

How They Rate

The annual update of the Fraters Libertas Beer Ratings list has been completed. There are now 802 beers included from around the world. That geographic reach now spans thirty-two countries and forty-one of these United States.

Here’s a map of the countries covered:




That’s only about 14% of all the countries in the world, but in terms of area it’s obviously much larger.

And here’s the coverage by state:




The gap with the six states in the mid-South stands out and it’s probably going to take some work to close. Connecticut, Nevada, and North Dakota should prove easier to target and find beers to rate. Here’s a list of possibly options for each of the states that are currently missing from the rating roster.

Arkansas-Diamond Bear Brewing

Connecticut-Thomas Hooker Brewing Company

Kentucky-West Sixth Brewing

Nevada-Big Dog's Brewing Company

North Dakota-Fargo Brewing

Oklahoma-Choc Brewing

Tennessee-Yazoo Brewing Company

Virginia-Legend Brewing

West Virginia-Bridge Brew Works

One of the ongoing debates among craft beers aficionados is over which states brews the best beer. Here’s a list of the states by ratings average (minimum twenty beers rated):

Pretty clear advantage to California especially when you consider the number of beers.

The overall average rating for the 802 beers is 13.06 and you see from this chart that the distribution is not a perfectly normal one.

The updated ratings also include links to the one-hundred-seventy-eight reviews of Beers of Week made possible by the fine folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits.

802 beers down, only 182 more to go to crack one thousand. Stay thirsty my friends.

Let Them Play (If They Want)

Jason Gay, who was recently blessed with the birth of a son, has an insightful piece in today’s WSJ on Building a Child Sports Prodigy (Kidding):

I don't care if he plays anything. I want him to do what he wants. Of course: He may be falling behind. It may already be too late to produce a sports prodigy. We may have to cross the Brazil World Cup off the list. The Rio Olympics, too. He needs 10,000 hours. Isn't that the formula? Five figures of solid sports commitment—and boom—he's being overpaid by the Yankees.

Let's get an hour of practice done right now in the crib. Boom. Only 9,999 more to go.

Should I get him a coach? Does he need off-season training camps? A swing guru? A nutritionist? A nutritionist for his swing guru? Do I have any idea what I am getting myself into? My friends with older kids, it seems they are always either A) driving the car to a game, B) driving home from a game, or C) standing on a sideline at a game. They are soccer dads and hockey moms or in long, complicated relationships with lacrosse. They talk about travel teams like they're the chicken pox.

I love this and I am scared by this. I adored playing youth sports. But later on I was an umpire and referee for youth sports. I had parents run me down after games and yell at me. I learned curse words I didn't even know were curse words.

I was a referee for USA Hockey for a few years and can relate to this. The best of the job was being on the ice with the kids. The worst part was the parents and sometimes the coaches.

If you ever see me yell at a Little League umpire, just wrap me with duct tape and leave me in the dugout.

I want to approach it the right way. Is the right way even possible? Have fun, don't take it too seriously, forget who won five seconds after it's over. I want him to space out in the third quarter or forget to hit the cutoff man and have it be no big deal. I want the games to be funny. Like they are with the Mets.

Or maybe I need to push. He's not playing winter baseball or summer basketball. His spiral isn't perfect. Nick Saban has yet to make an offer. Coach K isn't interested. Should I be worried? His bench press is iffy. His vertical leap is unknown. I've timed him in the 40. He just lies there, sleeping, dreaming about milk.

This is the struggle that parents, I think especially dads, face with kids and sports. You really do want them to just have fun, but there’s also that nagging worry that not pushing-at least a little bit-is going to result in them missing out on opportunities. It can be a tough line to walk.

I'd say third-round pick at best. Maybe second if the Jets get desperate.

It's my fault. I don't give him much of a head start. I wasn't much of an athlete as a kid. I spent a zillion years in youth soccer and never once scored a goal. I raced cross-country and specialized in last place. I cannot teach him how to hit a curve. I can teach him how to catch a pop fly with his face.

But if he wants to play, he should try everything. Don't specialize. Experiment. Try baseball. Try badminton, volleyball, wrestling, lacrosse, squash, hockey, swimming, skateboarding, cricket, crew, anything. Try tennis, because it's the game my Dad taught me, and still teaches, 40 seasons in, at the high school not far from where I grew up. I bet his grandpa makes him try playing with a wooden racket just once. To give him respect for how they used to do it.

Try basketball, just to learn how to spell H-O-R-S-E.

Try golf, just to be humbled.

Try running, because it's so beautifully simple. You can run anywhere you go on the planet.

Try cycling, because when you really get pedaling, it feels like you're flying.

Try yoga...well, he's already tried yoga. Baby yoga classes, with his mom. This is what happens when you live in Brooklyn.

But I don't mind if he doesn't try any of these things. I want what any parent wants. I want him to be happy. I want him to find his own way.

Those goals are so simple and so sweet and yet at times they’re easy for parents to forget despite the best of intentions. Best of luck Jason.

Beer of the Week (Vol. CLXXIV)

Another edition of Beer of the Week sponsored as always by the fun-loving folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who can help find the wine, whiskey, and beer you need to bring cheer to any occasion. But since this is American Craft Beer Week you probably want to focus your imbibing in that area.

Our featured beer this week is the first to appear here from Clown Shoes Beer which is produced by Mercury Brewing in Ipswich, Massachusetts. Clown Shoes’ approach to brewing and business reflects their name:

Something’s happening, and it involves clown shoes and beer. Clown Shoes? Very long story, but to condense it a group of us submitted the name to the Beer Advocate contest that resulted in The Wrath of Pecant. Our submission didn’t crack the top 5. This burned me up inside. While driving one day the epiphany came: I could make my own Clown Shoes beer. In no way did I expect to create a brand, figuring it would be one batch of beer for fun and then done. But folks are digging the brews and a group of us are having a great time. Clown Shoes has come to mean a lot to me on a lot of levels. Clowns are questionable but the shoes make me laugh. They remind me about humility and to find humor in life. Our mission now is to produce beer without pretension while being free and a little crazy. We hope you enjoy the beers and this site.

The first of what will likely be many Beer of the Week from Clown Shoes is Tramp Stamp: Belgian India Pale Ale:

Like a stamp on a tramp, this beer is about not so subtle seduction. Soft but complex malts, Chambly yeast, sweet orange peel, Columbus, Amarillo, and Centennial hops have merged to create a bodacious Belgian IPA.

220z brown bomber bottle sells for $6.99. The label has an orange background with a rendering of the namesake tramp and her marking.

STYLE: Belgian IPA

ALCOHOL BY VOLUME: 7.0%

COLOR (0-2): Copper brown and obscure. 2

AROMA (0-2): Pepper and candied sugar. 2

HEAD (0-2): Light tan color, small foamy bubbles, good volume, and lacing. 2

TASTE (0-5): Like the aroma, there are strong flavors of pepper and candied sugar along with a nice orangy zest. Bready caramel malts blend well with yeast and grassy hops which provide a bitter finish. The mouthfeel is smooth and creamy, the body is medium, and it’s rather drinkable. 4

AFTERTASTE (0-2): Rich follow through that lasts. 2

OVERALL (0-6): This is quite a good beer. Sometimes Belgian IPAs can go too far on the Belgian side (yeast, pepper, candied sugar) and not enough on the IPA. Tramp Stamp strikes the right balance and is a good combination of interesting and tasty flavors. 4

TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 16

Right to be Wrong

The March edition of First Things contained an excellent piece by Gilles Bernheim on the connections between Homosexual Marriage, Parenting, and Adoption :

I have written in light of the French debate. Whether legal rights concerning homosexual parenting and adoption are extended or limited, it is also clear that LGBT activists will use homosexual marriage as a Trojan horse in their greater efforts to deny natural sexuality, to erase sexual differences and replace them with orientations that make it possible to leave behind the “straitjacket of nature” and to pursue the destruction of the heterosexual foundations of our society.

There would be no courage and no glory in voting for a law based more on slogans than on arguments, in conforming to the dominant political correctness out of fear of being anathematized, and in hiding behind a question such as: “Even if there is no reason to pass a law, why is it a problem if we want to pass one?” The problem with the proposed law is the harm it portends for our society as a whole, and this solely for the benefit of a tiny minority. This harm consists in the irreversible scrambling of three things: genealogies, by substituting “parenting” for fatherhood and motherhood; the status of the child, who would go from being a subject to being an object to which others have a right; and sexual identity as a natural given, which would have to give way to orientation as an individual expression, in the name of the struggle against inequality, perverted into the elimination of differences.

The point that gay marriage confers benefits to a few at the expensive of many is one often overlooked in the debate on the matter. Despite widespread misperceptions, the reality is that somewhere between 1%-2% of Americans are actually gay. And among this group, the number who actually wish to get married in a very real and legal binding sense is small (check the stats in states and countries where gay marriage has been legalized). So we’re making fundamental changes to an institution that’s been one of the bedrocks of modern civilization in order to satisfy the demands of a minority of an already tiny minority of the population.

That’s exactly what the DFL controlled legislature and Governor Dayton did in Minnesota this week. One of the more amusing aspects of the debate leading up to the vote was the challenge issued by supporters of gay marriage that those who oppose it would end up “on the wrong side of history.” Firstly, many of the same people laying down this challenge and suddenly embracing the importance of history had previously demonstrated little respect for or understanding of it. Secondly, the notion that popular opinion at this particular point in time was inarguably correct and that what people had believed for thousands of years was obviously wrong is a perfect example of the conceit of progressive modernity and laughably narrow minded.

The idea that charging us with the crime of “being on the wrong side of history” would be a stinging indictment of opponents of gay marriage is also silly. Oh no, I’m not on “the wrong of side of history” as defined by Democrats in Minnesota in May 2013, am I? How will I go on with my life? Guess what? Social conservatives have been on the “wrong side of history” on abortion for the last forty years. I think somehow we’ll survive being on the “wrong side of history” on gay marriage too. In fact, I’m going wear it as a badge of pride. It never felt so right to be so “wrong.”

UPDATE: Looks like my timing on this was impeccable. The same day that I post a link and excerpt from an article that appeared in a magazine two months ago, it is revealed that parts of the article were plagiarized:

The first thing to say is that this affair can’t be interpreted as an example of progressives hunting down dissenters. Bernheim took a strong stand on a controversial issue, but it wasn’t his opposition to gay marriage that precipitated the scandal. It was his dishonesty. These transgressions of basic academic integrity were uncovered by Jean-Noël Darde, a plagiarism watchdog, not a gay activist.

The second thing to say concerns plagiarism. One of the perversions of our era is to make a god of intellectual property. Most commentators described Bernheim as “stealing” words and sentences. This is wrongheaded. Plagiarism is a sin against truth, not property. It’s first and foremost a kind of lying, not a kind of stealing. He violated our trust by speaking in a voice that was not his own, which is why in this and other cases of plagiarism the writer loses intellectual and moral authority broadly.

A third thing to say concerns the man. In my years of teaching, I had to deal with plagiarism many times. Now and then a cynical young person tried to get by with the minimum of work. But most of the students who plagiarized did so because they were desperate or scared, or both. I could tell because it was so obvious, and thus pathetic and pitiable. And indeed, when I confronted students I found that there was almost always a great deal of pathos in the background: psychological crises, terrible fears of failing, a consuming sense of hopelessness in the face of the assigned material.

Bernheim’s plagiarism seems to be of this sort. Now that I’ve reviewed some of the details, I can’t believe he believed he could get away with it. (I am, in fact, somewhat embarrassed that I didn’t grow suspicious when the French rabbi sounded so much like John Paul II when talking about sexual complementarity and transcendence.) Please join me in praying for Rabbi Bernheim. From my reading of the evidence in this affair (what’s so hard about citing someone?), it seems he certainly needs it.

The final thing to say is that I’m sorry. The essay’s arguments aren’t any less true for having been plagiarized. But we allowed the magazine to be a vehicle for falsehood. The lie was in the byline. “Homosexual Marriage, Parenting, and Adoption” was not in any proper sense by Gilles Bernheim. I apologize to you for publishing an essay that betrayed your trust in the integrity of First Things.

Amen to the point that the fact that they were plagiarized doesn’t diminish the impact of the arguments. It’s a shame that Rabbi Bernheim’s plagiarism has clouded the clarity of the message.