Compassion

Compassion is considered to be a virtue for people, even one of the things that make us human and separate from other animals.  It is the treatment of others with kindness, generosity, or mercy.  Generally, compassion is considered to be a good thing, but sometimes there is some overlap with pity, which is negative to the people on the receiving end.  One feature of compassion to my mind is the lack of obligation behind it.  We act in a compassionate manner simply because we feel like it; nobody is pressuring us to behave this way, and if there is some kind of pressure or imposition, the actions taken are not truly compassionate.  In this way, compassion is similar to altruism. We show compassion not to receive any personal benefits, but out of a sense of care for other human beings.

The Source told us her family encouraged compassion from its members, telling the children especially not to ignore the weak, but to help and protect them.  It was also the feeling that prevented siblings from fighting with each other.  For herself personally, compassion is something instinctive, not learned, although it does involve the conscious choice not to cause harm.  Interestingly, she also believed that being more powerful leads people to be more compassionate, although she might have meant that the more powerful have more resources with which to be generous or enable compassion through others.

Our Doctor was tickled by the term "Herculean", which the True Philosopher had used in his short essay.  He agreed, however, that the task was not one which could be done with quickly; compassion is linked to each person's interpretation of life, but life is a mystery, and beyond that, each person at each instant is different.  Taking from the Leader, he linked the feeling of compassion to an injustice done, and said that compassionate aid to people in distress is based on those situations being possible to have prevented.  He reminded us that terms appear when they are needed, for example, "corruption" did not exist in Spain until only a couple of years ago, implying that what we consider the negative state of corruption was indistinguishable from normalcy.  Compassion became a necessary concept because of the amount of suffering to be alleviated, as well as the possibility of doing so.  Later he turned down his regular path of criticism of the modern world, insisting that pain has become a product in our society because it sells.  Then, we can be sold other products to relieve or prevent that same pain.  Compassion is inherent to humans, but our society is full of distractions and half-truths about ourselves.

The True Philosopher, echoing his thoughts in his writing, said that compassion is a subjective thing, immeasurable in any tangible way, but real because we know we feel it.  Compassionate acts, on the other hand, can be measured.  There is some suspicion of those acts, however; behind most actions that are claimed to be done out of compassion, we can find ulterior motives and hidden agendas.

The Teacher said he, like me, had been wondering about synonyms for the term, but also about how the feeling of compassion fits into our nature.  Following the Philosopher's comments, he said that even when there are no conscious attempts to personally benefit from a compassionate act, there is a bit of selfishness behind it.  We have been trained to feel good by doing good, mostly from the recognition of our good actions.  If the act itself made us feel good, it would not be so hard to do good anonymously.  In most cases, we at least have our names attached to donations or activities so everybody knows, or can find out, that we have participated in compassion or charity.  Towards the end, he mentioned that the difficulty many people have in behaving compassionately is the image we have constructed for ourselves, or members of our group.  Some groups are not supposed to be compassionate, and other groups are not supposed to deserve compassion.  Until we overcome that sort of group mentality, it will remain a chore for many people to recognize and demonstrate the compassion they theoretically have inside them.

On this topic, the Leader's thoughts differ from mine.  While his writing focused mainly on pain and suffering, he expanded his thoughts in the meeting, including the responsibility those who cause the pain have to be compassionate and the role guilt plays in stimulating action.  I tried to argue that people responding to a situation of their making are making amends rather than being compassionate, but the Leader's view is that amends are more connected with legal proceedings than part of day-to-day life of people making mistakes and trying to correct them.  He did concur that there is a component of lack of obligation on the part of the individual, but also emphasized that we must act on compassion rather than savor the feeling within us.  Harkening back to the subjectivity and impossibility of measuring feelings, an internal feeling of compassion simply does not count; it has to come out in some kind of action and be recognized.  However, he kept insisting that in order to call an act compassionate, the actor has to have some kind of role in causing the need for compassion; for example, a doctor can choose the most compassionate course of treatment for a suffering patient.  He insisted that we can always do something for others, and that is the real question: what can I do?  It is a question that refers to grand acts and big problems, not the everyday issues that anyone can face.

A Newer Participant was more focused on empathy, believing it necessary for compassion to flourish, and also a natural feeling in the human being.  For her, the problem is that society encourages people to focus on themselves rather than each other.  There is a natural empathy that encourages us to create connections between us, it is not a difficult thing to achieve.  The cruelty we might observe in children is normally a sign of problems, something that needs attention and care from adults.

A Prodigal Participant told us it is hard to know for sure whether compassion is innate or taught.  Religion and culture produce reactions in all of us, beginning in childhood.  Another participant repeated the ideas of ulterior motives and personal gain, saying that many religious people gave to the poor only with the idea of receiving later for their trouble.  She defined empathy as a cerebral thing, while compassion is in the heart.

In the end, we were left with the doubt about where compassion comes from, even if we might agree about where it goes to.

not cider

Something that smells very much like it, though.  It's a beer, but infused with apple must, I assume from Asturian cider production.  There's a fairly strong smell of apples upon opening the bottle.  The beer itself is cloudy, but light colored, so not like cider on either side of the pond.  It's an interesting taste, more bitter than the smell might lead the drinker to believe, but natural when considering the beer and the Spanish cider.  It feels like a fall drink to me, although that might be the influence of my past experiences with cider in days of chill and brown leaves.  While certainly best chilled, it's the scent of apples that sets that longing off I bet. 

Hm, why does that look familiar?

The Will to Convince

It was a bit difficult to come to an opinion about the topic itself this time.  Is it asking about the desire for people to agree with us?  Is is the interest in control?  The Source gave the barest of descriptions at the time of voting, but was, ahem, convincing enough for it to be chosen.

He explained in more detail to open the meeting: trying to convince others is bad manners.  To support the assertion, he pointed to the style of TV news today, and to fundamentalists of all stripes who stick their noses into everybody's business.  They have a deep-seated need for their point of view to be taken seriously and accepted, so much that they harass and lie to force others to agree.  They present twisted or even completely fabricated evidence.  The Source admitted that there is such a thing as merely presenting one's point of view, which differs from pushing it on somebody else, but he still had the strong suspicion that more force or coercion is used normally than is necessary.  For him, the rudeness comes from the fact that the opportunity to think and come to one's own opinion is being cast aside.  At the same time, people who have seen themselves forced to outwardly accept an opinion, might not have real agreement with it.  He quoted, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."  Later he spoke of the use of emotions to manipulate opponents into either agreeing or conceding some correctness in an argument, or to rile up listeners and get them on the "right" side.  Part of the willingness of people to be convinced, not just to convince others, is the fear of disorder, and in the opinion of the Source, since our natural mental state is doubt and not certainty, our minds will be in constant, natural, disorder.  There is also the drive to find and create order that seems to come from within us, and compels us to create certainties.  We not only have to convince others for our certainties to be real, we have to convince ourselves.  There is a strange fear of saying, "I don't know" when it should be what we say most.  For the Source, violence exists in every attempt to convince, even when done in the gentlest way, with the best of intentions.

Our Doctor began by musing on the similarities and differences of human beings; "We are the same animal, but not the same," he said.  Then he asked why it should be considered bad manners to try to convince somebody of your opinion.  However, he also believed that conviction is always a fight, a struggle.  Categories, something we build our certainties on, have disappeared in the modern world, so everything must be argued over and everybody must be convinced.  If you are to survive, you must sell things, and you have to be convinced of their value to sell them.  Everything in theater is based on conviction, he reminded us, as a good actor is not the person but the character when performing.  The actors themselves have to be convinced of their character.  The Doctor ended his first contribution by warning us that although we should believe, we should be ready to change our minds immediately.  Later on, he stated that language has changed everything, so we should be careful how we use it.  People who want to convince you may be liars, but they have to be lying a little to themselves also, in order to be convincing.  Not only actors, but politicians and religious people are professional liars.  However, for the Doctor, good liars are more interesting than truthful people who do not speak well.

The True Philosopher focused on the "will" of the title, having given short explanations of Aristotle's tools of persuasion in his preparatory writing.  We are compelled to do things by our own wills, it is what pushes us into action.  While doubt is a natural phenomenon, he also insisted that we all have some convictions under normal circumstances.  To sort out some of the sources of persuasion in our lives, he discarded purely informative presentations, and also said that logic on its own has no power to convince.  Authority does not need to have will to convince us, all it needs is recognized authority.  The evangelist, however, relies on pathos to convince the flock that he knows what the divine will is, another participant was sure that we tend towards pathos to convince and allow ourselves to be convinced.

Our Leader allowed a number of voices to be heard before adding his own.  His short writing focused on the action in the act of convincing, and he repeated some of the pressures of conformity to remind us.  He first stated that the badness of manners was really dependent on the situation.  Although there might be some implied threat of violence, most civilized interactions are without physical force.  However, many social pressures exist to push us into certain behaviors and attitudes, like family and peer pressure.  The problem of convincing others is being certain about your own information, and information tends to come from other people to you.  In answer to the question of why we fear revealing our doubts, he said that we are trained from childhood to be right, and punished for being wrong.  Referring to logic, he said that facts do not exist for the purpose of convincing anybody, rather they are simply the result of a methodology.  Towards the end, he proposed a distinction between persuasion and convincing, saying persuasion was more about actions while convincing was more related to beliefs.  But, the biggest weapon in the arsenal of somebody set on convincing you is money.

A Newer Recruit gave a somewhat impassioned opinion about the relationship between children and adults, in particular children and their parents and teachers.  For her, the adults have the obligation to convince children to do and not do certain things for their own safety, such as not leaning too far out of a 5th story window.  The adult has to be careful about how the need to behave in a certain way is presented, and avoid using violence for the purpose of convincing the child to do what is safe or appropriate, but teaching new members of society how to act correctly should not be bad manners.

I agreed with this Recruit on the need to convince children of certain things, and it made me think of the attempts by more authoritarian groups who act without much authority as much more insulting to their targets.  They do not have merely the human need for order and support, they think people who disagree with them are like children while they are like mature adults.  Ideologues are convinced that they have the most reasoned and wise outlook, and anyone who disagrees must be a stubborn juvenile person, as yet undeveloped and able to think in a logical manner.  At the same time, these same ideologues will use emotional manipulation to convince rather than reason, since it is not terribly hard to out-think their goals with cold logic.

The Source was allowed the privilege of closing the meeting, and ended saying that teachers have only the duty to inform, not to convince.  He reiterated his view that violence is inherent in any attempt to sway another's opinion, and on the topic of ideologies and religion, said that dogma always engenders violence.

He probably needed some more pathos to convince us completely.

honey-fire

 Honey brewed Scotch ale comes out very much like a good red: brilliant ruby color, beige-y head, just a tad sweeter than regular ales, due to the honey, no doubt.  The label likens it to port, and indeed there is a certain similarity in the aroma.  The sweetness comes through strongest on the first sip, followed by the light floweriness.  A touch of sour starts to come out just on the tip of the tongue with more contact with the beer, while the sweetness stays more towards the back.  Something about it invokes a wintery evening with a good book, and possibly a fireplace.  A beer for relaxing and having some quiet moments to yourself, although perhaps some pub food at a calm moment with a good friend or two would also be in its character.

Here's to no laundry today

Is Racism Natural or Cultural?

Red flags were raised in my mind when this topic came up.  It's not entirely fair, since Europeans in general, and the Spanish in particular, do not pay a great deal of attention to what "racism" means.  As was mentioned in the meeting, it's not even completely clear if race is natural or cultural, let alone discrimination based on it.

The problem I have with the question as posed is mostly that.  Race itself has a lot of cultural components rather than being a clear division between groups of people that everybody can agree exists.  It does not seem to be as simple as "those people look different from me, therefore I don't like them", mainly because the amount of difference cannot be objectively calculated.  "White" people can discriminate against "black" and "Asian" people indiscriminately (hah!), but they also see differences between different groups of their own "race".  Sometimes people from one group "pass" as the privileged group, as in the case of mixed race people or people who happen to belong to the wrong religion.  The discrimination against followers of the wrong prophet/god/church bleeds over from racism into classism, but since the dividing lines have been laid with the same level of fervor, we can bring hate against Jews, Catholics and Mormons into the equation, even though the adherents of these faiths might have no differences in physical appearance from their "mainstream" neighbors.  Studies show that people have a tendency to seek out and stick to those most similar to them, so we could draw a logical conclusion that racism based purely on external traits is natural.  However, many urges we have are natural, including the urge to eat large amounts of fat and sugar, to steal things we want, and to harm or kill people we have negative feelings towards.  Those things might be natural, but they are not useful or good.  If we can accept that a "killer instinct" should be redirected, why should we accept that a "racist instinct" cannot?  From what I have heard from people who ask and expound on this kind of question, the expectation is that something natural cannot be changed, so why should we even try?  It is a fool's errand.  The bad things in our society which are cultural simply have to be accepted as we accept a day with an uncomfortable temperature, a wind that musses hair, or a rain that falls at an inopportune time.  We cannot fight against them, they are simply natural.  These people do not want to see the possibilities of change in a human being's perception, most likely because it would reflect badly on them if they are not able to accept or allow such change in themselves.

The Source had suggested the topic because she had found herself fascinated by studies showing children's aversion to those who are different and affinity for their "own".  It made her consider how difficult it is to truly respect those who are not like us, which is a necessary quality in the society we have created.  Interestingly, she believed "modern" racism was born in the 15th century with the coming of colonialism.  One could argue that that is an argument for the "cultural" side, since the ideas that support ill-treatment and low opinions of the "other" had to be developed and made to appear logical, rather than being immediately manifest. Also, it highlights the question of what "race" actually is, since the same level of mistrust and prejudice existed before there was a large scale mingling of what we consider races today, but it was directed to groups within we consider the same race.

Our Doctor had doubts about the validity or significance of the studies mentioned which depended on brain activity to draw conclusions.  As he often reminds us, we know nothing about the brain, yet.  He continued, focusing on the ideas of exclusion and advantage that the Leader had written about, insisting that we are in fact animals and cooperation is the key to our success in the world.  Yet, exclusion is also a natural phenomenon.  Our natural context is constantly changing, and this forces us to find new solutions continually.  Later on he said that philosophy actually needs constant change to exist, while it functions as a kind of biography for the philosopher.  So, the philosophy of racism may be a solution to problems in some circumstances, but those circumstances will change, leaving those who espoused those ideas marked with them.  At the same time, the word "racism", like all -isms, has an emotional charge about it but nobody really knows what it is.  We have an idea, and we like to think we believe our own ideas, which makes them difficult to change.  He ended a contribution saying we should not fight all prejudices, mostly because of a reverence for the shades of grayness of life and reality I speculate, and warned us to be careful of people with clear ideas.  He had his final word later on after the Animal Defender spoke of the common idea that Spain was traditionally a tolerant and open country, accepting of all, when he told her not to forget the expulsion of Jews and Moors.  It is easy to be tolerant of ideas, but more difficult when actual people are involved.

Speaking of more modern times, the Animal Defender mentioned the training we receive from our families to be tolerant or intolerant of others.  There might be some genetic influence, but it is a rare person who denies the influence of those closest to us.  She also made reference to the cultural idea of racism which limits the other to those with different customs and values.  People might look very different but live in much the same way without any hate or suspicion between them, as she told us happened with some immigrants she had known over her life.  They accepted the culture of their neighbors and were accepted by the neighbors in turn as part of the community with little trouble.

The Leader then spoke of his idea of racism as a tool used to disadvantage others, entire identifiable groups rather than just a few individuals.  Even being victims of this discrimination can be used to an individual's advantage by means of the "race card".  He admitted that there were many forms of discrimination used to divide and conquer - racism, classism, sexism, etc. - and their popularity only goes to show that no matter how necessary cooperation is, it is hard.  Discrimination, on the other hand, is easy.  Later he insisted on the key to defining racism being the imposing of restrictions and disadvantages in a active way, and made the point that some problems are really culture clashes and not actually racism.  As an example, he pointed to the typical meal times in Spain as compared to other European countries.  Not being able to eat a meal at a specific time is a problem of an individual being unadapted to a different culture, not the result of that culture's members actively trying to cause problems for others.

A Newcomer pondered the difficulty we as individuals have in recognizing our own failings.  We ask ourselves if we could be racist, although the default assumption is that we are not.  He also wondered if it is proper terminology to call a millennial habit "nature".  Beyond family influence, he reminded us of the power of the media in forming our opinions, particularly television.  Stereotypes abound on TV shows which reinforce vague notions most people only imply holding in real life.  He also implied that the old prejudices can live on, even without the violence of racism, in a sense of superiority to another group.  As an example, he gave the relationship between the English and the French.  It's a long-lived rivalry, but most people would not consider it racism since both sides come from the same "race".

The True Philosopher came down firmly on the side of cultural racism rather than natural.  Most of his thoughts were on the ways that this type of discrimination combines with others, each of them adding to the others and making the problem more difficult to solve.  He also reminded us that the issue is almost never one race versus another, but an intricate interplay of several groups, some based on race, and others on characteristics such as religion, language, or sex, among others.  Discrimination can begin because of identification of one trait, but it will spread into others, and from one disadvantage, like a social one, to economic and political disadvantages.

The Deep Thinker told us a personal anecdote, in which he found a black man hanging around a hallway of his building, and when the stranger was not able to give any concrete answers to explain his presence, the Thinker invited him to wait outside the building.  The stranger left, but angrily called the Thinker a racist several times.  So he asked us, was he really a racist?  Did the stranger's skin color matter more than his purposeless presence, subconsciously?  The Thinker thinks not, but we have some difficulty being objective about ourselves.  He said we all have a seed of un-expressed violence within us, and this type of prejudice is often a socially acceptable way to release it.  He also belongs to the cultural racism group, but said that there are inherent behaviors, which are then promoted and sharpened by learned reactions.  The good thing, in his opinion, is that learned behaviors can be modified when they cease to be useful.

The Leader closed the meeting with what I think are the most important things to keep in mind: even if something is natural, that does not means it's good; there is no real definition of race - it can be based on genes, culture or citizenship, among other things; and finally, this is just another example of how easy it is to manipulate people through fear, in this case fear of "outsiders", while maintaining an illusion of only wanting what's best for everyone.

of a historical nature

I've had Czech beers and their style on my mind and this one just looks the part, for some reason.  I think it might be the little red shield at the top of the label.  It's actually a hummingbird, if you're curious.

There's a slightly sweet smell that wafts out on pouring.  It's bubbly, apple-juicey in appearance, with an interesting, mild sweet flavor.  A little like apples in taste too, in fact.  Ever so slightly bitter at the beginning, mellows into sweet.  Light and refreshing, a summertime sort of beer, although fall in Madrid isn't far off the mark either.  I've had some bad experiences with Spanish pilsners; fortunately, this one is Belgian!  It's another one that's brewed under license in Belgium for a Dutch company.  Too much demand for the Dutch beers?

Can't get more classic than that

Heroism

This one was mine; for some reason it came to mind and got put on the list, and for some other reason people thought it would be a good topic.

What doubt could there be about what a hero or heroism is?  We all know a hero when we see one, don't we?  Well, not so much.  We can agree that a hero does something valiant, probably risky, a good deed that benefits others more or rather than the hero him/herself.  But what acts in particular are heroic?  Rescuing a drowning person may be considered such an act, but probably not if the lifeguard performs it.  That is a lifeguard's job, after all.  There are acts that are heroic to some and villainous to others; people who fought for more rights than they were given compared to others are just one example.  They are heroes to the people who benefit from their efforts and those who simply feel strong allegiance to ideals of equality among persons, but to people who supported the old status quo, for whatever reason, they are simply bad or deluded.  A hero is often held up as an example of good behavior.  Heroes of history and myth have qualities that we teach children to admire and emulate as much as possible, and in the case of real historical figures we often bury or ignore their faults.  Some say that superheroes found in comic books and movies are the new "mythological" heroes, with their amazing adventures and powers.  They represent another part of heroism and the development of ideal heroes, which is the abilities they have that are out of reach for the majority of people.  Many superheroes are mutants (X-Men) or aliens (Superman) with special powers, and the ones that are not are super rich (Batman).  All of them have access to things we do not, be it innate ability or wealth to develop or obtain technology to mimic ability.  We seem to need our heroes, though, finding them if not in our streets then in our minds.

Our Doctor praised the preliminary writings of the Leader and the Philosopher, remarking on the necessary bravery and the unplanned nature of heroism.  He also reminded us that words exist because they are necessary, we need to have a specific term to describe concepts and things if they are important to us.  He also spoke of unsung heroes.  Many soldiers are part of a heroic group, but the individuals are not considered heroes by themselves; spouses or family members may care for a loved one for years without recognition for their sacrifices.  A hero needs to resolve a difficult situation, not just experience it.  Later one, he mused that we all resolve difficult situations, and in fact it is in human nature to consistently go above and beyond, so we might all be considered heroes.  At the same time, we make heroes of others who happen to solve our problems.  The Doctor then talked about the propaganda that goes with heroism and villainy, saying that we get told to worship the heroes who help the authority and shown how badly it goes for the villains who go against it.  The warning is not to be a hero if that means fighting the status quo; however, sometimes the status quo is the wrong side of history and will be ground down by people who will become heroes.  As a doctor, he let us know that psychiatrists in hospitals are often among those unsung heroes, treating suicidal patients who are suffering an illness, the treatment of which will return their will to live.  Until the treatment is found and takes effect, the doctors know they have to deal with people who will do what most find unthinkable.  It is a constant strain, but they manage to resolve difficult and human problems.

The True Philosopher gave us some thoughts on the real life people who get called heroes, devoting time to the figure of the "national hero", somebody who may give up life for the country or people and/or exemplify the ideals of the nation.  In his contribution, he contrasted personal and collective heroes, saying that the latter or tools for training people to serve the group over the self, with the pros and cons of that behavior.  Personal heroes, on the other hand, include what he referred to as "existential heroes", those people who might commit an act of bravery and self-sacrifice without planning to do so, ever.  This existential heroism is completely unplanned and unpredictable.  It is often connected with justice, as when people stand up for a victim of oppression or bullying on the spur of the moment.  He also gave us examples of military heroes, soldiers of the Second World War, who were not only skipped over as individual heroes (all glory went to the officers), but later on relabeled as war criminals when the family they had "persecuted" during the war came back into a position of power.  In the end, he stuck with his view that true heroism is a fleeting thing, visible only in the moment of its happening, unexpected and unrepeatable.

The Animal Warrior had brought up the idea of universal heroism, saying that surviving makes every person a hero.  However, she also mentioned war journalists, who travel into dangerous areas with the purpose of gathering information, and sharing the "truth" of the events with the world.  Some of them die, accidentally, some of them return with mental and physical scars.  Some are intentionally killed.  Recent events in Syria reflect this last occurrence.

The Leader agreed that heroism has an unpredictability, an unscientific factor to it, but he also insisted that heroes have little to do with justice or ethics.  He also said there is a need to distinguish between acts and behavior, since somebody who is generally brave or competent is more likely to continue to be so in more stressful situations, or at least will face more expectation to be so, whereas a person who tries to blend into the background will stand out much more upon performing an act of bravery.  He later pointed to saints and national heroes, saying they are held up as examples of ethical behavior, but upon close examination there is little to recommend them ethically.  The most exaggerated or sanitized versions of their acts are publicized.  He also talked about the need for heroes, chalking it up to those in power seeing use in them for controlling the rest.  He wondered why problematic countries need so many heroes; if they are supposed to be examples of good behavior, why is there so much unrest where they are celebrated?

A Recent Arrival was sure that propaganda was the main driving force behind the existence of heroes.  They are useful to those in power, therefore they are paraded around to be good examples for the citizenry.  He felt that a look at the people who were accepted as heroes - national heroes, folk heroes, heroes of the day - showed the accuracy of his words.  They are meant to represent the valued characteristics of the people, not to be examples to follow in real life.  For this reason, they are exaggerated or inhumanly good.

Wrapping up the meeting, we heard the story of one Participant's uncle, who died several months after heroically shutting down machines in a power plant during a fire, saving the surrounding area from fire or explosion.  He was not considered a hero because he was only doing his job, it was his duty to shut the machines down in case of emergency.  Not only that, but the company refused to give his widow and children a pension because he had not died on the actual job, but months later in the hospital.  That's no way to be a hero.

revisiting

O glorious stout, o holy blackness and taste; after the beer fair introduction I couldn't resist picking up La Quince's stout from one of the shops.  I notice now it's a collaboration between La Quince and Guineu, hence the fox and owl on the label.

Explains that

The beer pours headlong into the glass with thick pudding foam.  It gives off a misleadingly light smell, almost apple-y.  There's the dirty stout flavor at first, sliding into bitter, and then the sweet aftertaste rises; so smooth, so soothing.  A whole bottle passes by without any odd twists and turns of flavor, it remains bittersweet and level, no stickiness or overpowering oddness.  Maybe it's the psychological impact of the visual, but I can't get the idea of chocolate syrup buried in good beer out of my head.  The draught version was even better, at least in memory, but damn if the bottle isn't a good bet.