On Occupy Wall Street, etc

One term that irks me is "free market".  It implies that there is some sort of alternative wherein the market would not be free, or that the market can only be free if it is completely untethered.  To me, simply "market" would be a better term.  The economic situations exist because of the people involved, period.  "Market" is also more inclusive, enabling one to include every single actor (including national governments, international governing bodies, and government agencies).  Business types like to disregard these actors as simply getting in the way, but they get in the way as a function of the market.  They act to improve it, not to hinder it.

Think of America about 100 years ago, before Roosevelt, before the Spanish-American war made it a burgeoning empire.  Income disparity was huge, working conditions were awful, living conditions were awful, etc.  There weren't any regulations in place, and as such, lower incomed peoples, who had little effect on the consumer market, bore the brunt of it.  Do you think anyone who was in the market to buy a Pullman train car would actually care about the conditions of the people who physically make them?  The same could be said for any modern equivalent -- care would only exist within the realm of charity cases one could make public.  The workers then, as a market reaction, demand more.  Having no actual power (another pool of employees could easily be brought in -- at least we're working) the government (or some actor, though it's hard to think of another) has to step in and say this is not cool, you guys.

The fact is, given a comparable result, give an industry the option to make something as cheaply as possible or the option to make it for more, but make sure everything is done "right" -- workers treated fairly, minimal to no environmental damage, etc -- most would pick the former.  And the consumer?  Who's to say they'd actually care the research the difference?  Chances are they won't, and the more they end up being relatively the same price, the more it gets closer to a coin flip.

But enough of that.  It was merely a defense of regulations, a defense of government acting within the market rather than staying aloof.

The modern equivalent of the industrial conditions of the late 19th century is the banking industry.  Most western nations have seen their manufacturing economy replaced with the service economy, the backbone of which is banking.  Regulations have slowly been taken away since the 1980s (making every government since then at fault, not just Bush or Clinton).  This has been done under the auspices that regulation and taxation make them too cautious (as if wanting to stop an industry from losing money could be a bad thing).

Apparently we are now being led to believe that taxation stops companies from hiring more and expanding.  Because taxes stop people from doing things?  How could expansion and the increased revenues from expansion not be worth the taxes that would inevitably come with it?

Let's create a hypothetical scenario here.  There is a man who makes his living hunting deer.  Hunting was previously the only profession that was not taxed.  The government wishes to add a tax so that 1 out of every 10 deer the hunter kills goes to the government.  The hunter does not hunt for subsistence, he turns a profit selling extra meat and furs that he himself does not need.  If this tax is imposed, would that stop the hunter from hunting?  Would he hunt less?  Neither of those is logical.  Sure, paying taxes sucks, but everyone does it, and the threat of one existing isn't an economic deterrent in and of itself.

The other problem right now, and this is an issue that is probably larger within the tea party than the occupy movement, is how the industries themselves are ending up writing their own regulations.  This is also wrong on so many levels, but i don't feel like coming up with any cute little allegories about why.  I'll just say the end result -- the industry status quo is kept; up and comers within an industry may face actual regulations, while long timers face none, effectively monopolizing power (though given it's spread amongst a few partners, oligopoly would be a more precise term).

I'll prolly write something about patent and copyright law, and how it's holding back innovation later, but this is good for now.

-- Knuttel

CFL legend gets respect south of the border

Montreal Alouette's QB Anthony Calvillo passed the All-Time Football passing yards record this weekend, and the only QB in the top 5 who didn't take part in any way of the event was Brett Favre.  What an asshole.

Maybe Favre feels inadequate because he retired short of Damon Allen's mark, and no hope of beating Calvillo, who can still play for another year or two.  Maybe Favre feels superior because no one will ever beat his interceptions record (though he's only second there too, coming short to the CFL's Ron Lancaster -- who played in the days when qb's were purposely not awesomely careful with the ball, treating interceptions as only somewhat shorter punts.)

Whatever the reason, he's the odd one out.  I think the passing record will remain in the CFL for some time, but records are still made to be broken.

Most Awesome News of the Year

Proof of Bigfoot? Scientists in Siberia Say Yeti Exists - TIME NewsFeed


Sasquatch, we know your love is real...

-- Knuttel 

Knuttelbrau Is Received

I recently entered some of my awesome Knuttelbrau into a homebrew competition -- malt madness to be exact.  The judging occurred on Sept 24, and I got my results back today.  I entered Lycanthropic Lager as both a Schwarzbier and a Robust Porter.  You can usually enter one beer into several categories, but not several beers into one category.  I linked the descriptions so I don't have to describe them, but I created the beer with a somewhat Schwarzbier-ish intention, but thought it might have too much flavor and aroma hops to actually work as a textbook example.

Without further ado...
Scwarzbier -- 34.5
review 1
Aroma 8/12: light roast, light coffee, munich
Appearance 3/3: off white low head, very dark
Flavor 12/20: light roast, munich taste, grainy a little, light on dryness, some lingering hop bitterness, low in chocolate bitterness
Mouthfeel 5/5: crisp, moderate carbonation
Overall Impression 6/10: I would bring more of the chocolate bitterness out of it and tone down on the burnt
33/50
review 2
Aroma 10/12: Moderate roasted aroma, clean yeast profile, strong munich malt
Appearance 1/3: dark brown, slightly hazy with somewhat persistent head
Flavor 13/20: some burnt roast flavor with moderate chocolate roast and moderately low munich malt. dry finish
Mouthfeel 5/5: medium lite body with moderate high carbonation. nice smooth finish with no astringency
Overall Impression 7/10: nice example of style except for burntness and bitterness of malt. everything on point except for burnt profile
36/50

Robust Porter -- 31.5
review 1
Aroma 5/12: citrus hop/hop/ and hop
Appearance 3/3: very dark brown  light tan head   clear
Flavor 10/20: floral and citrus hop. moderate bitterness. mild chocolate moderate roast. did i mention hops
Mouthfeel 4/5: medium body. medium/high carbonation. hop bite
Overall Impression 8/10: while i really enjoyed this beer it would have done better as a black IPA. wish i could score this higher
30/50
review 2
Aroma 8/12: deep rich malty character is present. a hint of chocolate aroma present
Appearance 3/3: deep brown color with light tan head that is persistent. some lacing present
Flavor 12/20: Hop bitterness dominates this beer.  while i like this characteristic it is not to category. maltness and dark roasty character took a back seat to the bitterness. getting hints of chocolate and toffee as well.
Mouthfeel 3/5: Medium body with a hint of creaminess. slight astringency is not out of character for this category
Overall Impression 7/10: overall i think this is a very nice beer! the largest distracting character of this beer is the hop bitterness
33/50

What to take away -- I was not expecting the hoppiness to be more of an issue to the porter group than the schwarzbier group.  That being said, it only had an intented IBU of like 28.  1 oz of low-medium AA hops for the hour boil, another oz for 10 minutes, and dry hopped with an ounce of cascade -- if hop character is picked up, it's not for its bitterness.  The porter group must've just gotten a hop bomb before mine and had trouble getting the taste out of their mouth.  I don't see that as anything IPA-ish like the one judge said.  The grainy-ness commented on by the schwarzbier group was highly intended.  I could easily fix that by switching the pale malt to pilsner malt and drop the rye malt all together -- but then it wouldn't be lycanthropic lager.  I definitely do agree on the toning down the burntness though -- I'll switch from using Carafa III to Carafa I, same proportions.  I am also going to try and ferment this colder (though still at ale temps using a lager yeast) and make a starter.  Hopping shalln't change.  The dry hop character mellows out a bit during the lagering phase, as does the rye malt, but both are still there.  I may also substitute some of the pale malt for munich malt or something on those lines.  I will keep the decoction mash (the munich malt was picked up by both the schwarzbier judges, and I can't help but think this has at least something to do with it) but may mess with the scheduling a little bit to try and get better clarity.  I am glad for this feedback because I am looking to make this one of my beers to have on hand -- the other being spider-man, of which I currently have a lot.

I have another competition on saturday, where I entered my bier de garde that was created on the brewday from hell (though tastes very lovely).  Looking forward to more feedback, and if I'm lucky, prizes.

-- Knuttel

Wherein Knuttel Points Out "X-Men: First Class" Raises More Questions Than Answers

I recently saw the movie mentioned in the title, and I'm just gonna keep saying movie from now on to save time and reading and etc; anyways, I saw it, and it raised soooo many more questions than it answered.  As a prequel, it is supposed to do the opposite -- fill in back-stories and flesh out character and plot points from earlier movies.  It sets the stage after the fact.  I'm going to try and do this all as within movie context as possible -- I shouldn't try to judge it against Marvel comics or any other medium because, well, each medium deserves to exist as its own entity.

Without further ado, let's dive into this--

Why does Charles speak in a British accent?  He's from New York.  He's upper crust, sure, but that would mean a bi-coastal accent, like Kelsey Grammer or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, if anything not purely American.

Continuing with languages, how does everyone in the cast seem to know, equally well, English, Spanish, German, Russian, and French?

Why did the Hugh Jackman Cameo last longer than 5 seconds?  That scene was done almost immediately, and yet it lingered as if Quinten Tarantino was directing it.

How does Hank McCoy find shoes big enough for his feet?  If they are truly like hands for feet than he would need like Shaq sized shoes, which would definitely be by custom order in 1962.  Unless expert shoemaking is one of his mutant abilities, someone else would know he is a mutant.

How does Moira McTaggert get to stay with the X-Men after they leave the CIA compound?  She is CIA and the project was terminated by the government.  She should be effectively gone.

How does Magneto crack Emma Frost's diamond form?  If diamonds are the hardest substance then the metal rods of a bed stand should never be able to crack it.

How does Mystique know about Shaw's telepath proof helmet?  He hasn't shown it to anyone outside of his team at this point besides Magneto.

How does Shaw know the helmet makes him immune to telepaths?  How did he test it?  Is there another telepath that the Soviets keep locked up?  If Shaw is doing this all to help mutant kind, he probably would have rescued this telepath and made him/her part of his cadre.  Emma Frost is in his team, but knows not of the helmet or its abilities.

Either Mystique physically shows ageing or she doesn't -- she is a shape shifter.  So any age of shape shifting characters should be available to her, or only age appropriate ones.

Havoc's energy blasts were completely unexplained.  Nothing further.

If Darwin's power is "reactive evolution", he should be able to withstand any amount of energy Shaw throws at him -- perhaps not do anything with it afterwards, but survival seems to be key to this power (like maybe in order to hold the energy back he is stuck in stone or metal form for a very long time, or even permanently, but shattering definitely seems to be out of the question).

If Cerebro helps them track down ALL of the mutants on earth at that point, what made them settle on that particular group?  Were they the only ones who didn't say no?

How is Hank McCoy completely oblivious to his physical speed and strength besides being able to hang off things with his feet?

Why is Angel the only mutant to defect to Shaw's group?  Mystique has shown a much larger identity issue at this point.

Why did Angel have to undo the back of her top to let her wings out, despite not having to do this later, and how would her top stay on completely ungrasped and untethered?

Charles and Erik's deep relationship of the previous movies seems boiled down to a business partnership in this movie -- a business partnership that Erik never had any intention of holding onto.  Where did all the Charles and Erik time go?

Did anyone direct January Jones' acting?  She seemed bored throughout the whole thing, and not bored in that upper-class "is that all there is, I've seen better" kind of character she is -- bored as in "I am reading my lines for the first time off this cue card".

Trying to explain how Banshee uses his screaming power to fly only raises questions about who's idea was this in the first place (actually throwing this one back on the source materiel instead of the movie).

How does Magneto throw everyone around at the end?  He's shown no propensity for being able to do this before hand, and no one is really running slowly, so it can't really be metal in the new suits.

The "Children of the atom" theory has no basis within the context of the movie.  Shaw already has his powers as an adult, and Raven, Charles, and Erik have theirs as children all DURING the war (not to mention Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is showing being in-universe, and was born in the 19th century)-- predating any atomic bomb being detonated.  It would only apply to characters under the age of 17.

If Havoc is in prison, arguably for the terrible things he can do with his power, why do the upper levels of the CIA doubt the existence of beings with mutant powers?

Yeah, I'm done with this.  It wasn't bad -- in the top 3 as far as X-Men movies are concerned, but almost everything is better than either Wolverine or X-3.

-- Knuttel