Bits and pieces
May. 11th, 2007 10:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumSome interesting links. Bishop Womack, Prophetic Physician
Most doctors spend time trying to suppress symptoms instead of treating root causes of problems. At the Chapel of Miracles my approach is just the opposite...
Majikthise points to a restaurant review which describes one hell of a menu.
Lawyers, Guns and Money is discussing what beer is the best for breakfast (I'm a Guiness man in that regard, though if I want a less filling/more cooling [though more intoxicating] morning bevande, Pilsner Urquell, or Anchor Steam are the way to go).
For a different take on beer, Daniel at Crooked Timber is holds forth; with the assertion that not only does he like Budweiser (his right) but that it's, in an objective sense, "good beer." Where he loses me is here, The Anheuser-Busch company began selling it in 1876. This was a full 20 years before the Budvar brewery in Ceske Budejowice was even built, a subject I will come back to. The recipe has not changed since then, apart from a period during Prohibition when the alcohol content was reduced to 0.5% in order to comply with the law. It is an authentic, traditional product just like the ones CAMRA promotes.
Budweiser is not “full of chemicals”. It does not comply with the German “Purity Law”, but this is because it has a non-barley grain in it (rice).
That rice is a change in the recipe. It's also become a more prominent note in the "flavor" of Bud.
He also compares apples to oranges when he tries to defend rice in beer by pointing out sake is made from rice. They aren't the same drink.
It's not that I'm a Reinheitgebot fanatic (e.g. I love lambics, which don't meet the requirements). Rolling Rock Lager is a beer I used to like. It was sweeter than other light-flavored lagers. Not from an excess of barley malt (which gives a very distinctive, heavy, feel to the sweetness. For an example look at Gordon Beirsch's märzen), but because they used some corn in the mash.
That gave it some of the lighter, sweeter, notes which show up in sour mash whiskeys.
Busch bought them out in the late '80s, as I recall. The corn started to be replaced with rice. The beer started to taste like watered piss.
That's my problem with Bud. It's not that they are upstarts (they aren't, certainly not in the states). It's not that they make the beer in swimming pool sized lots and then age them with 4x4s in giant tanks (because other breweries, and wineries I like, do much the same).
No, it's that I think the beer they make lacks flavor, and goes thin and sour as soon as it gets the least bit warm. The only times I have been able to finish a can of it, was in a couple of long draughts, straight off the ice, when shovelling manure in the blazing sun.
Most doctors spend time trying to suppress symptoms instead of treating root causes of problems. At the Chapel of Miracles my approach is just the opposite...
Majikthise points to a restaurant review which describes one hell of a menu.
Lawyers, Guns and Money is discussing what beer is the best for breakfast (I'm a Guiness man in that regard, though if I want a less filling/more cooling [though more intoxicating] morning bevande, Pilsner Urquell, or Anchor Steam are the way to go).
For a different take on beer, Daniel at Crooked Timber is holds forth; with the assertion that not only does he like Budweiser (his right) but that it's, in an objective sense, "good beer." Where he loses me is here, The Anheuser-Busch company began selling it in 1876. This was a full 20 years before the Budvar brewery in Ceske Budejowice was even built, a subject I will come back to. The recipe has not changed since then, apart from a period during Prohibition when the alcohol content was reduced to 0.5% in order to comply with the law. It is an authentic, traditional product just like the ones CAMRA promotes.
Budweiser is not “full of chemicals”. It does not comply with the German “Purity Law”, but this is because it has a non-barley grain in it (rice).
That rice is a change in the recipe. It's also become a more prominent note in the "flavor" of Bud.
He also compares apples to oranges when he tries to defend rice in beer by pointing out sake is made from rice. They aren't the same drink.
It's not that I'm a Reinheitgebot fanatic (e.g. I love lambics, which don't meet the requirements). Rolling Rock Lager is a beer I used to like. It was sweeter than other light-flavored lagers. Not from an excess of barley malt (which gives a very distinctive, heavy, feel to the sweetness. For an example look at Gordon Beirsch's märzen), but because they used some corn in the mash.
That gave it some of the lighter, sweeter, notes which show up in sour mash whiskeys.
Busch bought them out in the late '80s, as I recall. The corn started to be replaced with rice. The beer started to taste like watered piss.
That's my problem with Bud. It's not that they are upstarts (they aren't, certainly not in the states). It's not that they make the beer in swimming pool sized lots and then age them with 4x4s in giant tanks (because other breweries, and wineries I like, do much the same).
No, it's that I think the beer they make lacks flavor, and goes thin and sour as soon as it gets the least bit warm. The only times I have been able to finish a can of it, was in a couple of long draughts, straight off the ice, when shovelling manure in the blazing sun.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 08:08 pm (UTC)