Month: June 2007

Sour Beer Studies: Oudbeitje Lambic, Hanssens, Belgium

Oddly, a 750 ml label on a 375 ml bottle. The brewer tells us that this is a strawberry lambic, with the fruit sitting in the beer from one summer to the next spring. The importer gives a proportion of 1 kg of strawberries to every 4 litres. BAers warn that this is extremely sour but upon opening there is a waft of sweet strawberry jam. It’s on the cork. The glass has a hint of it in amongst strong musty barnyardy smells. Within a minutes, the jammy scent is gone.

Very still medium straw ale under a fine white rim. In the mouth, there is musty hardwood, like a little bit of baseball bat, with a slightly bilious swelling that quickly recedes leaving sharp acid but also with a nod-ette to milkiness to the yeast and a dry strawberry note, like the white ones that got picked too early. A moderately gentle vinegar finish with some dry fruit. Taking small sips, you start to get into the beer, finding some of the flavours reorganizing and coming forward to be noted, believing the quote of Garrett Oliver’s that notes sharp cheddar cheese might have a point.

What to take from this beer? Maybe it is that dry lambics are perhaps sipping beers, the acid to be respected like the strength of a single malt whisky. Maybe it is to get past the acid and explore the other relatively muted scents and flavours. Whatever it is, Oudebeitje was not as harsh as past experience with dry lambics.

What The Heck Have I Done?

What indeed? I am chaperoning a trip fo grade three kids to the zoo. I thought my life would be chaperoning exempt. The zoo is 200 km or more to the east which means there is five hours in a bus involved. Not a yellow bus, God be praised, but I am told a comfy one. I am still bringing ear plugs. But I am not bringing mace or anything like that so I am being a proper parent.

For your reading and commenting pleasure today, while I endure the screams of eight year olds as I am encased with them in a small steel cage on wheels hurtling down the highway, please visit the Flea where you can see Ms. Hilton defended and accused, ignored for what she is and praised for what she is not – sometimes all by the same person. A sense of fashion collides with a grasp of the law – but no one has lost an eye yet.

But What About The Mike Schmidt Era?

I have something of a spot for the Phillies as, in the old days of the Expos and the NL East and national media that was not so Toronto-centric as to singlehandedly kill off a team, it was once possible to watch them. But they are one of those teams, like the Cubs, known more for their failings than anything:

Defeat has been as spectacular and excruciating as it has been regular. On May 1, 1883, the team lost its inaugural game; by the end of that miserable season, a pitcher named John Coleman had lost 48 times. From 1938 through 1942, the Phillies lost at least 103 games each year. The franchise has set awful records for futility — with a collective earned run average of 6.71 in 1930 and 23 consecutive defeats in 1961. And, of course, 1964 brought one of baseball’s most infamous collapses, when the Phillies held a 6 ½-game lead in the National League with 12 games to play and blew the pennant after losing 10 in a row.

Good story in the NYT about the losing-est team in sports history who, in large part because of Mike, won the World Series when I was in grade 12 leaving me forever with a skewed understanding of their legacy.

Speaking Of Constitutional Law…

It is a very instructive day in the news if you are interested in constitutional law. Yesterday, the US courts confirmed the primacy of the person and the bar on making things up:

The appeals court yesterday ordered the trial judge in the case to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the secretary of defense to release Mr. Marri from military custody “within a reasonable period of time to be set by the district court.” The government can, Judge Motz wrote, transfer Mr. Marri to civilian authorities to face criminal charges, initiate deportation proceedings against him, hold him as a material witness in connection with a grand jury proceeding or detain him for a limited time under a provision of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. But the military cannot hold him, Judge Motz wrote. “The president cannot eliminate,” she wrote, “constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention.”

These sorts of things are difficult cases and we have a natural gut reaction that bad people ought to be treated badly, differently. The trouble is the job of determining who and how has to be done on a principles and public basis or there is a veering towards a genial sort of authoritarianism where others take care of things you do not know about in ways that you do not understand. They become your betters, too, as a result.

A Moment’s Thought For The Grown-ups Who Govern

Jay and I have been discussing the Atlantic Accord and likely both been making errors all over the place but none as silly as the ones likely being made in the political forum these days:

“I am concerned about this allegation we’ve broken the [Atlantic] accords…We have done no such thing. It’s a contract. We don’t break contracts. We respect contracts. Normally, I expect, if someone says you’ve broken a contract, they are going to follow that up by going to court to make you abide by the contract. But I don’t see that happening…We can’t let that allegation stay out there forever. At some point we will consult tribunals ourselves, if that’s necessary, to get a ruling on our respect for the contracts.” The political dare was met with scorn by Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams and Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald, who said they will not be drawn into legal battles that would only deflect their criticisms of the recent federal budget…

Stephen Scott, a professor of constitutional law at McGill University in Montreal, said the Atlantic Accord is a political arrangement, not a contract, so a lawsuit could not be used to force the federal government to uphold its provisions. But, he said, the premiers could go to their own provincial appeals courts to get orders declaring how the agreement should be interpreted.

So you have the leader of the country daring other leaders into a court case over a legal principle that probably does not exist. Classy or troubling?

But to what political end? Where is a seat one with this approach? Maybe rural Alberta, itself the beneficiaries of the greatest non-reimbursable Federal windfall in Canadian history, will now vote 75% Conservative instead of 70%. But what is a Conservative government without seats in Atlantic Canada? Unless, it takes Ontario – nothing. Is there now a practical resignation to the reality of minority government?

My Day Off With The Roofers

Having roofed before, as with laying large amounts of sod, I do not do it any more. As you might be aware, I am what is known as not handy half by choice. It is not because I am lazy or fabulously wealthy but when (not if) I made a mistake I would likely leave it and then would hate that mistake for decades as I looked at the house. I know this is what I am like and I freely admit it. I console myself with other strengths, like my sense of indignity at bad BBQ and a passing understanding of a large range of athletic endeavors.

Plus it is very tippy up there. I am quite sure of that.

Guess Where This Was Said

Quoted:

Flag waving “causes the fans, at times, to become aggressive toward each other. … It’s a zero tolerance policy…”

A hint can be found below.

La-la land.

Was this all because of soccer? And what would patriotism-whipped Canucks look like anyway? Would they break out a second Crispy Crunch like mad men? Maybe demand maple syrup for their hot dogs?

Reaching Out, Helping Canada’s Regions

Canada is a funny place, where the bits add up to more and less than the whole depending on what week it is in relation to the recycling pick-up. Consider March 2006:

“It is important that all members of our caucus have every opportunity to advance important issues. The regional caucus structure will help give all of our caucus members more opportunities to fully represent their constituents,” said Prime Minister Harper.

Flash forward to June 2007:

Mr. MacDonald, who has been quietly trying to find a compromise with Ottawa since the federal budget was tabled three months ago, has now openly split with his federal cousins, joining Newfoundland’s Conservative Premier Danny Williams, who said the budget is a betrayal of Atlantic Canada. Mr. MacDonald plans to appear before the national news media to make his case. There are national consequences, he said, if the federal government can rip up agreements with provinces.

Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert, who has his own bone to pick with Mr. Flaherty about resource revenues, said voters in his province will expect its dozen Tory MPs to follow Mr. Casey’s example and vote against the budget. Mr. Calvert is a New Democrat; no New Democrats were elected from Saskatchewan in the last federal election.

Hmmm…will they even have any members from out east after next time? Second “hmmm”…so which regions are left from which Conservative caucus members can fully represent their constituents? Quebec I suppose, though the recent provincial election was hardly clear cut evidence of regional confidence in Ottawa. Funny old times.