As I perhaps have made it known, I have been creating mine own salsas for quite some time -- definitely longer than I have been creating mine own brews and cheeses. So I'm going to post my last recipe, as a comparison to the first recipe I posted (and the nickelback salsa I saw I posted, cos it's salsa for people who don't like salsa, like nickelback produces music for people who don't enjoy music). I should probably note that most of my salsas make use of the peppers I grow in my garden, and it is definitely way too early for them to have come in yet.
2 poblano peppers
6 green bell peppers
10 small vine ripened tomatoes
1 onion
8 cloves garlic
1 can tomato paste
lime juice
basil, thyme, rosemary
chili powder (mild), cayenne pepper powder, cumin, salt, pepper
olive oil
Cut peppers into panels. Roast/broil at 500 F with tomatoes. Burning is fine within reason, the primary goal is to remove the skins, the secondary goal is to enhance the flavor. If you don't cook it long enough, neither happens, if you do it too long, there is nothing to separate and the flavor is burnt.
Dice onions and garlic. Put them aside in their own bowl.
Get an ice bowl ready to put all of the peppers and tomatoes in. When they cool, pull the skins off, dice the peppers, and cut the tomatoes into as small pieces as possible (they should start to disintegrate though). Put all of this in its own bowl (advise cutting the tomatoes inside the dish to retain all of the juices).
Coat the bottom of a pot with olive oil and begin to heat it up. Add the spices and mix in, it should noticeably change the color to an orange/red.
When the oil is heated up enough, add the onions and peppers. It should sizzle a little bit, and the oil may splash up. Cook until soft. This is the base from which the salsa is created. Keep stirring to avoid burning.
Add the tomato and pepper mixture. Add the herbs. Mix thoroughly. Add the lime juice. Mix thoroughly. Add the tomato paste. Mix thoroughly.
Keep stirring every few minutes until it starts bubbling. Lower the heat and let it simmer for about half an hour.
Pour it out and let it cool.
-- end result, it was kinda mild by my standards, but still had some good flavor depth to it (much better than the nickelback salsa). The process is similar to what I've done the past few batches though.
So what has changed of my process? Well ingredients will always shift to what I have. Once I attempted to make a salsa using sweet potatoes and butternut squash because there weren't any good tomatoes in season (it was November). Cayenne pepper powder and that lime flavored Mexican chili powder have remained staples of the spicing. I have stopped growing thai basil because it is annoying to maintain (and almost gave up on regular basil for this year). My peppers aren't in yet, and neither are any sort of local tomato.
I no longer use a food processor or blender. Firstly, I like the texture of hand cut everything better (and yes, it takes so much longer, but it is so worth it). If you cook it well enough, the odd large piece isn't a huge factor. Secondly our blender burnt out, so I wouldn't be able to use it anyway.
I let it simmer for shorter, keep it unlidded, and get it hotter faster. I have various reasons for all of these, but basically I found letting it sit that long on the stove just made it far far more likely to burn and didn't really add any measurable flavor depth. There isn't any isomerization going on there.
Balance wise, I lean towards the pepper side nowadays, whereas early incarnations where more tomato based. In fact some early ones were compared to spicy tomato sauces (my love of basil doesn't help here).
I think I've become better at broiling the vegetables now too. Cutting them into panels gives a more complete and even burn, and I have a better idea of how long it all takes. Also, broiling Cayenne peppers is a bad idea, they are just too small. You'd have to do them completely separate or put them on the fringe or something. Sometimes I add them to the onion/garlic mix to get some more heat on the base.
-- Knuttel
5.23.2012
5.20.2012
A Night of Beersearch
Sadly, I realize, I have not paid much attention to this blog in recent months. There have been a lot of brew-happenings on my end, and I might update them later. But this is a pressing matter.
When one chooses to make beer, every aspect of beer from grain to glass must be examined and studied thoroughly. I have been to many a beerfest and had a few nights indulging in many varieties of beer, but all of the notes made were mental. Last night I put together for myself a collection of 10 beers, drank them all, and made detailed observations about them along the way, using the ASTMO model (appearance, smell, taste, mouthfeel, and overall impression). Each beer was poured into a Chimay goblet, which was super appropriate for the first beer, and still a fine choice for the others. I resisted from using numbers because numbers lie, and you also usually have to grade it against a style as well as "overall greatness", my quest for great beers runs independent of styles.
When one chooses to make beer, every aspect of beer from grain to glass must be examined and studied thoroughly. I have been to many a beerfest and had a few nights indulging in many varieties of beer, but all of the notes made were mental. Last night I put together for myself a collection of 10 beers, drank them all, and made detailed observations about them along the way, using the ASTMO model (appearance, smell, taste, mouthfeel, and overall impression). Each beer was poured into a Chimay goblet, which was super appropriate for the first beer, and still a fine choice for the others. I resisted from using numbers because numbers lie, and you also usually have to grade it against a style as well as "overall greatness", my quest for great beers runs independent of styles.
2.19.2012
Saving a Beer
I recently made a beer for an upcoming competition -- Philly Beer Scene's Best Homebrew Shop competition.
The first round requires one to make a session beer, defined by them as 4.5% abv or lower (it's important they say this as everyone seems to have a different definition). Stylistically there really isn't that much there aside from light lagers and British beers (the entire island developing different session styles because of the way beer was taxed). Not willing to reinvent Bud Light and hating beers with that "English" character, I decided to try my hand at a Scottish ale. In order to try and minimize the English-ness of the beer, I used an American yeast instead of a British one (and fermented it cool at that, to minimize the flavor impact there too) and substituted the English hops (Scotland, unable to grow its own hops, relies mostly upon England) with an Austrian hop related to the English varieties.
It still had that "Englishness" pervading through it. It was laughing at me with each sample I took. I knew I had to save this beer, but how?
Taking inspiration from the Norman invasion of 1066, I decided to assault this brew with some French hops. I didn't have enough time to dry hop, and that's kind of an English technique anyway. So instead I made a hop tea, more traditional to German brewing.
I did the tea on thursday and bottled on friday. The character has been mitigated, it seems, and the crisis may be averted. I will only know this once the beer is done bottle conditioning, but I have confidence.
Here are some pictures from the event.
The first round requires one to make a session beer, defined by them as 4.5% abv or lower (it's important they say this as everyone seems to have a different definition). Stylistically there really isn't that much there aside from light lagers and British beers (the entire island developing different session styles because of the way beer was taxed). Not willing to reinvent Bud Light and hating beers with that "English" character, I decided to try my hand at a Scottish ale. In order to try and minimize the English-ness of the beer, I used an American yeast instead of a British one (and fermented it cool at that, to minimize the flavor impact there too) and substituted the English hops (Scotland, unable to grow its own hops, relies mostly upon England) with an Austrian hop related to the English varieties.
It still had that "Englishness" pervading through it. It was laughing at me with each sample I took. I knew I had to save this beer, but how?
Taking inspiration from the Norman invasion of 1066, I decided to assault this brew with some French hops. I didn't have enough time to dry hop, and that's kind of an English technique anyway. So instead I made a hop tea, more traditional to German brewing.
I did the tea on thursday and bottled on friday. The character has been mitigated, it seems, and the crisis may be averted. I will only know this once the beer is done bottle conditioning, but I have confidence.
Here are some pictures from the event.
1 oz. of hops carefully weighed out
Hops stapled shut into a coffee filter to act as a tea bag. I didn't account for water absorption, and it eventually burst, but almost all of the hop material stayed out of the tea itself.
Wort, made from DME, for the tea to take place in.
Once the wort got up to 170 degrees fahrenheit, I pulled it off the heat, put the hops in, and let it steep for about 10 minutes. You need to use wort for this (but only a very weak one) in order to change the chemical structure of the water, most importantly the pH. If I did this in just water, it would probably taste of grass. Also, it is important I never let this get to a boil, otherwise the alpha acids in the hops will start to isomerize, making the tea bitter instead of "hoppy". I was considering doing this at the actual bottling phase, but the idea of using DME to bottle makes me a little uneasy -- this is the absolute end of the road for the yeast so I just want to give it some easy sugar to make for a quicker and more complete refermentation. I know the use of "speise" is traditional in Germany, but I'll probably keep that experiment in my pocket for another day -- and save some of the pre-boil wort to use for it to keep it more consistent.
-- Knuttel
11.14.2011
Paterno's Name Removed From Trophy: Misdirected Outrage Ensues
The trophy awarded to the winner of the Big Ten Championship game will no longer be called the Paterno-Stagg trophy (or whatever amalgamation of the two names it was).
Big deal.
Amos Alonzo Stagg, along with being one of the most important coaches in the history of college football (nay, all football), was fundamental to the foundation of the Big Ten. He coached for the same number of games as JoPa. He made numerous contributions to pre-T formation football such as the 7-2-2 defense (which could be considered a forerunner to today's 3-4 defense).
Joe Paterno was an active coach when the trophy was named -- not a fan of that kind of thing, just throwing that out there (think about it, he could have won a trophy that had his name on it already; the Lombardi Trophy wasn't named until Vince was way done with fooball, possibly even life). Plus, Paterno isn't even memorable as a Big Ten coach. He made a name for himself, had all of these undefeated and one loss teams -- including two national titles -- as an independent. After joining the Big Ten, he has only 3 conference championships or co-championships, 1 undefeated season, and 2 completed one loss seasons (he had only one loss this season before being fired). His lifetime Big Ten record is only 63.8%, compared to his overall of 74.6%. Between 2000 and 2004, he had only one winning season -- wherein Larry Johnson rushed for over 2,000 yards and averaged about 8 yards a carry.
Is Joe Paterno important to the history of college football? Yes. Is he important to the history of Big Ten football? Not Really.
I guess what I'm saying is -- is it that big of a deal that Paterno's name is being taken off a trophy that I'm really not sure he deserved to have his name on in the first place?
-- Knuttel
Big deal.
Amos Alonzo Stagg, along with being one of the most important coaches in the history of college football (nay, all football), was fundamental to the foundation of the Big Ten. He coached for the same number of games as JoPa. He made numerous contributions to pre-T formation football such as the 7-2-2 defense (which could be considered a forerunner to today's 3-4 defense).
Joe Paterno was an active coach when the trophy was named -- not a fan of that kind of thing, just throwing that out there (think about it, he could have won a trophy that had his name on it already; the Lombardi Trophy wasn't named until Vince was way done with fooball, possibly even life). Plus, Paterno isn't even memorable as a Big Ten coach. He made a name for himself, had all of these undefeated and one loss teams -- including two national titles -- as an independent. After joining the Big Ten, he has only 3 conference championships or co-championships, 1 undefeated season, and 2 completed one loss seasons (he had only one loss this season before being fired). His lifetime Big Ten record is only 63.8%, compared to his overall of 74.6%. Between 2000 and 2004, he had only one winning season -- wherein Larry Johnson rushed for over 2,000 yards and averaged about 8 yards a carry.
Is Joe Paterno important to the history of college football? Yes. Is he important to the history of Big Ten football? Not Really.
I guess what I'm saying is -- is it that big of a deal that Paterno's name is being taken off a trophy that I'm really not sure he deserved to have his name on in the first place?
-- Knuttel
11.10.2011
Why Joe Paterno Needed To Go
As most are aware, Joe Paterno, head coach of Penn State for 46 years and coach for 61, has been fired due to the connection to the Sandusky scandal. Some people are upset by this, as evinced by the riots in streets of State College last night.
Joe Paterno had to go though. Maybe for most coaches, not following up on a report that a GA gives you on one of your longest serving and most trusted coaches doing something heinous could be something to be ignored. The fact of the matter is Joe Paterno isn't that kind of coach, and he doesn't run that kind of program. To expect a coach who would suspend and dismiss players who aren't getting good grades, a coach who would suspend key players for difficult games, a coach who would suspend his star wide receiver for an entire season, not to be held accountable for something like this is an embarrassing double standard. Coach Paterno always seemed to run a tight ship, and his program occupied the moral high ground of college football because of it. To even have knowledge of a circumstance like this existing should have warranted more action than reporting it to the AD by a coach like Paterno.
Mike McQueary, the then GA who saw the actions in 2002, should be judged, but not in as strong a light. Should he keep his job at Penn State after the season is over? Probably not. But he was just a GA at the time, with aspirations of becoming a head football coach. Ratting on JoPa and Sandusky would pretty much kill that goal from ever happening. With a coach like JoePa, it shouldn't have even come to that point, it should have been trusted to have been taken care of. If McQueary had seen the incident recently, where he holds the much much more esteemed positions of wide receivers coach/offensive coordinator/recruiting director/assistant head coach, then yeah, by all means it would be a huge obligation on his part to make sure the observation did not go ignored.
The only reason I can think of for keeping him, is the fact that Joe Paterno is Penn State. He occupies a unique position within college football where his cult of personality identifies him not as a supporter or member of the university, but rather the university itself. To think of Penn State is to immediately think of JoPa. The only circumstance which can even come close to that is Bear Bryant's association with the University of Alabama -- but he hasn't coached in 3 decades, has coached at many other schools (Kentucky and Texas A&M to name a few), and the black and white houndstooth he made iconic is a far more identifiable and imitable image than rolled up pant legs and thick glasses
So many students and alumni just can't imagine Penn State football without Joe Paterno; so many students and alumni just can't imagine Penn State without Joe Paterno.
That he is brought down with what amounts to strong hearsay is really a tragedy, but his inaction frankly lost him the right to call his own departure. The board had asked him in 2004, in the midst of some very painful seasons, to retire. He said no. There are no other coaches who are able to do something like that. Earning the right to say when you leave is virtually impossible for a football coach to do, maintaining that amidst many powerful people who want you to leave is even more impossible. I'm not saying the board was looking for a reason for him to leave, but there was simply no reason for him to stay.
Yes, the main screw ups in this affair are all administrative, but any involvement in a case that is growing to this magnitude simply has to be recognized and dealt with. No, JoPa didn't touch any young boys, but he had the power to stop it and he didn't.
On a personal note, I'm pretty pissed with Schulz. Curley may have done more to cover this up, but Schulz was head of the the University Park police (for those who don't know, University Park is the entire campus of Penn State, and State College makes up the town around it) and instead of stopping a known child molester, he waged an excessive war against underage drinking and the like. Maybe Penn State does have a reputation as a party school that the administration doesn't necessarily want, but where are your fucking priorities?
I don't think the program deserves the death penalty. Many of the issues were administrative and only tenuously connected to football. Not to mention, I don't think the team itself committed any NCAA violations or infractions, I don't think any of the issues dealt with players themselves involved in the cover up, and the cover up doesn't directly give the players any sort of competitive advantage. Giving Penn State football the death penalty might be cathartic, but it won't solve any problems and it only hurts fans and players of Penn State Football. House does need to be cleaned though.
Allegations against Sandusky are about to get stronger, and this situation will only get messier. Paterno needed to be thrown out of the mud because he's too senile right now to understand he should've walked out when these first came to light.
The one fact nagging at me about this whole situation is Sandusky's retirement in 1999 -- which followed a 1998 University investigation into the matter (findings were "inconclusive"). I can't help but think Paterno knew what was happening and offered a clean slate if he retired. This makes the 2002 report all the more troubling. That Paterno wouldn't know that his number 2, his heir apparent, was getting investigated by the University itself is a fact that I simply can't grasp -- it doesn't make any logical sense.
It's really a shame something like this has come to engulf my alma mater.
"May no act of ours bring shame/to one heart that loves thy name/may our lives but swell thy fame/dear old state, dear old state" - the Penn State Alma Mater, Fred Lewis Patee
-- Knuttel
Joe Paterno had to go though. Maybe for most coaches, not following up on a report that a GA gives you on one of your longest serving and most trusted coaches doing something heinous could be something to be ignored. The fact of the matter is Joe Paterno isn't that kind of coach, and he doesn't run that kind of program. To expect a coach who would suspend and dismiss players who aren't getting good grades, a coach who would suspend key players for difficult games, a coach who would suspend his star wide receiver for an entire season, not to be held accountable for something like this is an embarrassing double standard. Coach Paterno always seemed to run a tight ship, and his program occupied the moral high ground of college football because of it. To even have knowledge of a circumstance like this existing should have warranted more action than reporting it to the AD by a coach like Paterno.
Mike McQueary, the then GA who saw the actions in 2002, should be judged, but not in as strong a light. Should he keep his job at Penn State after the season is over? Probably not. But he was just a GA at the time, with aspirations of becoming a head football coach. Ratting on JoPa and Sandusky would pretty much kill that goal from ever happening. With a coach like JoePa, it shouldn't have even come to that point, it should have been trusted to have been taken care of. If McQueary had seen the incident recently, where he holds the much much more esteemed positions of wide receivers coach/offensive coordinator/recruiting director/assistant head coach, then yeah, by all means it would be a huge obligation on his part to make sure the observation did not go ignored.
The only reason I can think of for keeping him, is the fact that Joe Paterno is Penn State. He occupies a unique position within college football where his cult of personality identifies him not as a supporter or member of the university, but rather the university itself. To think of Penn State is to immediately think of JoPa. The only circumstance which can even come close to that is Bear Bryant's association with the University of Alabama -- but he hasn't coached in 3 decades, has coached at many other schools (Kentucky and Texas A&M to name a few), and the black and white houndstooth he made iconic is a far more identifiable and imitable image than rolled up pant legs and thick glasses
So many students and alumni just can't imagine Penn State football without Joe Paterno; so many students and alumni just can't imagine Penn State without Joe Paterno.
That he is brought down with what amounts to strong hearsay is really a tragedy, but his inaction frankly lost him the right to call his own departure. The board had asked him in 2004, in the midst of some very painful seasons, to retire. He said no. There are no other coaches who are able to do something like that. Earning the right to say when you leave is virtually impossible for a football coach to do, maintaining that amidst many powerful people who want you to leave is even more impossible. I'm not saying the board was looking for a reason for him to leave, but there was simply no reason for him to stay.
Yes, the main screw ups in this affair are all administrative, but any involvement in a case that is growing to this magnitude simply has to be recognized and dealt with. No, JoPa didn't touch any young boys, but he had the power to stop it and he didn't.
On a personal note, I'm pretty pissed with Schulz. Curley may have done more to cover this up, but Schulz was head of the the University Park police (for those who don't know, University Park is the entire campus of Penn State, and State College makes up the town around it) and instead of stopping a known child molester, he waged an excessive war against underage drinking and the like. Maybe Penn State does have a reputation as a party school that the administration doesn't necessarily want, but where are your fucking priorities?
I don't think the program deserves the death penalty. Many of the issues were administrative and only tenuously connected to football. Not to mention, I don't think the team itself committed any NCAA violations or infractions, I don't think any of the issues dealt with players themselves involved in the cover up, and the cover up doesn't directly give the players any sort of competitive advantage. Giving Penn State football the death penalty might be cathartic, but it won't solve any problems and it only hurts fans and players of Penn State Football. House does need to be cleaned though.
Allegations against Sandusky are about to get stronger, and this situation will only get messier. Paterno needed to be thrown out of the mud because he's too senile right now to understand he should've walked out when these first came to light.
The one fact nagging at me about this whole situation is Sandusky's retirement in 1999 -- which followed a 1998 University investigation into the matter (findings were "inconclusive"). I can't help but think Paterno knew what was happening and offered a clean slate if he retired. This makes the 2002 report all the more troubling. That Paterno wouldn't know that his number 2, his heir apparent, was getting investigated by the University itself is a fact that I simply can't grasp -- it doesn't make any logical sense.
It's really a shame something like this has come to engulf my alma mater.
"May no act of ours bring shame/to one heart that loves thy name/may our lives but swell thy fame/dear old state, dear old state" - the Penn State Alma Mater, Fred Lewis Patee
-- Knuttel
11.08.2011
Rye-se To See You
My first attempt at actual brewing produced a rye beer, so I decided to go back into this well to create my next session beer (I've decided it's probably a good policy to have a session beer on hand, something you can drink a few of without getting obliterated). I've used rye in other beers since then (being a favorite grain of mine), but both Lycanthropic Lager and Sasquatch Stout (oh god, the alliteration) don't have hugely significant amounts of it.
You see, rye can be a difficult grain to brew with. It is husk-less, like wheat, and is high in beta-glucans. Both of these can create an especially sticky mash that is especially susceptible to getting stuck. Both Lycanthropic Lager and Sasquatch Stout have low enough proportions that this isn't a huge issue, but this beer's grist was made up of about 40% rye, definitely enough to jam some stuff up.
To tackle this issue, I used a mash schedule I found in Brewing With Wheat that's designed for whit beers (malted wheat has a decent amount of beta-glucans, with flaked wheat and unmalted having even more) that called for a protein rest and two saccharification rests. I also added a pound of rice hulls just to be sure (compensating for the lack of hulls in rye). The downside to the mash is it can be complicated to pull off, changing temperatures by adding hot water at specific intervals. The downside to the rice hulls is it can hold sugars back during the sparging process, bringing down efficiency.
The results were awesome. The sparge ran cleanly (though I only had the valve open half-way, just to be sure) and my efficiency actually exceeded my past efficiencies in my newer, larger mash tun.
I hopped it with French Strisselspalt hops, which had a nice sweet smell to them, definitely unique among hops. The alpha-acid on them is ridiculously low, so it should only be bitter enough so that the beer doesn't taste like sugar. The beta-acids were surprisingly high, so it should retain a stronger aroma. I'm using a kolsch yeast to ferment it, so it will be closer to the cleaner tasting American rye beers, as opposed to the German roggenbiers, which use the weizen yeasts and thus have the distinctive clove and banana flavors.
You see, rye can be a difficult grain to brew with. It is husk-less, like wheat, and is high in beta-glucans. Both of these can create an especially sticky mash that is especially susceptible to getting stuck. Both Lycanthropic Lager and Sasquatch Stout have low enough proportions that this isn't a huge issue, but this beer's grist was made up of about 40% rye, definitely enough to jam some stuff up.
To tackle this issue, I used a mash schedule I found in Brewing With Wheat that's designed for whit beers (malted wheat has a decent amount of beta-glucans, with flaked wheat and unmalted having even more) that called for a protein rest and two saccharification rests. I also added a pound of rice hulls just to be sure (compensating for the lack of hulls in rye). The downside to the mash is it can be complicated to pull off, changing temperatures by adding hot water at specific intervals. The downside to the rice hulls is it can hold sugars back during the sparging process, bringing down efficiency.
The results were awesome. The sparge ran cleanly (though I only had the valve open half-way, just to be sure) and my efficiency actually exceeded my past efficiencies in my newer, larger mash tun.
I hopped it with French Strisselspalt hops, which had a nice sweet smell to them, definitely unique among hops. The alpha-acid on them is ridiculously low, so it should only be bitter enough so that the beer doesn't taste like sugar. The beta-acids were surprisingly high, so it should retain a stronger aroma. I'm using a kolsch yeast to ferment it, so it will be closer to the cleaner tasting American rye beers, as opposed to the German roggenbiers, which use the weizen yeasts and thus have the distinctive clove and banana flavors.
11.06.2011
The Legacy of JoPa
Shortly after becoming Division 1's all time winning-est coach, Joe Paterno's program, and the entire administration of Pennsylvania State University appears shaped up for a drastic change.
Longtime former Defensive Coordinator Jerry Sandusky is being tried of about 40 counts of various child abuse -- sexual abuse, corruption of minors, etc -- I don't feel like getting into legalese. He was recently released on bail, and the charges are still going through the legal process, though it appears at least 10 of the charges have hard evidence and will stick.
That's all I'm really going to say about Sandusky's part. I don't like getting into that gossippy he did this, she did that kinda thing. If the person is guilty, then hopefully the courts will be able to prove that.
What bugs me is the timeline of this whole situation and how it affects the Penn State football program and athletic departments. Both the Athletic Director and University Park Chief of Police are being convicted of perjury on the matter -- for not willingly ignoring the situation, but enabling it to continue. The charges go back to 1994. Sandusky retired in 1999, and now it seems apparent he was forced out due to this situation -- despite being an awesome defensive coach and heir apparent to JoPa, he never coached again. JoPa, for his part, acknowledges one instance in 2002 (Sandusky was allowed to continue using the facilities and kept an office by JoPa's), and given how the AD and Chief of Police were both complicit on the matter, JoPa's reporting to the AD of the instance, and any (if at all) follow-up would have went nowhere. The thing is, though, if this is really the only instance that JoPa knew of, then why did Sandusky retire? It is possible Sandusky was just tired of waiting for JoPa to move on, and maybe he really was done with coaching, but it just seems bizarre.
The thing I want to know is, why, if people, including many higher-ups, knew about this, was it allowed to continue? Why, if he was no longer a coach for the team, or an employee of the university, was he allowed to use the facilities to do these things? Why was it covered up for so long? If it had been nipped in the bud early it simply would be "Longtime JoPa assistant diddles kids, JoPa and program move on". Now it's "Longtime JoPa assistant diddles kids, JoPa and program are done".
I guess the one thing to take away from this, that is very easy to forget, is that the one person in Penn State who even approaches the "untouchability" of JoPa is Sandusky, innovator of Penn State's vaunted Cover-3 defense.
While the roles of the AD and Chief of Police have been made clear in this, I kinda want to know the role of JoPa in this. I feel like he knows more than the '02 incident, but kinda wants to be left out of it. He hasn't really had much of a role, or power, in Penn State Football for most of the decade, so if he did know, his inability to do anything isn't much of a surprise. Anyone who's watched him coaching can tell you that -- He is one of 4 offensive playcallers, the only one of the 4 who doesn't wear a headset, and Bradley and the position coaches run the defense themselves. In 2004, LB Dan Connor told me Paterno's role on the team was pretty much just to bust balls.
Anyways, it looks like JoPa might be done because of this -- though if I had to bet, he'll wait until the end of the season. What is Paterno's legacy?
Joe Paterno has almost no coaching tree to speak of -- this article points out that the only one of them with a winning record was UVA's George Welsh, though Al Golden and Greg Schiano both spent time turning around really crappy teams (Temple and Rutgers, respectively), and Jim Caldwell has had success as coach of the Indianapolis Colts. Adding former players, the only one that comes to mind is former Quarterback John Hufnagel, who is now Head Coach of the Calgary Stampeders.
His professional player output is also not very impressive, especially considering how long he's been coaching. There's the running backs Franco Harris and Lydell Mitchell; but Curt Warner never amazed, and everyone afterwards seemed to either always be hurt or wash up. With the exception of Kerry Collins, most of the qbs spent their careers as backups. Really the only positions that could produce something of consistent NFL-quality players were Linebacker and Offensive Line.
So Paterno's Legacy is Happy Valley. It is Penn State. Nothing more, nothing less. Penn State was a semi-successful .667ish team before Paterno, and Paterno's all time winning percentage is around .750. That's not that huge of a change, but the scale of the wins is exponentially greater. Paterno took more advantage of the independent status, scheduling tough opponents, and playing big bowl games. Paterno is the only coach to win all 4 of the current bcs bowl games (though he's only won the Rose bowl, the berth for the Big Ten, once) and still has the record for both bowl wins and appearances (though given his overall wins record, that shouldn't be a huge surprise). Penn State was never really a terrible football school before Paterno, but it was never a big one.
The harder part will be figuring out how/if this Sandusky scandal changes his legacy.
Longtime former Defensive Coordinator Jerry Sandusky is being tried of about 40 counts of various child abuse -- sexual abuse, corruption of minors, etc -- I don't feel like getting into legalese. He was recently released on bail, and the charges are still going through the legal process, though it appears at least 10 of the charges have hard evidence and will stick.
That's all I'm really going to say about Sandusky's part. I don't like getting into that gossippy he did this, she did that kinda thing. If the person is guilty, then hopefully the courts will be able to prove that.
What bugs me is the timeline of this whole situation and how it affects the Penn State football program and athletic departments. Both the Athletic Director and University Park Chief of Police are being convicted of perjury on the matter -- for not willingly ignoring the situation, but enabling it to continue. The charges go back to 1994. Sandusky retired in 1999, and now it seems apparent he was forced out due to this situation -- despite being an awesome defensive coach and heir apparent to JoPa, he never coached again. JoPa, for his part, acknowledges one instance in 2002 (Sandusky was allowed to continue using the facilities and kept an office by JoPa's), and given how the AD and Chief of Police were both complicit on the matter, JoPa's reporting to the AD of the instance, and any (if at all) follow-up would have went nowhere. The thing is, though, if this is really the only instance that JoPa knew of, then why did Sandusky retire? It is possible Sandusky was just tired of waiting for JoPa to move on, and maybe he really was done with coaching, but it just seems bizarre.
The thing I want to know is, why, if people, including many higher-ups, knew about this, was it allowed to continue? Why, if he was no longer a coach for the team, or an employee of the university, was he allowed to use the facilities to do these things? Why was it covered up for so long? If it had been nipped in the bud early it simply would be "Longtime JoPa assistant diddles kids, JoPa and program move on". Now it's "Longtime JoPa assistant diddles kids, JoPa and program are done".
I guess the one thing to take away from this, that is very easy to forget, is that the one person in Penn State who even approaches the "untouchability" of JoPa is Sandusky, innovator of Penn State's vaunted Cover-3 defense.
While the roles of the AD and Chief of Police have been made clear in this, I kinda want to know the role of JoPa in this. I feel like he knows more than the '02 incident, but kinda wants to be left out of it. He hasn't really had much of a role, or power, in Penn State Football for most of the decade, so if he did know, his inability to do anything isn't much of a surprise. Anyone who's watched him coaching can tell you that -- He is one of 4 offensive playcallers, the only one of the 4 who doesn't wear a headset, and Bradley and the position coaches run the defense themselves. In 2004, LB Dan Connor told me Paterno's role on the team was pretty much just to bust balls.
Anyways, it looks like JoPa might be done because of this -- though if I had to bet, he'll wait until the end of the season. What is Paterno's legacy?
Joe Paterno has almost no coaching tree to speak of -- this article points out that the only one of them with a winning record was UVA's George Welsh, though Al Golden and Greg Schiano both spent time turning around really crappy teams (Temple and Rutgers, respectively), and Jim Caldwell has had success as coach of the Indianapolis Colts. Adding former players, the only one that comes to mind is former Quarterback John Hufnagel, who is now Head Coach of the Calgary Stampeders.
His professional player output is also not very impressive, especially considering how long he's been coaching. There's the running backs Franco Harris and Lydell Mitchell; but Curt Warner never amazed, and everyone afterwards seemed to either always be hurt or wash up. With the exception of Kerry Collins, most of the qbs spent their careers as backups. Really the only positions that could produce something of consistent NFL-quality players were Linebacker and Offensive Line.
So Paterno's Legacy is Happy Valley. It is Penn State. Nothing more, nothing less. Penn State was a semi-successful .667ish team before Paterno, and Paterno's all time winning percentage is around .750. That's not that huge of a change, but the scale of the wins is exponentially greater. Paterno took more advantage of the independent status, scheduling tough opponents, and playing big bowl games. Paterno is the only coach to win all 4 of the current bcs bowl games (though he's only won the Rose bowl, the berth for the Big Ten, once) and still has the record for both bowl wins and appearances (though given his overall wins record, that shouldn't be a huge surprise). Penn State was never really a terrible football school before Paterno, but it was never a big one.
The harder part will be figuring out how/if this Sandusky scandal changes his legacy.
10.24.2011
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
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
10.13.2011
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.
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
Sasquatch, we know your love is real...
-- Knuttel
10.07.2011
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
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
10.05.2011
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
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
9.18.2011
The White House Brews Its Own Beer
It's nice to have something in common with the white house besides "places where someone has choked on a pretzel". It doesn't matter that it wasn't an accident, or that he totally got what was coming to him, or that no ambulance was called and it might be considered manslaughter in some states. Now I can just say the beer thing!
It's nice to have something in common with the white house besides "places where someone has choked on a pretzel". It doesn't matter that it wasn't an accident, or that he totally got what was coming to him, or that no ambulance was called and it might be considered manslaughter in some states. Now I can just say the beer thing!
8.26.2011
The NFL and the Cult of Superstar
I'm going to start this off by saying I am reconsidering my almost 3 year long boycott of the NFL (yeah, it's really been that long). My demands simply aren't going to be met and other leagues are mimicking the NFL for exactly the same things I left it. The NCAA may be an exception, but they have their head so far up their ass, at least organizationally, that they're really not worth defending.
So why not simply address and try to understand why the league acts the way it does (in this blog post, that is, stating the issue to the NFL themselves would endear you to them much as Pete Rose endears himself to Bud Selig).
The NFL does all of these crazy rules because of their cult of superstar.
You can't hit the quarterback -- because they're the superstar.
You can't chop down a wide receiver with your helmet -- because they're the superstar.
Note: I actually kind of agree with the last one, but not because a football player should not be on the receiving end of a tackle, but because tackling at the NFL level is really subpar -- running at high speed and hoping it makes the other person fall down.
But it continues with new rules they've been putting in place even more recently since the lockout ended.
Two-a-days are now a relic of the past -- despite being the standard in High School and College. Why? If you're already an awesome player, you don't need the extra time to get more awesome -- you're just more likely to get hurt. Nevermind that borderline players need the extra time to make their case for a roster spot -- make their case for a pay check -- we can't risk losing a whole season of Chad Ochocinco quips because he tweaked his knee running that extra route.
The other rule change is the kickoff being moved 5 yards closer to midfield. Basically this means every single kickoff will be a touchback. "Oh, but Knuttel, aren't kick-returners superstars too?" This is where it gets tricky. A very excellent kick returner may get to the level of celebrity of a regular starter within the team's fanbase, but it is rare that it extends beyond that. Kick returners are usually listed as the 4th or 5th wide receiver on the depth chart, or the 3rd runningback, some back up defensive back -- you get the picture. They are on the field for only a handful of plays. It's like if kickers had athleticism -- and no one likes kickers. Basically this eliminates the position -- the roster need of a pure athlete, someone who could work on his route running, his catching, his tackling, but in the meantime, can run and juke like a motherfucker, so you want to get him on the field some. The thing is, not a lot of players get beyond that, even the good ones. For every Steve Smith, who began his pro-bowl wide receiver career as an undersized pro-bowl kick returner, there's a million Brian Mitchells and Eric Metcalfs that can't put everything else together on an NFL level.
Perhaps the most damaging aspect of this culture in the NFL though is the huge lack of creativity. Any new ideas are crushed at the first sign of failure. The most recent breakthrough in offense is the West Coast offense of the early 80s -- most offenses simply do a variant of that. The two biggest defensive fads (cover-2 and 3-4) have their roots in the 70s and 80s likewise. There's two reasons for this -- owners and gms are short-sighted, and short term failure all too often leads to long term failure in their logic; and the stars of today MUST be compared to the stars of yesterday.
This about it. You can think of any star player nowadys, and you can probably draw some sort of comparison to any other player since offensive linemen were allowed to engage blocks with their hands. If someone baffles THAT much, you can just combine two. All sports coverage reinforces this concept. The game can never change too much, because if it does, then how are we going to know if Dan Marino really was the greatest quarterback never to win a super bowl?
Frankly, I don't get it. Developing new ideas prevents the other teams from predicting what you're going to do, and my god, have there been any decent running backs after 30 besides Emmit Smith in recent history? Isn't that an alarming trend the league should look into? Or is the damage too drawn out to cause a sudden dip in stardom?
And with only 32 teams, we need to see new ideas executed. This isn't baseball, where there are only so many ways to run in straight lines around the bases. This is football, there's an entire field width-wise and legnth-wise, and theres 4 downs to get 10 yards (3 if you're in Canada). I want to see an NFL coach who refuses to run the ball like Mike Leach, or refuses to throw the ball like Paul Johnson (the fun part about ignoring one of the two conventional ways of moving the ball is you have to then move it the other way unconventionally).
Come on
-- The Knuttel
So why not simply address and try to understand why the league acts the way it does (in this blog post, that is, stating the issue to the NFL themselves would endear you to them much as Pete Rose endears himself to Bud Selig).
The NFL does all of these crazy rules because of their cult of superstar.
You can't hit the quarterback -- because they're the superstar.
You can't chop down a wide receiver with your helmet -- because they're the superstar.
Note: I actually kind of agree with the last one, but not because a football player should not be on the receiving end of a tackle, but because tackling at the NFL level is really subpar -- running at high speed and hoping it makes the other person fall down.
But it continues with new rules they've been putting in place even more recently since the lockout ended.
Two-a-days are now a relic of the past -- despite being the standard in High School and College. Why? If you're already an awesome player, you don't need the extra time to get more awesome -- you're just more likely to get hurt. Nevermind that borderline players need the extra time to make their case for a roster spot -- make their case for a pay check -- we can't risk losing a whole season of Chad Ochocinco quips because he tweaked his knee running that extra route.
The other rule change is the kickoff being moved 5 yards closer to midfield. Basically this means every single kickoff will be a touchback. "Oh, but Knuttel, aren't kick-returners superstars too?" This is where it gets tricky. A very excellent kick returner may get to the level of celebrity of a regular starter within the team's fanbase, but it is rare that it extends beyond that. Kick returners are usually listed as the 4th or 5th wide receiver on the depth chart, or the 3rd runningback, some back up defensive back -- you get the picture. They are on the field for only a handful of plays. It's like if kickers had athleticism -- and no one likes kickers. Basically this eliminates the position -- the roster need of a pure athlete, someone who could work on his route running, his catching, his tackling, but in the meantime, can run and juke like a motherfucker, so you want to get him on the field some. The thing is, not a lot of players get beyond that, even the good ones. For every Steve Smith, who began his pro-bowl wide receiver career as an undersized pro-bowl kick returner, there's a million Brian Mitchells and Eric Metcalfs that can't put everything else together on an NFL level.
Perhaps the most damaging aspect of this culture in the NFL though is the huge lack of creativity. Any new ideas are crushed at the first sign of failure. The most recent breakthrough in offense is the West Coast offense of the early 80s -- most offenses simply do a variant of that. The two biggest defensive fads (cover-2 and 3-4) have their roots in the 70s and 80s likewise. There's two reasons for this -- owners and gms are short-sighted, and short term failure all too often leads to long term failure in their logic; and the stars of today MUST be compared to the stars of yesterday.
This about it. You can think of any star player nowadys, and you can probably draw some sort of comparison to any other player since offensive linemen were allowed to engage blocks with their hands. If someone baffles THAT much, you can just combine two. All sports coverage reinforces this concept. The game can never change too much, because if it does, then how are we going to know if Dan Marino really was the greatest quarterback never to win a super bowl?
Frankly, I don't get it. Developing new ideas prevents the other teams from predicting what you're going to do, and my god, have there been any decent running backs after 30 besides Emmit Smith in recent history? Isn't that an alarming trend the league should look into? Or is the damage too drawn out to cause a sudden dip in stardom?
And with only 32 teams, we need to see new ideas executed. This isn't baseball, where there are only so many ways to run in straight lines around the bases. This is football, there's an entire field width-wise and legnth-wise, and theres 4 downs to get 10 yards (3 if you're in Canada). I want to see an NFL coach who refuses to run the ball like Mike Leach, or refuses to throw the ball like Paul Johnson (the fun part about ignoring one of the two conventional ways of moving the ball is you have to then move it the other way unconventionally).
Come on
-- The Knuttel
8.25.2011
The Knuttel Returns
So obviously I took a long break from updating this blog which no one reads.
Why leave? Why return?
Short answer: who cares. Long answer: there isn't going to be one.
So let's just straight into business.
Issue number one which has prompted me to return to this thing -- The Libyan rebellion has reached the city of Tripoli, the seat of Ghadafi's power.
Top Ten Myths about the Libya War | Informed Comment
There's some good reads.
This revolution is really one of the most remarkable things to happen in recent history. Despite all odds, the rebels seem to be on the verge of gaining control of the country. The rebels are largely untrained civilians, and NATO air support only goes so far. While I don't doubt the existence of special ops units (American, British, and/or French) in Libya, a revolution like this requires many many people on the ground.
I frankly can't think of any reason that one would support Ghadafi without an ulterior motive in this year, 2011. Even his western nations tour and UN appearance not too long ago seems just strange. The man has always trampled civil liberties (the only liberties any one can ever be guaranteed) and has long since betrayed the ideals he used to spur his coup. Claiming NATO simply wants a share of its oil makes no sense because NATO already had access to Libyan oil (in agreements where Libya would be paid for said oil), and spurring a revolution against the seated government can only jeopardize the oil in Libya -- physically, as oil is a very combustible substance (anyone remember Saddam torching oil wells in his retreat in 1991) and economically, as uncertainty about access to oil can only drive prices up (and up they have only been since NATO has helped).
Maybe the rebels will take Tripoli and end Ghadafi's regime, maybe they'll get pushed back, but I don't see Ghadafi recovering from this. Even if he wins this battle of Tripoli, all he really has left is artillery. A lot of his military has defected and shelling cities like the whole thing is a military target can only lose him supporters (and it seems that was his strategy in Misrata).
Ah, Post-post-colonialism, it truly is a wild ride.
I anticipate the end of Ghadafi happening on Maury -- "You are NOT the leader" (cue music)
-- Knuttel
Why leave? Why return?
Short answer: who cares. Long answer: there isn't going to be one.
So let's just straight into business.
Issue number one which has prompted me to return to this thing -- The Libyan rebellion has reached the city of Tripoli, the seat of Ghadafi's power.
Top Ten Myths about the Libya War | Informed Comment
There's some good reads.
This revolution is really one of the most remarkable things to happen in recent history. Despite all odds, the rebels seem to be on the verge of gaining control of the country. The rebels are largely untrained civilians, and NATO air support only goes so far. While I don't doubt the existence of special ops units (American, British, and/or French) in Libya, a revolution like this requires many many people on the ground.
I frankly can't think of any reason that one would support Ghadafi without an ulterior motive in this year, 2011. Even his western nations tour and UN appearance not too long ago seems just strange. The man has always trampled civil liberties (the only liberties any one can ever be guaranteed) and has long since betrayed the ideals he used to spur his coup. Claiming NATO simply wants a share of its oil makes no sense because NATO already had access to Libyan oil (in agreements where Libya would be paid for said oil), and spurring a revolution against the seated government can only jeopardize the oil in Libya -- physically, as oil is a very combustible substance (anyone remember Saddam torching oil wells in his retreat in 1991) and economically, as uncertainty about access to oil can only drive prices up (and up they have only been since NATO has helped).
Maybe the rebels will take Tripoli and end Ghadafi's regime, maybe they'll get pushed back, but I don't see Ghadafi recovering from this. Even if he wins this battle of Tripoli, all he really has left is artillery. A lot of his military has defected and shelling cities like the whole thing is a military target can only lose him supporters (and it seems that was his strategy in Misrata).
Ah, Post-post-colonialism, it truly is a wild ride.
I anticipate the end of Ghadafi happening on Maury -- "You are NOT the leader" (cue music)
-- Knuttel
5.31.2011
Knuttelbrau sees the lager picture
See what I did there? Eh?
Anyways, yes, I have brewed my first lager. It is dubbed "Dr. Knuttel's Lycanthropic Lager" (though I am neither a Doctor or a Lycanthrope).
Lagers, unfairly, have gotten a bad rap due to the saturation of the market (especially in the America) of the so-called Macro-lager -- a lighter take on the pilsner beers of Bohemia and, to a lesser extent, southern Germany. America has its Budweiser, its Miller, its Coors -- and chances are wherever you are in the country, it would not be difficult to find at least two of the three, if not all of them. Elsewhere there are still Molsons, Labatts, Heinekens, Stella Artoises, Mooseheads, Amstels -- but they're all pretty much variants on this macro-lager style.
Anyways, yes, I have brewed my first lager. It is dubbed "Dr. Knuttel's Lycanthropic Lager" (though I am neither a Doctor or a Lycanthrope).
Lagers, unfairly, have gotten a bad rap due to the saturation of the market (especially in the America) of the so-called Macro-lager -- a lighter take on the pilsner beers of Bohemia and, to a lesser extent, southern Germany. America has its Budweiser, its Miller, its Coors -- and chances are wherever you are in the country, it would not be difficult to find at least two of the three, if not all of them. Elsewhere there are still Molsons, Labatts, Heinekens, Stella Artoises, Mooseheads, Amstels -- but they're all pretty much variants on this macro-lager style.
5.16.2011
Lady Gaga, as she were, May 2011
Anyone who knows me and my tastes in music knows that amongst the vast sea to which I listen, waves crashing upon the shore, Lady Gaga is certainly a larger wave. More to the point, anyone who has read these two past articles (seeing as how the older one, a review of The Fame, is from 2009, I'm clearly digging).
Hah, remember when I used to open all of my posts with quotes from old plays and literature. Those were the days, or I think it only lasted like a month or two, whatevs, it was a fun time. It was just getting too forced and, well, difficult to keep finding apt quotes for whatever I was writing. The Gaga one, however, was hella apt.
Hah, remember when I used to open all of my posts with quotes from old plays and literature. Those were the days, or I think it only lasted like a month or two, whatevs, it was a fun time. It was just getting too forced and, well, difficult to keep finding apt quotes for whatever I was writing. The Gaga one, however, was hella apt.
5.04.2011
Symptom of the Brew-niverse and other beer-ings
I bottled my saison earlier today (Saisons dans l'abime).
My previous dealings with gushers were caused by one of two things -- too much priming sugar or not enough sanitation.
I decided to focus on the sanitation issue. I made sure everything was cleaned twice, and I also sanitized my previously untouched bottle caps (I guess I thought they were too small to make a difference).
My previous dealings with gushers were caused by one of two things -- too much priming sugar or not enough sanitation.
I decided to focus on the sanitation issue. I made sure everything was cleaned twice, and I also sanitized my previously untouched bottle caps (I guess I thought they were too small to make a difference).
5.02.2011
Osama Bin Laden...
So, as most of America (and probably the world) knows, Osama Bin Laden was killed last night during an attack on his compound. A tip was given on his whereabouts last fall, following up on this, the attack order was given. So I thought I'd give a few thoughts on the matter.
-- The reactions for this happening were varied, sure, but moreso than I thought they would be. Elation was common, and not entirely uncalled for -- finding him has been an endeavor that has been going on full time for just under 10 years, and at least part time since the other WTC bombing in 1994. So yeah, this has been going on for three administrations, not two. Obama may (and rightfully so) get the credit for ending this, but it has taken a long concerted effort from three Presidential administrations and a whole score of people in the intelligence field.
-- Seeing such elation from the death of one man is still kind of strange to me though. I guess I was just expecting something a little more along the lines of relief. That being said, with the exception of the more uncouth elated remarks, I was more disconcerted by the ultra-pacifist anger of, well, killing him. Misdirected anger definitely could be done away with, but I guess I just have an understanding of the world as a violent place, in pretty much any capacity. Competition happens whether you want it to or not, and getting rid of someone who has actively gunned for the eradication of the western world (ironically since being supported by them to get rid of the soviets) would definitely fall under much more of a plus than a minus.
-- I wonder how much planning and plotting he has been able to get done while being on the run from so many different people. I also wonder if he has been able to groom a successor in the 10 years since 9/11.
-- I find it kind of funny that he was found in a compound in a relatively affluent suburb of Islamabad when we've been given this image of him cave hopping across Waziristan.
-- I like how they gave him a proper Muslim burial (within 24 hours, no cremation), and doing it at sea was smart to prevent his grave from becoming some sort of shrine to his cause. Not having any pictures of the event prevents an outrage from happening regarding this, but similarly it makes me feel like I am kind of taking this news for granted.
-- For anyone who cares, the mission was apparently to apprehend Bin Laden, preferably alive, though dead would also be acceptable. More than being in custody, he personally needed to be stopped. Capturing him and putting him under trial/in prison would have been a nice touch but apparently it was unfeasible.
-- I'm bemused by anyone who tries to attribute/divide credit among the administrations. Clearly Bush had been doing this longer than Obama, but the end was in Obama's administration, so really he is the only one who can get any hard credit (both the operation and the intelligence tip to his whereabouts). To try and figure out how much work was actually done under each administration would be long, pointless, and petty. The deed is done, leave it at that.
-- I haven't heard anything about how the Muslim world has reacted to this. Arguably he has killed more Muslims than Westerners, but those who align with him identify themselves as Muslim.
-- So there have been a lot of goings on in the Muslim world, period, these past few months. From a western standpoint, this may be the apogee of these events, but hopefully this doesn't stop. The civil war is still raging in Libya, and there are still rumblings in Syria.
-- Knuttel
-- The reactions for this happening were varied, sure, but moreso than I thought they would be. Elation was common, and not entirely uncalled for -- finding him has been an endeavor that has been going on full time for just under 10 years, and at least part time since the other WTC bombing in 1994. So yeah, this has been going on for three administrations, not two. Obama may (and rightfully so) get the credit for ending this, but it has taken a long concerted effort from three Presidential administrations and a whole score of people in the intelligence field.
-- Seeing such elation from the death of one man is still kind of strange to me though. I guess I was just expecting something a little more along the lines of relief. That being said, with the exception of the more uncouth elated remarks, I was more disconcerted by the ultra-pacifist anger of, well, killing him. Misdirected anger definitely could be done away with, but I guess I just have an understanding of the world as a violent place, in pretty much any capacity. Competition happens whether you want it to or not, and getting rid of someone who has actively gunned for the eradication of the western world (ironically since being supported by them to get rid of the soviets) would definitely fall under much more of a plus than a minus.
-- I wonder how much planning and plotting he has been able to get done while being on the run from so many different people. I also wonder if he has been able to groom a successor in the 10 years since 9/11.
-- I find it kind of funny that he was found in a compound in a relatively affluent suburb of Islamabad when we've been given this image of him cave hopping across Waziristan.
-- I like how they gave him a proper Muslim burial (within 24 hours, no cremation), and doing it at sea was smart to prevent his grave from becoming some sort of shrine to his cause. Not having any pictures of the event prevents an outrage from happening regarding this, but similarly it makes me feel like I am kind of taking this news for granted.
-- For anyone who cares, the mission was apparently to apprehend Bin Laden, preferably alive, though dead would also be acceptable. More than being in custody, he personally needed to be stopped. Capturing him and putting him under trial/in prison would have been a nice touch but apparently it was unfeasible.
-- I'm bemused by anyone who tries to attribute/divide credit among the administrations. Clearly Bush had been doing this longer than Obama, but the end was in Obama's administration, so really he is the only one who can get any hard credit (both the operation and the intelligence tip to his whereabouts). To try and figure out how much work was actually done under each administration would be long, pointless, and petty. The deed is done, leave it at that.
-- I haven't heard anything about how the Muslim world has reacted to this. Arguably he has killed more Muslims than Westerners, but those who align with him identify themselves as Muslim.
-- So there have been a lot of goings on in the Muslim world, period, these past few months. From a western standpoint, this may be the apogee of these events, but hopefully this doesn't stop. The civil war is still raging in Libya, and there are still rumblings in Syria.
-- Knuttel
4.23.2011
Beer Updates
First things first
I have completed construction of my first wort chiller!
For those who do not know, a wort chiller is a device that is used to rapidly decrease the temperature of boiling wort so one may pitch the yeast into it, thus beginning the fermentation process of beer. This is done for two reasons -- 1) Beginning the fermentation and sealing the tank earlier prevents other unwanted organisms (bacteria and such) from also taking hold in your sweet sweet wort juice. 2) Bringing the temperature down faster helps improve clarity. Before I had the wort chiller, I used ice in various forms (but always barriered, you cannot let foreign water into your beer). The first all-grain brew, if anyone remembers, used the snow that was still on the ground, except we ended up losing a lot to evaporation and had to re-add bottled water to bring it back up (and somehow we only ended like.1 off target gravity).
I have completed construction of my first wort chiller!
For those who do not know, a wort chiller is a device that is used to rapidly decrease the temperature of boiling wort so one may pitch the yeast into it, thus beginning the fermentation process of beer. This is done for two reasons -- 1) Beginning the fermentation and sealing the tank earlier prevents other unwanted organisms (bacteria and such) from also taking hold in your sweet sweet wort juice. 2) Bringing the temperature down faster helps improve clarity. Before I had the wort chiller, I used ice in various forms (but always barriered, you cannot let foreign water into your beer). The first all-grain brew, if anyone remembers, used the snow that was still on the ground, except we ended up losing a lot to evaporation and had to re-add bottled water to bring it back up (and somehow we only ended like.1 off target gravity).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)