Joel's Dialogue of the Day

Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... are we all just playing the part of a peasant in a Monty Python movie? I mean, it FEELS like we're being lead toward the answer with intelligence, but then, in retrospect you wonder "how the hell did we ever go along with THAT?!"
Man... it made sense at the time...

Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!

Read more...

What's in the Fridge This Week?

Well, not my fridge, mind you, but at least a fridge. There is a lovely little bar in Okemos, Michigan called Dusty's Tap Room. They actually don't have many taps, but they do have loads of different bottled beers for their patrons' delight; 70 at last count.

One of the beers they have is a relatively obscure style of beer (though it is gaining popularity among American microbrewers and homebrew competitions) called Kölsch. The particular brand they have is Brauerei Heinrich Reissdorf Kölsch.

The beer itself poured a beautiful pale golden straw color. It was wonderfully clear and bubbly like champaigne. Incredible head retention, initially yielding a full bright white froth, calming after some time to a thin, delicate lace. After each quaff, it left a thicker ring of lacing down the glass like rings on a tree.

This Kölsch has a very clean aroma. There is some pale malt breadiness with what can be described as again an extremely clean apple note. A heavy but soft graininess is the real backbone of the nose, but there is a faint hop presence...almost pine

The taste is, again, clean. That's what I really like about this beer: it is clean and clear. It has a moderate body with a really crisp mouth feel from the relatively high carbonation; the body and mouthfeel make it very refreshing. There is also a pale malt sweetness with a little fresh cut hay and again a bit of pine, probably from the hops. What's really cool is that these are kind of complex flavors for what looks like it should be so simple given its clarity. The Kölsch here is dry with a big grainy overall palate. The crispness and carbonation keeps the mouth clean, and the hop bitterness, while light, is enhances the dryness. It finishes dry and malty with the scant piney note in the background. Crisp and clean.

I could drink this beer all night. OK, so I did drink this beer all night. Drink this beer before an appetizer. Drink it with an appetizer. Drink it with dinner if you want. Make it a session beer. This beer begs to be quaffed.

A couple of notes on Kölsh:

Technically, a beer cannot be called a Kölsch unless it is brewed on Köln (Cologne), and within sight of the cathedral in Köln. Thus, American micros and homebrews are not "Kolsch" per se, but it is certainly judged as a bona-fide BJCP style of beer. The German cops aren't going to come get you. This is an ale rather than a lager (where many people really are familiar with German lagers moreso than anything else).

Click here for a really interesting discussion of Kölsch consumption and culture in Germany found in Wikipedia. I found it enlightening, especially the piece about why Karl Marx quipped that Communism would never work in Köln, based on the popularity of this beer. Did beer stop the spread of communism?

Anyway, besides for this lovely little pub in Okemos, you can find this brand of Kölsch, brewed by one of the few "legal" breweries to brew it, in many specialty beer stores. In a word: clean.

**Update** All of the "o" in Köln and Kölsch have been changed to "ö" per instruction from george in the comments section. Thanks for the html lesson!

Read more...

Edwards' Foreign Policy Speech

As a pretty lefty Democrat, I have been trying to figure out who I will support for the Democratic nomination for President. I really, really want to like Obama. I am sure he is a fine man, but his lack of specificity on his policies and his recent attack on the auto industry has left me wanting something else. Edwards has always been on my radar screen.

Today, Edwards gave a speech on the Iraq war and on military and foreign policy before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. I was pleased to read that he didn't call for an immediate withdrawal of all troops like many of the other candidates. I think many Democrats will agree - no matter what their feelings are about the Iraq war - that we have a high level of responsibility for what happens in Iraq after we leave. He calls for a longer-term, but smaller contingent of forces to remain there to keep the place from degenerating into genocide. In the long speech, he also discusses the condition of the military, our duty to our veterans, and other policy matters.

I post the link to his speech to get feedback from my friends who have served in the military, as well as gather input from Around the Keg's other 1.01 Million daily readers.

Sorry I have been monopolizing the blog. It seems that Smitty has either completely drank all the beer in Michigan, and therefore he has no more beer to review, or he has entered the Betty Ford. I'll check in with Mrs. Smitty to make sure he's OK.

Hey, at least I am writing about more than just stem cell.

Read the speech here.

Read more...

Part 2.5: Orrin Hatch and His Pro-life Stance.

On May 25th, 2005, United States Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) made a statement in regard to his sponsorship of H.R. 810. This bill would have allowed stem cell research in federally-funded labs, had it not been vetoed by President Bush. He's made many similar statements more recently, but this is one of the most well-written. The majority of the statement is posted below. The remainder can be found here.

I post this because it comes from a conservative Republican Senator, who up until this point in his career would not have had his pro-life credentials questioned. He is a better source than I am on why reasonable bills like H.R. 810 can be the pro-life position. His bills were also a model for the Michigan legislation I discussed in my previous post.

I respect President Bush’s views on this issue, and I fully support his efforts to promote embryo adoption in our country. I also support adult stem cell research, and I am the prime Senate sponsor of cord blood legislation similar to the bill that passed yesterday in the House.

But I know, as a long-standing pro-life Senator, that it is possible to be both anti-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research. I am pleased that many Right-to-Life Congressmen reached the same conclusion when the House voted yesterday. I don’t take a back seat to anybody in the Right-to-Life community. I’m the only person who successfully brought an anti-abortion Constitutional amendment to the floor of the Senate, and I have worked on Right-to-Life issues throughout my career, including running the conference committee last Congress that ultimately outlawed the horrific practice of partial birth abortion.

I understand why this form of stem-cell research may trouble some. However, after many conversations with scientists, ethicists, patient advocates and religious leaders and many hours of thought, reflection and prayer, I reached the conclusion that human life does not begin in a Petri dish.

While I respect those with different views, I believe that human life requires and begins in a mother's nurturing womb.

A critical aspect of being pro-life is helping the living. Helping those struggling with the challenges of debilitating diseases is exactly what embryonic stem-cell research promises.

This is a difficult issue, and we are being forced to draw a line between legitimate science and unethical tinkering with human life. As we learned with the debate over in vitro fertilization, this line does exist. And I believe that the United States must lead the world to help establish the moral and ethical safeguards that allows embryonic stem cell research to go forward in the interest of mankind.

-United States Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)

Read more...

Part Two: Refuting Those Who Discredit a Promising Life Science

The last time I wrote about embryonic stem cell research, (eSCR) I gave an overview of Michigan extremist laws. In this part I will discuss some of the claims against embryonic stem cell research. I apologize for the lack of brevity, but it was unavoidable.


Those who are opposed to eSCR believe that the creation and subsequent destruction of an embryo for treatment or research is in violation of their belief that life begins at conception. If opponents of eSCR used this in their opposition, I could not argue with them. That is their belief, and while I disagree with it, they are entitled to their religious freedom. Fortunately for eSCR, this belief reflects the feelings of a relatively small proportion of the population who as a whole have wide-ranging thoughts about when life begins. Since opponents cannot honestly win by advancing their own religious views, they instead attempt to defeat eSCR by attacking the science, attacking the motives of those who advocate for eSCR and attempting to create false hope that there are other, less controversial cures on the horizon.

Those opposing this research make many erroneous, often alarmist, claims about the future of eSCR, all of which have gone unfounded. Some of the most common are debunked below.

The most common lie: adult stem cell research is the most promising type of stem cell research:
Paul Long of the Michigan Catholic Conference, before the House Health Policy Committee said:

"The facts are that nearly 30 years of public and private financing for embryonic stem cell research have failed to produce any positive gains, while advancements with adult stem cells are occurring on a daily basis."

While adult stem cell research has been ongoing for 30 years, it is untrue that eSCR has been ongoing for this time. It wasn't until 1998 that researchers isolated human embryonic stem cells at the University of Wisconsin. ESCR is new research, which is being restricted by federal and state authorities.

The 65 cures lie:
The media doesn't even question this whopper of a lie anymore. Many outlets continue to print that adult stem cells have provided 65 cures for various diseases and conditions. Despite the fact that the 65 cures lie has been debunked by well-respected scientists, it continues to be repeated.

On July 15, 2006 the Washington Post ran a story about three researchers who were calling out David Prentis of the Family Research Cuncil, who stared this part of the disinformation campaign. The Post reported on the scientist's well-documented arguments:

"The claim that there are 65 adult stem cell research cures has been said so many times that it is almost becoming an accepted fact. In the July 28 issue of the magazine Science, William Neaves, president and CEO of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, debunks statements by opponents of embryonic research -- which were created by the Washington-based Family Research Council -- who suggest that more than 65 illnesses can be treated by adult and cord blood stem cells. According to Neaves, only nine illnesses on the research council's widely circulated list have approved adult stem cell treatments."

Most of the diseases cited in the list compiled by Prentis rely on limited clinical trials or observations from patients and doctors, rather than approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Many are experiments, rather than treatments, some of which have taken place overseas.

Dr. Sean Morrison, who runs the University of Michigan adult stem cell lab, pointed out one of the most hypocritical examples in the Prentis-mentioned experiments. Despite Prentis's ties to anti-abortion groups, one procedure on his adult stem cell cures list utilized adult stem cells harvested from fetal tissue that was the product of an abortion.

Don't get me wrong, adult stem cell research is also supported by supporters of eSCR, but it doesn't have the same potential.

There are no restrictions on stem cell research in Michigan:
It is legal to do stem cell research, even on embryonic stem cells, in Michigan, if you create the cells elsewhere and import them into the state. This is where an intermingling of federal rule, Michigan law, patent protection, and practicality make any serious research efforts impossible.

Should your lab receive any federal funding, the stem cell lines must be one of the few federally approved stem cell lines, all of which are ethnically narrow and infected with mouse cells. Since most labs receive some sort of federal funding, they are eliminated from any meaningful research.

If a lab is 100% privately or 100% state funded, they could seek other sources of stem cells. Unfortunately, there is not an adequate source of stem cells from other states to study specific conditions, nor do stem cell lines exist that reflect our diverse population. Also, there are no sources of stem cells from individuals with specific disease we wish to study. Stem cell lines are also protected by patents.

Lastly, in order to treat patents, we must be able to produce stem cells from embryos in this state matching that patient's own DNA. If we cannot, patients will have to go elsewhere for treatment.

There is an adequate source of embryos in Michigan's IVF clinics, which instead of being thrown away should be used for this research. By not allowing stem cells to be created from embryos found here, it is a de-facto ban.

Allowing eSCR and SCNT will allow scientists to "clone and kill":
SCNT stands for Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. It's sometimes called therapeutic cloning and is used to create stem cells with a particular genetic makeup. Make no mistake, that’s where it ends: within the Petri dish. Opponents of the research try to lump eSCR and SCNT together with all types of cloning. Yet all types of cloning are not the same. No human being is the result of SCNT. This is true unless you believe that an embryo that was never fertilized by a sperm and never implanted in a womb is the same is a human. A rogue scientist would have to take SCNT much further and implant the embryo into a surrogate mother to take this toward human reproductive cloning.

We should adopt out embryos to create "snowflake babies":
As I have written, hundreds of thousands of left-over and unsuitable embryos from treatment facilities are destined for the trash can. A few hundred nationwide will be "adopted" and implanted in infertile couples. That said, couples who created them cannot be forced to provide them to prospective women, and many of the embryos cannot be responsibly implanted into a uterus due to defect. Opponents of eSCR rarely propose to ban infertility treatments, which would be the only way to end the creation and subsequent disposal of embryos. Opponents of eSCR also attempted to ban in-vitro procedures decades ago and lost that fight.

A new "breakthrough" prior to every vote:
For the last few years every time there has been a vote in the U.S. Senate, or U.S. Congress authorizing eSCR, there has been a corresponding announcement of a new breakthrough. First was the initial adults stem cell "cures" announcement, then there was a breakthrough in "umbilical cord stem cells". That was followed by the discovery of "amniotic cord blood cells". Most recently, there was a claimed breakthrough using adult stems cells to treat juvenile diabetes.

Unfortunately, none of the above examples were true breakthroughs. All of the types of stem cells mentioned above are really just adult stem cells, all of which have limited uses. Claims of cures for juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries and Parkinson's' disease are fictitious or overstated and would surely surprise the millions of people worldwide who continue to suffer from these diseases and conditions.

I could go on and on to fight this fight, but I think you get the point. Opponents of eSCR will stop at nothing to discredit one of the most promising life science humans has ever discovered.

Next time: The economics of stem cell research.

Read more...

Mental Institution Michael

Pseudo Documentarian Michael Moore recently challenged possible presidential candidate Fred Thompson to a debate. His terse reply seemed to show that he was probably not interested. I am not a huge fan of Michael Moore, though I did like Roger and Me when it came out and I thought he did a good job at making a compelling story and breathing new life into documentaries. Over time, he seemed to move more towards propaganda and telling people what to think instead of drawing their own conclusions. This is certainly not new, nor is he the only one who has done this. Leni Riefenstahl did many of the same things when she made Triumph of the Will.

Before I continue, I am not suggesting that Michael Moore is a Nazi or even like a Nazi. I am suggesting that he is using the documentary format to promote a political and social aganda, much like Triumph of the Will.

I didn't see Fahrenheit 9/11, so I can't comment on that one. I did see Bowling for Columbine and there seemed to be some inconsistencies and problems with facts. It turns out that I was right. There were major problems with trick editing, distortions, and outright lies. I have to give Michael Moore credit. He does a tremendous job of promoting his materials and his image as a regular, working class guy. He makes a good living at what he does and I am not suggesting that he stop. I do think it is unfortunate that his stuff is categorized as non-fiction and that many people seem to watch his material and take it in as completely factual.

I will be interested to see how his new movie Sicko will do and how much it contributes to the national debate on health care. This has been discussed on this blog before and I agree that there is major room for reform and improvements. I just hope that these debates are factually based and intelligent, though I'll admit that I doubt Michael Moore will be able to add to this in a meaningful way. I hope I am wrong.

Read more...

Joel's Dialogue of the Day

You ever just sort of sit there, pondering the state of affairs in which we live and, rather than look for solutions or, more likely, develop yet another coping mechanism, just say to yourself "this is all such a fraternity haze. It's just one big haze." Well, it is a haze. Where's the meaning? Where's the exhilaration? Where's the "making a difference?"

It is from this school of thought that I present today's dialogue of the day, more of a monologue, courtesy of Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) in one of the greatest "what the hell does it all mean" movies of all time... FIGHTCLUB.

I see in Fight Club the strongestand smartest men who've ever lived.
I see all this potential.
And I see it squandered.
Goddamn it, an entire generation pumping gas.
Waiting tables.
Slaves with white collars.
Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes.
Working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.
We're the middle children of history.
No purpose or place.
We have no Great War.
No Great Depression.
Our great war is a spiritual war.
Our great depression is our lives.
We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd be millionaires
and movie gods and rock stars.
But we won't.
We're slowly learning that fact.
And we're very, very pissed off.

Read more...