for the ancestors

As odd as it sounds, just being called Farmer's Choice is what drew me to this brew.  Must be feeling some nostalgia.  The farm on the label looks nothing like Iowa, but still.

Er, who's pouring what for who here?

It pours out very light colored, making me think more of lemonade when it settles into the glass.  The yellow color is more golden than lemon, though.  There is a slightly sweet scent, but nothing overpowering.  The first taste makes me think this beer wants to be bitter, but can't quite get the hang of it; first a little sweet fruitiness comes in, then it gets a little sour, but pleasantly so.  Just a touch of bitterness hangs around on the tongue after the beer has gone down.  Something in it reminds me of cider, or even a Belgian lambic, although not nearly as cloying as lambics have been for me.  It's more like a northern Spanish cider, and considering the origin, there's a certain sense about that.  For me, it needs to be drunk pretty quickly, before it warms up too much, or the flavor gets to be a bit heavy.  On a warmer night than this, it would be a very nice day closer.

To sunsets to come

Is Moderate Activism a Waste of Time?

There are two things that I suppose I need to define here: "moderate" activism; "waste" of time.  What I am thinking of as moderate, for the purposes of this discussion, is non-violent, primarily.  Even if the demands are extreme, if they are presented in a calm and non-overtly threatening way, I will call them moderate in this case.  This leads us to include Gandhi, King and similar protesters in the moderate category.  As for a waste of time, in the wider world it is almost impossible to define in general terms.  Anything can be fun and fulfilling for one person and a total waste for another.  Activism, however, does have a goal, so we can say that activism that does not achieve its goal has been a waste of time, and that is what this discussion will use as a definition.  Calm and quiet activism can be seen as non-threatening.  Of course, some people will react as if their very lives were being threatened, the people who benefit most from the system that the protestors are asking to change, but those who do not benefit directly, or also see some unfairness in it, will see the reaction as excessive and feel the protestors are behaving appropriately.  Still, does that mean there will be change?  Those who have the power to modify laws, conditions, or whatever change is being demanded are generally not happy to do so at the drop of a hat.  They may make promises; they may meet with activists; they may propose their own compromises.  But in the end, without public pressure, most things simply do not change.  Sadly, moderate activism does not always generate that public interest, although we may occasionally look to them and say, "Look how well they behave, look how they follow their values.  What mountainous moral high ground they have!"  The moral high ground does not guarantee change.  Violent protests certainly draw attention to issues.  They also have the unfortunate tendency of turning public opinion against the changes demanded, but at least they keep issues in the public eye.

Our Doctor began as he often does, explaining that we are dealing with words.  Yet, our information often comes through images.  Words can provoke images in our minds, whether they are the ones the author meant or not, so words are necessary, but also, in his opinion, dangerous.  He thought there would be no real discussion, since we would all agree, but he then said he did not agree with the essays by the Leader and the True Philosopher.  He later warned us about internet activism, or even putting our opinions in that public forum, since everybody can find out everything about us.  Even moderate protest can generate a strong response, to prevent people moving to the next level.

The True Philosopher took another tack on the meaning of "moderate", preferring the Aristotelian idea of balance and rationality to lack of violence.  So, a moderate activist may be dedicated truly to the cause, but does not act impulsively; rather, this activist acts with moderation and planning, always knowing the next step to take.  While there is some overlap in the definitions, there is not a necessary link, as violent acts can be planned out carefully ahead of time as well as peaceful demonstrations.  He mentioned his own experiences as a protesting college student, being involved in peaceful demonstrations, which were met with police violence.  The activism of the students was backed up by reason and rationality while the violent, extreme reaction was merely an impulsive counterattack by a threatened authority.  He admitted that "moderate" is more often used to denote a half-hearted participation or apathetic support than rationality.  In a later contribution, he also used "cowardly" as an associated word in modern times, and said that protest is a sensitive issue because of the power imbalance inherent in it.  He also blamed infiltrators in activist groups for a large amount of violence, saying they are there to cast a bad light on the group, making use of the moral high ground idea.

The Actress was sure that it makes no sense to ask politely for change, since it is too easy to ignore those requests.  Like the True Philosopher, she noted that peaceful protesters are often met with violence in spite of their non-confrontational attitudes.  She went so far as to say she was against Gandhi in support of peaceful protest.  She also mentioned self-interest in activism, saying many celebrities or famous figures will participate in peaceful demonstrations, not to actually promote the cause, but to promote themselves in a safe space.

The Leader recognized violence as an attention getting strategy, but said that issues do exist that do not benefit from violent protest, giving food labeling as an example.  He also said that there is no necessary link between protest and violence, since many people resort to destruction and mayhem just out of boredom or simple love of destruction.  At the same time, he warned us, the authorities will use any excuse to restrict liberties, so while violence should be a last resort, it can be part of the tool kit.  He agreed with the True Philosopher's view that activists should know what they are asking for and why, as well as the people watching them.  We need to analyze a situation before labeling it good or bad.  He mentioned instantly available information as a better aid than pure attention grabbing for stimulating interest in an issue, mentioning the multilingual signs held at the Greek protests; protesters knew they would be seen all over the world and they wanted their message to get out in their own words as much as possible.

The Deep Thinker hesitated to give a clear answer, stating that it is relative to the cause and the situation.  Extreme activists, he said, are totally convinced that they are right, but being convinced does not mean anything.  He complained about the self-promotion of many activists, both moderate and violent, saying that they want the spotlight more than they want the changes they demand.  He also pointed out the dangers of activism done without the moderation defined by The True Philosopher, since changes effected without long-term planning bring about unforeseen consequences that can be worse than the situation they were meant to improve.

The Educator wondered if there were situations in which violent protest is plainly justified.  She asked, "Would I kill if I had the opportunity?"  She then insisted that moderate, peaceful activism is in most cases the more courageous path, since it requires more self-control, and (I would say) more humor than mere violent reflex.  In her own country she had an example of peaceful activists, theater companies that performed in the streets after the theaters were closed by the government.  They openly defied the authorities, without attacking them directly.  Their presentation won them support from the public, although many actors and directors probably paid a price behind closed doors.

The Seeker of Happiness saw protest and activism as inevitable in democracy, since the best we can do is a sort of tyranny of the majority, with only small tweaks to protect minorities in some cases.  He saw moderate protesters as still having something to lose, therefore not taking too big a risk, while the extremists see themselves up against the wall already.  He felt that society should have safeguards against the need for protest by maintaining avenues for communicating grievances with the authorities that are open to all the populace, not just a few elites.  Voting is not enough or effective, in his opinion.  While he did not openly state it, he implied that activism of all types is not a waste of time, but something citizens might be inexorably driven to by an incompetent or inattentive government.

Now, the real question is how much time have we wasted versus how many neural connections have we strengthened by debating topics on Sunday evenings?

top shelf

Besides acceptable pickles, the German import store sells beer, naturally.  Up on the top shelf I saw Bergbräu Altstadt.  It seems to me like I've seen this one before in some bar, possibly Casa de la Cerveza, but hadn't had the opportunity to pour for myself right from the bottle.

Hats on

It is a dark beer, but a translucent tea kind of dark.  It's not especially foamy and leaves very little head.  There's a typical German dark beer sweetness in the smell, which promises a rounded sweetish taste.  It is indeed sweet, with a honey-like flavor, and totally lacking in bitterness.  There's a slight, grassy taste underlying the honey, something a little like the aftertaste of horchata.  It makes me think of health drinks and their insistence that pure plant life makes the healthiest thing you can consume.  It stays crisp and clean from the top to bottom of the glass, without any kind of build-up of the grassiness or getting syrupy.  For a dark beer, it's a very mild and unassuming one, but something good for drinking with a snack and a movie or conversation.

Hats off and bottoms up

What Is Success?

One might wonder whether the question is about success in a particular moment or endeavor, or if we should be imagining a successful life overall.  For individual goals, the obvious definition would be achieving the goal.  For all a lifetime, maybe achieving more goals than experiencing failures is a close enough description.  We might accept that a successful person is one who is satisfied; is you constantly feel something lacking, how can you think of yourself as successful?  This could naturally produce situations in which we see people we would normally consider to be successful, such as the wealthy or famous or respected, as unsuccessful because they are not happy with their situations.  Also, people who would be judged as failures by most may be completely satisfied with their lot - not wishing for a bigger house, more prestigious job, or cooler clothes - and therefore successful people.  Success can leave a hole in your life.  Once you complete one task, you have to find another one; we cannot coast along on the gains of one moment.  Some people may experience "fear of success" for this reason.  Humans are not big fans of change, and a new task, goal or strategy almost certainly requires us to change our lifestyle or at least some elements of it.  If we keep working at one task all our lives, we can avoid all but the most pressing changes.  We cannot really disappoint, because we have not built any expectations.  Success is a sense of accomplishment, of internal value, of security for the future.  Greater detail runs the risk of rendering the term meaningless to most people in most circumstances.

The Source said her inspiration came when watching the movie "Birdman" and wondering about the shelf-life of success.  She agreed completely with the writing by the Leader and the True Philosopher, saying she had little to add to the discussion at the moment, just emphasizing the role of failure on the path to success and the personalness of true success.  She later spoke of opportunities for success being necessary to begin with, but also the individual effort put into the process.  Every move should be a step on the path to a goal, and every goal a step on a larger path; we should gain useful experience by seeking success and both the journey and the result should add value, not just to our own lives, but to society as a whole. 

The True Philosopher agreed that success can only be measured by an individual for that individual's own circumstances, and also mentioned the dangers of taking success too seriously.  People who reach their goals easily or often can lose track of reality.  He also pointed out the fear entwined with success, since expectations build afterwards and a single mistake can lead to disaster.  As he mentioned in his article, we attach a certain amount of morality to the idea of success, connecting it with what we consider to be "good" or "proper" goals to be reached for.  The cycle of success and failure is another manifestation of the yin-yang concept.

The Deep Thinker likened the concept to finding meaning in our lives and told us that it was a useful way to enforce shared values.  However, he also thought that one cannot be successful without knowing who one is.  We can only measure our own achievements, not put value on those of others.  External measures of success are "like chasing ghosts".  For him, while effort should be put into our accomplishments, it should be joyous effort.  If the work becomes a burden, this is not the right track to success.  We should each follow our own natures and hearts, and keep in mind that many successful people have been anonymous, but have achieved success through their rich and meaningful lives.  Contentment is the ultimate success, and failures on the way to contentment do not really matter as long as one arrives at the goal in the end.

The Actress scoffed a little at the mentions of plans, saying success was based mainly on luck.  Also, the sweetest success is that which comes as a surprise.  An Occasional Participant disagreed, saying success by chance would not last at all.  She said too, that the greatest success stories are the result of a lot of hard work, but are often surrounded by a fluffy cloud of lies, especially with regard to the emotional state of the person involved.  She pointed to many celebrities and their emotional problems, which have often led to substance abuse.

The Leader poked around at a number of ideas, including the attractions and unpleasant surprises in achieving our goals, and in his first contribution agreed with the Actress about chance - to a point.  While much success depends on being the right place at the right time, there is also the influence of our past experiences that tells us when and where to look.  He groused about the limits on opportunities in a society that pushes everyone so hard to succeed, while deliberately making it impossible for some to do so.  He asked why we have particular goals, implying that what we consider worthwhile is heavily influenced by information we receive from our environment rather than our own "nature".  He first said that success does not equal happiness, although it can be a tool towards achieving it, but later wondered if there was a deeper connection between the two, or if the two circumstances merely produce the same chemicals in the brain.  He answered himself, supposing that the answer was the latter, since a failure does not necessarily mean lack of happiness.  Another Infrequent Participant connected success to envy, since that can provide the motivation we need to put out the effort to succeed, which the Leader did not argue with.  He did warn, though, that too much envy would only be destructive, so our survival tools still need to be kept under supervision.

The Seeker of Happiness also took up the cause of knowing oneself, and also mused on the nature of success in the natural world.  The death of an individual in the wild is not a failure, he said, but rather a rousing success - for the species.  For me, his description of nature "watching" and "deciding" to create difficulties to test us was annoyingly anthropomorphic, but it is a reasonable perspective on non-individual success.  He later turned to more social ideas, particularly financial and work-related, saying attempts to be successful in those areas were mistakes more often than not.  He repeated the view of others in the meeting, that success can only be measured by the individual for the individual's purposes, saying working for somebody else's goals is simply slavery, and no way to find either happiness or success.

sweet special

It's still time for cool beers, and interesting flavors can be eye-catching on the label.  Rum?  Wood?  Vanilla?  Let's see about that!

Yakka appears in a lot of collaborative efforts, usually with less heard-of flavors, and they tend to do good work.  I have high hopes.  The beer is a rich, dark brown, with satisfactory sandy colored head.  I think I can catch a whiff of rum in the scent, but the vanilla is stronger.  I have some trouble fishing out the components of the flavor.  Knowing that rum and vanilla are ingredients makes me think that's what it is, but I don't think I would identify them without the label.  It's an odd whirlwind of flavors that blasts through the mouth, everything entwined and blending.  At first there's something of the wood, but immediately the sweet taste comes out and settles in.  The label suggests consuming the beer by itself, unless you have something really, really great to go with it.  I wouldn't disagree.  Most snacks would cover up the complexity of the flavor, which might not be all that important to some drinkers, but for those who like to pay attention to their beers it would be a loss.

Tasty!  Wait, what's that on the label...

"Rompe el me aburro de las pilsen sin alma"=Break out of the boredom of soulless pilsens

Hmm, who could that messsage be for?

Minority Rights

As more and more immigrants showed up on Spain's doorstep, government and citizens started to fret about how to make sure everyone was treated fairly, or at least equally unfairly.  As in many other places and times, certain groups started to feel left out and persecuted, while groups that had been there all the time started to make their gripes known.  A lot of people felt that they were not receiving their fair share, and began to demand equality and justice.  Everybody should have the same rights, they said, and we are not having ours respected.  So, that means that "Minority Rights" should be the same as majority or mainstream rights, does it not?  In theory this sounds just fine, however, the unfortunate fact is past injustices have created very slanted playing fields, and simply saying, "Ok, we're all the same now," does not solve anything.  It does not give everyone the same opportunities, no matter how much we might wish it did.  Not only that, but there are questions of minority cultures that may require some protection or special permissions from authority to continue to exist in meaningful ways; one example could be the use of hallucinogens in some Native American cultures being allowed.  The practice does not harm anyone else, they can use it as a mark of cultural distinction, why not allow it?  But, what happens when one group's culture affects others?  Should students with religious dietary restrictions get to dictate what the school lunch menu is for everybody?  Should children of sects that consider reciting a pledge to an inanimate object akin to idolatry be exempt from joining classmates in their patriotic ritual?  How far can we go protecting every individual's rights before they all overlap and cancel each other out?

The Leader was out that evening, but left some words for us, as well as some preliminary thoughts from the Source.  The True Philosopher, with some familiarity of minorities and their contested rights, kicked off the discussion.  He explained that he focused on ethnic minorities, although of course the term covers much more ground, who he saw exploited in his home country.  Minorities are often the most neglected group in a society when it comes to receiving benefits and services, due to the very fact that they are minorities and do not have a loud voice.  The Deep Thinker gave a rather short contribution, saying minorities have the duty to integrate while at the same time the majority has the duty to allow them in.  He also suggested that the education system should be used as a tool for integration, promoting a sense of belonging, not to any particular group, but to the whole human race.  He went so far as to say group identity or the desire for it should be considered a mental illness. The True Philosopher responded by saying that at least in his country the majority of minorities do integrate, at least partially.  However, it is difficult to integrate completely while maintaining a sense of one's own, distinct culture and history.  Later on he said simply that human rights apply to everybody, therefore "minority rights" do not even exist, although at the end he admitted that conflicts between groups can be solved de jure, by enforcing or creating laws, but they will continue to exist de facto.

The Educator reminded us that no country is "pure" anymore, if in fact any country ever was.  "Minorities" are simply people without power, who can actually be greater in number than the powerful, but lacking or barred from resources.  She also touched on the problem of protecting traditions and cultures within a society, especially when tradition causes harm to others.  She referred to the poor treatment of others practiced by some minority groups in very traditional societies, and also the importance of protecting "minorities within minorities", e.g. women or homosexuals, within minority groups.  Her overriding theme seemed to be that protection of the individual is of greater concern than protecting a culture, although culture should not be dismissed out of hand.

The Source did not comment in the beginning, choosing instead to listen to other comments and mull over other opinions.  Finally, he did chime in.  He voiced a concern many have when a group, traditionally quiet, asks for something: are minorities trying to achieve parity - or special rights?  He felt that many people forget that rights come with duties, and some people were merely demanding privileges without any intention of taking on the added responsibilities they entail.  He also showed no patience for groups of uncomfortable recent immigrants, saying if they had traveled to one new country, they could travel back or to another more to their liking.  The host country is not obligated to change for newcomers.

Two Occasional Participants debated the treatment of religions in Western societies, with one saying that all religions should receive the same level of respect, including regarding their holidays.  Why should we only get Christian holidays off automatically, especially when we are aware of people practicing other religions in our midst?  She admitted this tack might end up clearing the calendar of work days altogether.  The other disagreed with the point of holidays being an instrument of discrimination, insisting that hiring practices are where we need to focus to build equality.  Although she did not say so openly, she hinted at the entirely secular state, divorced from all religious affiliation, as the best option.

The Seeker of Happiness mulled over the meaning of democracy and minority/majority participation in it.  Voting would naturally reflect the desires of the majority over the minority, he said, so what is needed is a constitution or supreme rule of law that protects all groups from each other.  He advocated a "frozen" constitution, one that could not be modified later by lawmakers, a modern tablet of commandments perhaps.  He insisted that all groups should be protected equally under the law, and declared himself confused that women, for example, were specially protected under certain anti-violence laws.

What we should probably be thankful for is that pseudo-philosophers like ourselves are not considered a dangerous minority.  At least as long as we stay in the bar.

it wasn't the black army, though

In spite of days becoming noticeably longer every week, we still have some pretty black nights.  I, for one, can't get enough of black beers to go with that lack of direct sunlight, so I tracked down a new one to try.  I hope nobody will be offended if I call Aupa Tovarisch a Spanish beer, being produced by a Basque brewery...

The red army

Red zombie army

The beer pours out as black as a politician's heart and gets only a light fuzz on top.  The meager head is almost milk-chocolate colored, and the smell isn't nearly as earthy as some stouts.  The taste is complex, perhaps overpowering for those who aren't big fans of stouts.  While the beginning is mellow and almost milky, it's quickly overcome by a mouthfilling bitterness and chased down the throat by some growling earthiness.  There's kind of a struggle as it seeks to fill all corners of the mouth space before being sucked down the throat.  There's something almost feline in the way it stretches out and takes over.  It's one of the more powerful beers, being a stout and all, so a little something in the way of snacks is not a bad idea.  Still, the beer itself is definitely something to savor.

To unnecessarily dark nights!

How Useful is Competition?

I was not able to go to this meeting, so I do not have the benefit of hearing what others had worked out about the topic, but one aspect has been coming up in web spaces I frequent.  As the product of a capitalistic society, I have absorbed the reverence for competition as the source of all advancement that good citizens should demonstrate.  By trying to be better builders, writers, healers, acrobats etc. than the next person, we develop our skills and create more efficient or safer ways of doing things.  If we were not worried about others being seen as more skillful, we would not put forth the effort to improve, and production of goods or providing of services would stagnate or even decline.  It makes a certain amount of sense, especially having been trained to accept the premise from the beginning.  We want recognition, we want rewards, prizes are not given out for nothing, all these ideas make competition a perfectly logical thing to base a society on.  Our Leader and the True Philosopher focused mainly on competition in business in their preparatory writings.  I suppose this was the aspect that received the most attention and discussion in the meeting.  However, I wonder if competition in basic human interactions was brought up.

Since most humans want a partner or partners, we have to make an effort to seek them out.  Even in societies in which the partners themselves do not work out their partnerships they must appear to be worthy of joining the family of the other, more worthy or desirable than other prospective partners.  In that sense, we compete with the rest of the world for our partners.  We have to show ourselves to have the desired qualities, and in more quantity or with more refinement than others.  Again, there is some logic to it, and we can see competition in the animal world in such apparent rituals as battles, displays of physical decoration, and gathering of resources.  In most cases it seems to be the male who performs these rituals to attract the attention of the female(s).  Humans, because of the requirements of raising young, seem to have rituals for attraction from both sides.  Both partners size each other up, deciding how compatible they are for each other.  However, there are some cases where the competition is not between other potential partners for the desired mate, but with the desired mate.  In this case it would be ridiculous to call the relationship a partnership, since the two are actively engaged in stealing from the other, either achieving material resources from him/her or "fooling" him/her into "giving sex".  The competition between other potential partners should be for a cooperative relationship with the desired partner, one might assume for the purpose of raising offspring, but what kind of positive relationship could result from competing directly with your "partner"?  One idea is that it is for acceptance among one's peers, placing the mate into an entirely different category of human with no other contact than to provide the goods and services coveted, and hopefully received through deception.  It may also be simply a way of expressing one's individual strength and power; I can survive without any support from others whatsoever.  Our individualistic society does seem to promote the latter to a certain degree.  Unfortunately, as social animals, our inherent need to belong to groups makes the full realization of that lack of dependence difficult if not impossible, and makes the first idea the more likely one to be expressed.  So, how useful is that sort of competition?  I suppose it depends on the type of society we want: for a hierarchical, highly segregated society, it would work just fine, since all our efforts are focused on pleasing our peers who are as like us as possible in all ways; for the society we generally say we want - open, egalitarian, free for all - it is not useful at all.