Saturday, December 20, 2014

Pic(k) of the Week: Bubbles for a snowy day.

Bubbles for a snowy day

On one cold, sleety, icy, snowy, December, 2013, day in Baltimore, Maryland, it was deemed prudent to stay inside and enjoy some bubbles.

It was a friend of Yours For Good Fermentables who thought so, and did so, and took this photo.

8 December 2013.


Monday, December 15, 2014

Clamps & Gaskets: News Roundup for Weeks 48/49, 2014.

Clamps and Gaskets: weekly roundup
A bi-weekly, non-comprehensive roundup
of news of beer and other things.

Weeks 48/49
23 November - 6 December 2014

  • 2014.12.06
    The new owner of The New Republic —Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes— announces plan to re-fashion the long-time literary bastion of the left and neo-liberalism from a magazine-focused institution to a “vertically integrated digital media company." Mass resignations ensue.
    —Via Washington Post.

  • 2014.12.05
    Primates' ability to digest alcohol may have been one key to survival, ten million years ago, when the the ADH4 enzyme —which enables caloric metabolism of alcohol— started showing up in the ancestor humans share with chimpanzees and gorillas, around the time they started eating fallen, fermented fruit off the forest floors.
    —Via Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (at NPR Food).

    "Brew Britannia" (front cover)
  • 2014.12.05
    The British Guild of Beer Writers awarded the 2014 Michael Jackson Gold Tankard for Beer Writer of the Year to Ray Newman and Jessica Slack, who blog as Boak and Bailey, and who this year published "Brew Britannia: The Strange Rebirth of British Beer."
    —Via Roger Protz.

  • 2014.12.04
    The Washington Post writes that young adults are eschewing beer for wine and spirits.
    —Via Wonk Blog.
    Beer blogger/author Jeff Alworth debunks 'craft' beer claims of above article, cites the paper's use of old data.
    —Via Beervana.

  • 2014.12.03
    A brewer returns a medal for having inadvertently entered his beer in the wrong category. Judging panel failed to distinguish between brettanomyces [funky] and lactobacillus [sour].
    —Via All About Beer.

  • 2014.12.03
    The 2014 grape harvest in Virginia and Maryland should produce a "classic" vintage of "elegant wines with ripe flavors and moderate alcohol levels."
    —Via Dave McIntyre.

  • 2014.12.02
    Rolling Stones' saxophone player Bobby Keys has died at age 70.
    —Via Associated Press.

  • 2014.12.01
    Draft Magazine's list of the top 25 beers of 2004. Includes the only Trappist beer brewed in America (Spencer) and a recreation of a bygone "Berliner Weisse/Märzen marriage," from August Schell, the second oldest family-owned brewery in America (1860).
    —Via Draft Magazine.

  • 2014.11.29
    Dan Fox —past beer advertising executive— corrects the record when the Wall Street Journal incorrectly claims that Anheuser-Busch has abandoned its successful decades-long Christmas advertising campaign featuring the brewery's Clydesdales horses.
    —Via Hey, Beer Dan.

  • 2014.11.27
    Le Jour de Merci Donnant: past humorist/columnist Art Buchwald's classic 1953 column, explaining American Thanksgiving to the French.
    —Via New York Times.

  • 2014.11.27
    The true story of "Beere, the Pilgrims, and Thanksgiving."
    —Via YFGF.

  • 2014.11.26
    The top 25 beers of 2014, according to wine magazine, the Wine Enthusiast. At the number one position is Serpent’s Stout, an 'imperial' stout from Lost Abbey of San Marcos, California.
    —Via Wine Enthusiast.

  • 2014.11.25
    'Craft' beer reached a milestone in 2013. Combined, the industry sold 16.1 million barrels of beer, more than the 16 million barrels of Budweiser beer that Anheuser-Busch InBev sold.
    —Via Slate.

    Vintage Beer (front)
  • 2014.11.23
    Some of the best beer writing of 2014. The North American Guild of Beer Writers (NAGBW) awards.
    —Via YFGF.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Pic(k) of the Week: Open House at Raven Beer.

Open house at Raven Beer

The Raven Beer —aka Baltimore-Washington Beer Works— threw an open house for its fans and loyal customers, 6 December 2014, at Peabody Heights Brewery, in the Charles Village neighborhood of Baltimore, Maryland.

Baltimore native Stephen Demczuk is the brand's principal owner. His flagship beer, Raven Special Lager, was first brewed in the U.S. in 1997, under contract at Clipper City Brewing Company, another Baltimore-area brewery. In 2013, Demczuk moved all production to Peabody Heights, under contract, where he added other beers, all Edgar Allen Poe-themed.


Thursday, December 11, 2014

Three-thousand two-hundred breweries.

In case you haven't heard the news, there were more breweries —'craft' breweries— in the United States, at the end of November, than there were a year ago.

Not such unexpected news, you say?

Well, make that more breweries than only a month ago, or even a week ago, or just yesterday. During the first eleven months of 2014, breweries were opening at a rate of ... 1.5 per day.

The Brewers Association (BA) —the advocacy group for 'small' and 'independent' breweries in the United States— has released its year-end short-form review for 2014. Some other salient data:

  • There are now 3,200 active breweries in the country. (By the end of 2013, there were 2,722.)
  • There are 13 states that each have more than 100 breweries apiece. 1
  • Through June of 2014, 'craft' breweries enjoyed 18 percent growth by volume, and the assumption, based upon data, is that they will have enjoyed a similar rate during the second half of the year. 
  • IPA is the most popular 'craft' beer 'style.' 
  • Women now consume almost 32 percent of 'craft' beer volume.
Not released in this report, but also according to the BA, the highwater mark for the number of breweries in the United States was 3,286, set in the year 1870. Next year, in 2015, early in the year, there's a new record waiting to be set.

The grant at Anchor Brewing

There is no legal or federal-government requirement for a 'craft' brewery. However, the Brewers Association defines it —for the purpose of membership— as:
  • Small
    Annual production of 6 million barrels of beer or less (approximately 3 percent of U.S. annual sales). Beer production is attributed to the rules of alternating proprietorships. 2

  • Independent
    Less than 25 percent of the craft brewery is owned or controlled (or equivalent economic interest) by an alcoholic beverage industry member that is not itself a craft brewer.

  • Traditional
    A brewer that has a majority of its total beverage alcohol volume in beers whose flavor derives from traditional or innovative brewing ingredients and their fermentation. Flavored malt beverages (FMBs) are not considered beers.


Wednesday, December 10, 2014


Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee released its study of the Central Intelligence Agency's interrogation and detention program following the attacks on the U.S. of 11 September 2001, and during the Iraq and Afghan wars, during the presidency of George W. Bush. Some call it the Torture Report.

Here, the response of Senator John McCain, himself a victim of torture, by the North Vietnamese, while held captive from 1967-1973.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the release – the long-delayed release – of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s summarized, unclassified review of the so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ that were employed by the previous administration to extract information from captured terrorists. It is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose – to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies – but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.

I believe the American people have a right – indeed, a responsibility – to know what was done in their name; how these practices did or did not serve our interests; and how they comported with our most important values.

I commend Chairman Feinstein and her staff for their diligence in seeking a truthful accounting of policies I hope we will never resort to again. I thank them for persevering against persistent opposition from many members of the intelligence community, from officials in two administrations, and from some of our colleagues. The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it, nonetheless.

They must know when the values that define our nation are intentionally disregarded by our security policies, even those policies that are conducted in secret. They must be able to make informed judgments about whether those policies and the personnel who supported them were justified in compromising our values; whether they served a greater good; or whether, as I believe, they stained our national honor, did much harm and little practical good.

What were the policies? What was their purpose? Did they achieve it? Did they make us safer? Less safe? Or did they make no difference? What did they gain us? What did they cost us? The American people need the answers to these questions. Yes, some things must be kept from public disclosure to protect clandestine operations, sources and methods, but not the answers to these questions.

By providing them, the Committee has empowered the American people to come to their own decisions about whether we should have employed such practices in the past and whether we should consider permitting them in the future. This report strengthens self-government and, ultimately, I believe, America’s security and stature in the world. I thank the Committee for that valuable public service.

I have long believed some of these practices amounted to torture, as a reasonable person would define it, especially, but not only the practice of waterboarding, which is a mock execution and an exquisite form of torture. Its use was shameful and unnecessary; and, contrary to assertions made by some of its defenders and as the Committee’s report makes clear, it produced little useful intelligence to help us track down the perpetrators of 9/11 or prevent new attacks and atrocities.

I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored.

I know, too, that bad things happen in war. I know in war good people can feel obliged for good reasons to do things they would normally object to and recoil from.

I understand the reasons that governed the decision to resort to these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who used them were dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting Americans from further harm. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was onerous.

I respect their dedication and appreciate their dilemma. But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods, which this report makes clear were neither in the best interests of justice nor our security nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend.

The knowledge of torture’s dubious efficacy and my moral objections to the abuse of prisoners motivated my sponsorship of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ of captured combatants, whether they wear a nation’s uniform or not, and which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9. Subsequently, I successfully offered amendments to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, among other things, prevented the attempt to weaken Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and broadened definitions in the War Crimes Act to make the future use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ punishable as war crimes.

There was considerable misinformation disseminated then about what was and wasn’t achieved using these methods in an effort to discourage support for the legislation. There was a good amount of misinformation used in 2011 to credit the use of these methods with the death of Osama bin Laden. And there is, I fear, misinformation being used today to prevent the release of this report, disputing its findings and warning about the security consequences of their public disclosure. Will the report’s release cause outrage that leads to violence in some parts of the Muslim world? Yes, I suppose that’s possible, perhaps likely. Sadly, violence needs little incentive in some quarters of the world today. But that doesn’t mean we will be telling the world something it will be shocked to learn. The entire world already knows that we water-boarded prisoners. It knows we subjected prisoners to various other types of degrading treatment. It knows we used black sites, secret prisons. Those practices haven’t been a secret for a decade.

Terrorists might use the report’s re-identification of the practices as an excuse to attack Americans, but they hardly need an excuse for that. That has been their life’s calling for a while now.

What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans, is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow. That could be a real surprise, since it contradicts the many assurances provided by intelligence officials on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism. And I suspect the objection of those same officials to the release of this report is really focused on that disclosure – torture’s ineffectiveness – because we gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer. Too much.

Obviously, we need intelligence to defeat our enemies, but we need reliable intelligence. Torture produces more misleading information than actionable intelligence. And what the advocates of harsh and cruel interrogation methods have never established is that we couldn’t have gathered as good or more reliable intelligence from using humane methods.

The most important lead we got in the search for bin Laden came from using conventional interrogation methods. I think it is an insult to the many intelligence officers who have acquired good intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners to assert we can’t win this war without such methods. Yes, we can and we will.

But in the end, torture’s failure to serve its intended purpose isn’t the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn’t about our enemies; it’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world.

We have made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world, not by just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by exemplifying our political values, and influencing other nations to embrace them. When we fight to defend our security we fight also for an idea, not for a tribe or a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion or for a king, but for an idea that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. How much safer the world would be if all nations believed the same. How much more dangerous it can become when we forget it ourselves even momentarily.

Our enemies act without conscience. We must not. This executive summary of the Committee’s report makes clear that acting without conscience isn’t necessary, it isn’t even helpful, in winning this strange and long war we’re fighting. We should be grateful to have that truth affirmed.

Now, let us reassert the contrary proposition: that is it essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others – even our enemies.

Those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history, by our nation’s highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to protect them, by our respect for human dignity to make clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. We need only remember in the worst of times, through the chaos and terror of war, when facing cruelty, suffering and loss, that we are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.