the art of dark beers

For some reason, a good Halloweeny label wasn't easy to find.  It's better on a dark beer, but I would have settled for an IPA.  Still nothing.  The best I could find was a can, which aggravates some people, but there are some practical arguments for them.  I say "the best I could find', but Dark Arts Surreal Stout does have a legitimately spooky design.  So, it's a stout, there's ghosts on the container, will it be the rich redeemer of my stout tasting?

It's a smooth pour, but a little over-bubbly in the glass; maybe it's more chilled than it needs to be.  It's just the color you want to see from a stout, and there's a fairly strong and enticing smell from it.  The taste is not extremely powerful, but pleasing, tending to chocolate at first and then dying back to more low-toned bitter.  It's exactly the consistency a stout should have, being smooth and creamy, but with that bite of bitter and smoke in the background.  I'm quite pleased with Halloween weekend beer!  If somebody dropped it in my bag for trick-or-treat I'd have to TP a house in their name.

Supplier: La Birratorium
Price: €2.25-2.45

The Cowardice of Agnostics

It is probably necessary to first clearly differentiate "agnostics" as a noun and group identity from "agnostic" the adjective.  When used in terms of religious or spiritual belief, "agnostic" generally means a person who cannot know for sure whether a particular deity exists or not.  Some see this as the most reasonable approach, since we have never been able to prove the existance of any god, and, as is often said, absence of proof is not proof of absence, so the deity in question is not disproved either.  The Agnostic takes the description as a label, and a mark of pride.  It represents the rationality that many see as a high-level achievement in the face of blind belief.  Without proof, it is sheer folly and risk to proclaim a belief.  And here the trouble begins.

While agnostics and atheists agree that no god has been proved to exist, atheists take the step of living their lives under a moral code with no need of any god.  They accept the existence of reality as a necessary given in order to interact with their own existence and others'.  Agnostics must remain "unconvinced" of reality, since anything we could use to prove it still hinges on the acceptance that something does exist.  We make a leap of faith for the sake of convenience, even without any faith to go with it.  Believers follow what they assume to be the rules laid out by their deities for good living; atheists keep the rules that they have been taught and have seen to be useful, throwing out the harmful ones; what kind of morality can Agnostics have?  They might put themselves in the atheist camp, saying their moral code is based on observation and utility.  However, why would they not use a religious moral code, for the sake of convenience?  Of course, many probably do, but deny its origin when pressed.  If one really is not sure of the existence of a law-giving deity, or lack thereof, Pascal's Wager seems like the most reasonable thing to latch on to.  If you truly cannot be sure that some god is not looking over your shoulder and counting your sins, why would you pretend not to care?  The veneer of rationality wins no divine friends.  As David Silverman has said, the Agnostic is really an atheist, but does not want to say so.  There might be real psychological reasons to do so, but it still looks like a person fooling themselves.

So, when it comes to doing what we want, Agnostics follow the atheist example.  But, when it comes to social regulations, are they similarly unconvinced?  It seems, and I am sorry to say this is purely anecdotal, that Agnostics will always stand with theists when push comes to shove.  When the debate arises, the majority tend to favor a religious background for applying and proposing laws.  While I argued that Agnostics would do better acting as if they believed for their own convenience, I find it irritating that they pretend to have no debt to religion in their personal life, but are happy to assign debt to others.  I assume - yes, a dangerous thing to do - that the Agnostics' agreement with theists in the public sphere has to do more with the sheer numbers of theists than with any arguments they might have.  Hiding under the not-quite-atheist wing in one's personal life is only to avoid any labels of superstition, but if religion has anything over rationality, it is the power to control.  Of course, there is no philosophy of agnosticism that requires a code of conduct, but believer or not, a great many people want nothing more than to control those around them.

Finally, I come to my great accusation.  Because Agnostics do not honestly say how they come by their morality or how they propose moraity for others, they are liars.  Because they do not accept the reality that openly doubting a deity is tantamont to atheism, and they hide under their cloak of "impossible to know", they are cowards.  An agnostic person is rational in the lack of knowledge we have may not be remedied.  An Agnostic wants only to parade a lack of decision as a virtue.

the recommended

When I picked up the Oktoberfestbier last week, the clerk recommended this other German lager style.  He swore it was more flavorful and a better drink for those who like lagers.  I'm not actually the biggest fan of lagers, but I do want to keep my options open and my choices varied.  It's not like I don't like them.  So, into the bag went St. Georgen Kellerbier.

da-da!

Not a lot of aroma here either, but it's a more robust tannish color.  Not too heady.  Oddly sour-grassy taste, incorporating that grainy flavor of many German beers, but with a bitter chaser.  The Oktoberfestbier was content to sit back and relax, but the kellerbier demands your attention.  The surprise of the sourness wears off after a couple of sips, but it remains a stronger tasting beer for sure than last week's selection.  It's not one of my recent favorites, a little too sharp.  It would be good on a warmer day, actually, but now we're in the fall and it's the rainy season here.  Some people might be perked up by the strong, sour taste on a gray, wet day, but I prefer a good smoky stout.  Who am I kidding, I prefer that any time.

Nothing personal, Georg

Supplier: La Birratorium
Price: €2.25-2.45 (somewhere in there)

oh, time to check

La Birratorium was off my radar for a little bit, due to vacations and then extended vacations.  But now we're all back mostly in full swing.  Given the season, I thought a nice German beer was called for; I've had my Spanish märzen, where's my German equivalent?  Spaten's Oktoberfestbier isn't a märzen, but it is German, and it does say Oktoberfest on the label.

Bring on the beer, little horsies

It comes out pretty fizzy, but the head doesn't last too long.  It's a light straw yellow color, maybe a little lighter than I'd like, now that I'm such a craft beer snob.  It's not terribly aromatic either, but the scent there is has a pleasant sweetness to it.  The taste is very mild, just a little bit sweet and mellow, with none of the grassiness or odd aftertaste I've gotten from a lot of wheat beers.  I was told it's one of the less flavorful beers on the German shelf, so maybe that accounts for it, but I'm not really unsatisfied at all.  It's an excellent beer for a long sit-down, not heavy at all, easy to drink, light enough that food or serious talk aren't interrupted, but not so tasteless that it might as well be water.  It's a seasonal beer, this one, but one worth the wait through the rest of the year.

Supplier: La Birratorium
Price: €2.25-2.45 (o paperless, receiptless days we live in)

closer and closer

La Virgen is not Cibeles in terms of variety.  They've been more limited in scope, but definitely focused on quality.  That's why it's kind of exciting when they put out something new, especially something seasonal, like chestnut beer or märzen.  I don't know if they've been making märzen for the fall for a while or if this is the first year, but it is the first time I've seen it.

Yeehah!

Rather light on the head, but a nice rusty color.  It has a whiff of German beer grassiness, which it probably should, given its style.  It's a little bit sour, something that I've experienced in the past with Madrid beers that aren't ales, but there's a good layer of malt on top of it.  As I supposed on seeing the head, it is really a light beer, soothing in taste, but quite easy to swallow.  Märzen doesn't have to be as heavy as a black beer, of course, but I do seem to remember them being a little fuller-bodied.  Still, can't complain too much.  It does have something of a holiday taste, with that mix of sweet and beery, heralding the coming of the best holidays of the year.  Better start thinking about my pumpkin.

Supplier: Cervezorama
Price: €2.45

Corruption

There is a joke that goes something like,"I want an end to corruption.  Or at least more opportunity to participate."  We say this or hear it, and we laugh, thinking that the joke is obvious.  Nobody would really admit to wanting to be a part of a corrupt system for the fun of it, would they?  Nobody would admit to wanting to be a part of a corrupt system at all, unless they did not mind being thought of as one of the bad guys.  And not one of the cool bad guys, some sort of evil bureaucrat.  Yet, not so long ago I heard somebody make a statement that was essentially that.  No, he did not say that he wanted to be a part of the corruption, he merely stated that there was no problem with corruption existing - as long as "people lived well".  Really, is there a problem with anything in that case?  There is no system under which every single person lives well, although some do a significantly better job than others in making sure there is a minimum level of dignity available to the citizen body.  We must admit that the vast majority of, if not every, governing system is by no means immune to corruption, and will be affected by some amount of people taking advantage in ways they should not.  Since it is unavoidable, should we simply accept it?  Should we not work to reduce the incidence of corruption, since this could be seen as a waste of time and energy?  Is it worth it to say that corruption is "bad"?

First, the obvious argument is if we accept corruption simply because it is common despite the law, we have to say the same about other crimes.  If we cannot fight against or consider corruption bad, why would we do so for theft?  Or the various forms of assault?  Or murder?  The desire to commit these crimes can be seen as "natural", the same as the desire to find a benefit for ourselves at the expense of others.  If one natural desire is acceptable despite its harm, why not the others?  Insisting that the prevalence of corruption means that we should not spend time working against it is rather an insult to doctors and the medical profession as a whole as well.  Illness and injury are not just common, they are absolutely unavoidable.  Every single person on Earth will come down with at least a cold or twist an ankle at least once.  But if these things are universal, why bother fighting them?  We cannot keep everyone's health perfect forever.  Medicine is a losing proposition.  A waste of energy and resources.  While some people would in fact make a similar argument, they are on the fringe of ideas about how to deal with health care.  Saying that the commonness of corruption should protect it from attack is the same line as saying the ubiquitousness of colds make medicine a waste.

Let us go to a deeper level.  We can agree that health problems deserve to be taken care of because nobody wants or deserves to be sick or injured.  Why should corruption fall under the umbrella of undesireables?  There must be some kind of identifiable harm that comes from corruption that makes it necessary to fight it.  What is the harm?  My partner in conversation specifically said that corruption was all right as long as people lived well.  Can people live well under a corrupt system?  Absolutely.  But do all people live well?  Absolutely not. This is the key to the issue.  When a fair, or mostly fair, system is in place, those who get the shaft have recourse.  They can press for redress of grievances and demand that their rights be respected.  Under a fair and just system, every citizen should have the same rights and importance before the law.  The very essence of corruption is that only a few have access to those avenues, and the rest of the citizenry must keep quiet, lest they find themselves in danger of losing what they do have.

This is the true danger of corruption: It increases the distances between the regulars and the privileged, and leaves the non-privileged out in the cold.  It solidifies a ruling class and a social hierarchy that will perpetuate itself, relying on nepotism and bribery to find leaders.  There is no possibility of social movement or development.  Even when corrupt leaders are canny enough to make sure the masses have enough toys to distract them from their lack of power and opportunity, anyone who wishes to be treated as a full person without the benefit of being in the upper ranks will have to pay for the privilege.  Those who cannot pay will never be given the slightest consideration.  There we have the heart of the matter: Not a single person is seen as a person.  Even the privileged are but cogs in the larger machine.  Those on the bottom?  They will never ascend if not by force.  If merit and rights do not exist, the only way to make a better life for oneself is to destroy those who have better lives and usurp their position.  Corruption, in the end, only encourages revolution, and violent revolution at that.  A system of rights and merit, at least in theory, gives opportunities to those without means and allows for peaceful transition between social strata. The fact that no system is perfect should not discourage us from seeking to perfect the system we live under.

halloween on the way

Hooray, my favorite month with my favorite holiday!  I stopped by Cervezorama, resurrected, and picked up something special from their now numerous fridges.  I'm surprised I haven't grabbed a Reptilian Apokalypse before, given my affection for stouts and such things.

These things

But there it was, like a sign that scary things are coming.  Good scary, though.  Just gotta get ready.  It's a brandy barrel aged Russian Imperial Stout, so it's definitely a fortifying drink.  Strong draughts for strong souls.  I have, in fact, come across Reptilian before, and even a stout, but this one looks even more demonic somehow.

Extra sweet smell, with something of an mandariny touch.  It looks heavy and black, not especially heady though.  First the taste is sweet, but there's a not unpleasant woodiness that follows on its heels, and it goes down with a bitter finish.  It's a smooth beer in spite of the alcohol kick, with the brandy barrel taking out the smokiness of the typical stout.  There's no candy weighing the flavor down, even though it stays sweet, so it's a pleasant drink.  

As black as my own heart

Supplier: Cervezorama
Price: €4.70