I really like beer. Michelob Amber Bock is the beer of my choice, poured into a pre-chilled glass.
Then I watched Beer Wars, and I realized that Budweiser is an example of all that is wrong with America, passed down from the older generation to us, the new generation.
Budweiser is a massive corporation that stays in business by strongarming the smaller competition, using mass advertisement, using laws meant to keep beer competitive to keep beer uncompetitive, and being a major lobbying force in Washington, D.C.
Where did we go so wrong?
When did we allow corporations to have any say in how our government was run?
When did we allow ourselves to let commercials think for us? How many of us drink a Bud brand (I, by the way, had no idea Michelob was Budweiser until today, foolish me) without bothering to even try what else is on the market? How many of us have sampled through all the different kinds of beers available to us to find what we really want? Or do we just buy what we see on television?
When did we stop looking at the money in our wallet and saying, "That's mine. If I'm going to give it away, I'm going to get something that I really like."
Instead, we settle for whatever the major corporations want to sell us. They own so many of us. They tell us what to buy, tell us what kind of television we like, tell us what to think.
When was it American to become a large corporation for the sake of being a large corporation? Why does Bud feel the need to own all aspects of the market? Why do they even bother to strong arm out all up and coming beers? Are they really so afraid? Do they really need to own all of the market?
With every dollar we spend at a major corporation, we seal our own fate. The fate of so many of us working for these behemoth. The reason why our government bows down to them is because they have our money. And we complain about this.
As we go on voting for the same parties and buying from the major corporations. Bud. Coke. Pepsi. Microsoft. Wal Mart. Starbucks. Democrat. Republican.
It's our vote. It's our dollar.
So why do they own us?
Because we let them.
What little hope I see in my generation is the independent trend. Independent music. Independent political parties.
Independent beer. Small breweries slugging it out with the big guys, resisting take overs, staying alive because they have a superior product. Staying alive because they love what they do.
Nothing is more American than a small business.
Especially if it brews beer.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Blog: "Leech in Walen's Pond" is doing a good job
LATE BREAKING NEWS" WHITE HOUSE ADMITS THAT WHITE HOUSE DID GOOD!
In an amazing reversal of partisanship, the White House has gone on record to admit that the President did good by signing in the $787 Billion stimulus plan. While some doubted the authenticity and reliability of the document, all Thomas-like thinking was laid to rest when VP Joe Biden officially went on record to say that Obama has helped the economy.
In other news, the Blogger of "Leech in Walden's Pond" just officially blogged that the "Leech in Walden's Pond" was the best new blog in the blogosphere.
Evan Bayh, a Democratic, is causing quite a stir on the journalist front.
CNN let us know that he's retiring and that he's sure it won't hurt his party. LINK: CNN tries to prove it's political slant
Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh says his decision to retire at the end of the year rather than run for re-election has not left his party in a bind.
FOX NEWS is unabashed in their excitement over Bay's departure LINK: It's way more fun to be the minority party
After Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh's surprise announcement Monday that he will not seek re-election to a third term in November, the Cook Political Report declared the Democrat's seat is now leaning Republican, and the Rothenberg Political Report moved the seat from narrow advantage for Democrats to a "tossup," adding that Bayh's decision "gives Republicans another excellent takeover opportunity."
In some more serious news not regarding clowns on Washington, a hiker died climbing Mt. St. Helens. Hiker's Death. I'm torn on my opinion of this. He apparently had climbed Mt. St. Helens 68 times, so he was an experienced climber. This reminds me of the heartbreaking story of the new father who died in the cave in Utah this past Thanksgiving. Both stories have the rescuers so close to saving the person in danger. Here's where I'm torn: somebody does something dangerous like caving or climbing a mountain, they know there are risks. My practical part says that nobody should be risking their life to do recreational things. Then again, the adventurer side of me says that it's better to die living life how you want then to die an old man who was too scared to do what he wanted to do. I don't have an answer; as for me, I won't risk my life (outside of doing "normal" dangerous things, like driving) until my kids are out of the house.
Lots of talk of Republican's ridiculous use of the filibuster. I like Henry Reid's misunderstanding of history. Reid thinks filibustering is designed to prevent tyranny of majority. I know Wiki isn't used as a reference, but I've heard this before, and I'll let you find better sources:
History of US fibibuster
Here's the important part, if you can handle all the mumbo-jumbo:
In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[29] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[29] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other Senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[29]
Contemporary scholars point out that in practice, narrow Senate majorities were able to enact legislation.[30] Majorities were able to prevail because of an implicit threat that the filibuster could itself be changed by majority rule if the minority used it to prevent, instead of merely to delay, votes on measures supported by a bare majority.[30]
Filibustering is a stupid, basically accidental rule. I'm secretly partial to rules that inhibit the Congress from acting fast, but, in all honesty, requiring a 2/3 majority to pass a law is...stupid...although it helped the climax of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Then the Congress had to go and make it boring, by not forcing (simplified version) Senators to actually filibuster.
I'll just steal the words of someone who wrote it better than I could...
Source
Still, the use of the filibuster grew slowly until the 1990s, when Republicans used it up to 80 times per year against President Bill Clinton.
Democrats escalated this warfare against President George W. Bush, using it more than 100 times per year toward the end of his second term.
Kate O’Beirne of the conservative National Review was right when she called the abuse unprecedented.
“Majority leader Bill Frist should call the Democrats’ bluff and bring back the traditional filibuster,” O’Beirne wrote in 2003. “Let Kate Michelman, leader of the abortion lobby, man the cots and wipe the brows of weary Democrats forced to talk ¤’round the clock.”
Then-Democratic Sen. Joe Biden responded that the filibuster was essential for “the protections of a minority point of view.”
Since then, of course, it’s been musical chairs on Capitol Hill.
Republicans who blasted the filibuster during the Bush era used it a record 138 times in Obama’s first year, while Vice President Biden last month called it “a dangerous new roadblock in the way of American government.”
All of this would be comical if it were not so tragic.
Those who oppose the filibuster in both parties are correct. They also are gutless. Like bratty schoolchildren, they hide behind the rule when it helps them and whine about it when it hurts them.
Even by Washington standards, which are perilously low, this is hypocrisy at its worst.
The Founding Fathers did not intend a filibuster. They spelled out in the Constitution exactly where they wanted supermajorities, reserving them for unique matters such as treaties, impeachment and overriding a presidential veto.
Otherwise, they believed in majority rule.
I'm done with politics...
Just watched World's Greatest Dad with Robin Williams. I see why it wasn't a hit, but I liked it just the same. Raises an interesting question: what do you do when your son dies, and your son was really a nasty person? Of course, Robin Williams feels that the world needs to see him naked in this as well (did you catch that in "The Survivors?").
Until Next Time.
In an amazing reversal of partisanship, the White House has gone on record to admit that the President did good by signing in the $787 Billion stimulus plan. While some doubted the authenticity and reliability of the document, all Thomas-like thinking was laid to rest when VP Joe Biden officially went on record to say that Obama has helped the economy.
In other news, the Blogger of "Leech in Walden's Pond" just officially blogged that the "Leech in Walden's Pond" was the best new blog in the blogosphere.
Evan Bayh, a Democratic, is causing quite a stir on the journalist front.
CNN let us know that he's retiring and that he's sure it won't hurt his party. LINK: CNN tries to prove it's political slant
Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh says his decision to retire at the end of the year rather than run for re-election has not left his party in a bind.
FOX NEWS is unabashed in their excitement over Bay's departure LINK: It's way more fun to be the minority party
After Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh's surprise announcement Monday that he will not seek re-election to a third term in November, the Cook Political Report declared the Democrat's seat is now leaning Republican, and the Rothenberg Political Report moved the seat from narrow advantage for Democrats to a "tossup," adding that Bayh's decision "gives Republicans another excellent takeover opportunity."
In some more serious news not regarding clowns on Washington, a hiker died climbing Mt. St. Helens. Hiker's Death. I'm torn on my opinion of this. He apparently had climbed Mt. St. Helens 68 times, so he was an experienced climber. This reminds me of the heartbreaking story of the new father who died in the cave in Utah this past Thanksgiving. Both stories have the rescuers so close to saving the person in danger. Here's where I'm torn: somebody does something dangerous like caving or climbing a mountain, they know there are risks. My practical part says that nobody should be risking their life to do recreational things. Then again, the adventurer side of me says that it's better to die living life how you want then to die an old man who was too scared to do what he wanted to do. I don't have an answer; as for me, I won't risk my life (outside of doing "normal" dangerous things, like driving) until my kids are out of the house.
Lots of talk of Republican's ridiculous use of the filibuster. I like Henry Reid's misunderstanding of history. Reid thinks filibustering is designed to prevent tyranny of majority. I know Wiki isn't used as a reference, but I've heard this before, and I'll let you find better sources:
History of US fibibuster
Here's the important part, if you can handle all the mumbo-jumbo:
In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[29] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[29] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other Senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[29]
Contemporary scholars point out that in practice, narrow Senate majorities were able to enact legislation.[30] Majorities were able to prevail because of an implicit threat that the filibuster could itself be changed by majority rule if the minority used it to prevent, instead of merely to delay, votes on measures supported by a bare majority.[30]
Filibustering is a stupid, basically accidental rule. I'm secretly partial to rules that inhibit the Congress from acting fast, but, in all honesty, requiring a 2/3 majority to pass a law is...stupid...although it helped the climax of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Then the Congress had to go and make it boring, by not forcing (simplified version) Senators to actually filibuster.
I'll just steal the words of someone who wrote it better than I could...
Source
Still, the use of the filibuster grew slowly until the 1990s, when Republicans used it up to 80 times per year against President Bill Clinton.
Democrats escalated this warfare against President George W. Bush, using it more than 100 times per year toward the end of his second term.
Kate O’Beirne of the conservative National Review was right when she called the abuse unprecedented.
“Majority leader Bill Frist should call the Democrats’ bluff and bring back the traditional filibuster,” O’Beirne wrote in 2003. “Let Kate Michelman, leader of the abortion lobby, man the cots and wipe the brows of weary Democrats forced to talk ¤’round the clock.”
Then-Democratic Sen. Joe Biden responded that the filibuster was essential for “the protections of a minority point of view.”
Since then, of course, it’s been musical chairs on Capitol Hill.
Republicans who blasted the filibuster during the Bush era used it a record 138 times in Obama’s first year, while Vice President Biden last month called it “a dangerous new roadblock in the way of American government.”
All of this would be comical if it were not so tragic.
Those who oppose the filibuster in both parties are correct. They also are gutless. Like bratty schoolchildren, they hide behind the rule when it helps them and whine about it when it hurts them.
Even by Washington standards, which are perilously low, this is hypocrisy at its worst.
The Founding Fathers did not intend a filibuster. They spelled out in the Constitution exactly where they wanted supermajorities, reserving them for unique matters such as treaties, impeachment and overriding a presidential veto.
Otherwise, they believed in majority rule.
I'm done with politics...
Just watched World's Greatest Dad with Robin Williams. I see why it wasn't a hit, but I liked it just the same. Raises an interesting question: what do you do when your son dies, and your son was really a nasty person? Of course, Robin Williams feels that the world needs to see him naked in this as well (did you catch that in "The Survivors?").
Until Next Time.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Valentine's Day fluff -- nothing too serious here
I happen to like Valentine's Day. We have an insistent culture of "I'm better than that," (see Ben Folds, "Battle of Who Could Care Less), and, of course, it wears off on this holiday, too. So many people with reasons why they are above V-Day. If they want to down me for loving the day, go for it, I'll still be up past midnight making cards and thinking of ways to surprise the Wife.
Here's some of the complaints I've heard:
It's commercial. Yes, it's commercialized, but what isn't? Seriously, what in our culture isn't about buying things? We have, after all, 3 candy holidays (Valentine's, Easter, and Halloween). Problem solved: don't go out and buy flowers, chocolates and a teddy bear holding a heart. Maybe don't spend any money at all. Hasn't deterred my Valentine's.
Why do we need a special day for being nice to our significant other, buying them gifts and telling them you love them? Shouldn't that be everyday?
Yes, everyday should be special, and then the "special" becomes simply the "everyday." Take this logic to the furthest point. You should celebrate someone's birth everyday, why have a birthday? You should celebrate the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ everyday, why have Christmas, Good Friday and Easter? You should be thankful everyday, why have Thanksgiving? Hey, I'm not going to make you enjoy holidays, but don't try to put a damper on those who do.
And then there's all the people trying to make Valentine's Day into a depressing episode because they don't have a Valentine's. The type of people you don't invite to a wedding. Quite frankly, this culture puts way to much emphasis on relationships. If you mope around on Valentine's Day, you need both a priority change and a lesson in selflessness. Does other people's happiness really make you that unhappy?
And, yes, it might be based on a pagan holiday. 1600 years ago.Way beyond caring about that. We're not choosing couples out of a hat and this day has nothing to do with fertility (well, not specifically).
I'm getting mean here, I know, but I hate to see a holiday meant to be about your significant other lambasted like it has been. I love my wife everyday. But on Valentine's Day, I'm going to celebrate that I have a 5 year relationship that still gets us both excited. I'm sorry if you don't have that. Don't take it out on me ;-)
Much love, world.
Here's some of the complaints I've heard:
It's commercial. Yes, it's commercialized, but what isn't? Seriously, what in our culture isn't about buying things? We have, after all, 3 candy holidays (Valentine's, Easter, and Halloween). Problem solved: don't go out and buy flowers, chocolates and a teddy bear holding a heart. Maybe don't spend any money at all. Hasn't deterred my Valentine's.
Why do we need a special day for being nice to our significant other, buying them gifts and telling them you love them? Shouldn't that be everyday?
Yes, everyday should be special, and then the "special" becomes simply the "everyday." Take this logic to the furthest point. You should celebrate someone's birth everyday, why have a birthday? You should celebrate the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ everyday, why have Christmas, Good Friday and Easter? You should be thankful everyday, why have Thanksgiving? Hey, I'm not going to make you enjoy holidays, but don't try to put a damper on those who do.
And then there's all the people trying to make Valentine's Day into a depressing episode because they don't have a Valentine's. The type of people you don't invite to a wedding. Quite frankly, this culture puts way to much emphasis on relationships. If you mope around on Valentine's Day, you need both a priority change and a lesson in selflessness. Does other people's happiness really make you that unhappy?
And, yes, it might be based on a pagan holiday. 1600 years ago.Way beyond caring about that. We're not choosing couples out of a hat and this day has nothing to do with fertility (well, not specifically).
I'm getting mean here, I know, but I hate to see a holiday meant to be about your significant other lambasted like it has been. I love my wife everyday. But on Valentine's Day, I'm going to celebrate that I have a 5 year relationship that still gets us both excited. I'm sorry if you don't have that. Don't take it out on me ;-)
Much love, world.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Wasting Time
Lindsay Lohan Looking Like Jesus
So Lindsay Lohan isn't reverent to Jesus. We might even venture the assumption that she doesn't exactly believe in the Divinity of Christ. On the eve of Lent, the photo, appearing in a fashion magazine that (no surprise) I've never heard of (perhaps it's popular, I don't know), has sparked some anger in the Catholic community.
Why?
Not knowing Lohan personally, I can't exactly say that I'm more (or less) concerned about her soul than I am every other person I've never met. With that said, why do we sit around and care that some famous actress is disrespecting Christ? Are His feelings more apt to be hurt by Lindsay Lohan than Judas? Than the thief on the cross next to him? I'm sure God, Christ and the Holy Ghost woke up this morning, logged into their Yahoo accounts, saw the magazine cover and gave up all hope for America.
Et tu, brute? If we don't have that Lohan girl on our side, we don't have anything. The world is lost. Call Luci, tell him he's won.
The problem here is that for quite too long, Christians have been fighting to keep the culture of America Christian. What from the Bible suggests that we can create a culturally Christian nation? Some sort of haven where Christians won't be made fun of for being different? Do we want to fit in so bad to this world that we need the culture to conform to our standards? The Bible seems to make it clear: world or God, Egypt or Israel.
A waste of time and effort, and all it does is heap more abuse on Christians from those who enjoy doing that. Do you think people may enjoy doing this because some Christians are too thin-skinned and react way too easily? I mean, how fun is it to dress up like Jesus and be irreverent if the Jesus followers don't pitch a fit?
Our culture hasn't been a reflection of Christ for decades, if ever (remember, don't even look at a women lustfully?).
Don't even try to tell me that Lohan is a role model to young women. If your daughter looks up to Lindsay Lohan as a role model, you may need to do something drastic.
Like get rid of the television.
Don't worry, no one will know you're standing up for God. They'll just think you're going green.
So Lindsay Lohan isn't reverent to Jesus. We might even venture the assumption that she doesn't exactly believe in the Divinity of Christ. On the eve of Lent, the photo, appearing in a fashion magazine that (no surprise) I've never heard of (perhaps it's popular, I don't know), has sparked some anger in the Catholic community.
Why?
Not knowing Lohan personally, I can't exactly say that I'm more (or less) concerned about her soul than I am every other person I've never met. With that said, why do we sit around and care that some famous actress is disrespecting Christ? Are His feelings more apt to be hurt by Lindsay Lohan than Judas? Than the thief on the cross next to him? I'm sure God, Christ and the Holy Ghost woke up this morning, logged into their Yahoo accounts, saw the magazine cover and gave up all hope for America.
Et tu, brute? If we don't have that Lohan girl on our side, we don't have anything. The world is lost. Call Luci, tell him he's won.
The problem here is that for quite too long, Christians have been fighting to keep the culture of America Christian. What from the Bible suggests that we can create a culturally Christian nation? Some sort of haven where Christians won't be made fun of for being different? Do we want to fit in so bad to this world that we need the culture to conform to our standards? The Bible seems to make it clear: world or God, Egypt or Israel.
A waste of time and effort, and all it does is heap more abuse on Christians from those who enjoy doing that. Do you think people may enjoy doing this because some Christians are too thin-skinned and react way too easily? I mean, how fun is it to dress up like Jesus and be irreverent if the Jesus followers don't pitch a fit?
Our culture hasn't been a reflection of Christ for decades, if ever (remember, don't even look at a women lustfully?).
Don't even try to tell me that Lohan is a role model to young women. If your daughter looks up to Lindsay Lohan as a role model, you may need to do something drastic.
Like get rid of the television.
Don't worry, no one will know you're standing up for God. They'll just think you're going green.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)