Government Money for TV

You may have heard that on February 17, 2009, all analog broadcasts of TV will cease. The FCC is requiring all broadcasters to go digital (and the EM spectrum frequencies freed up will be auctioned off). This doesn't affect cable or satellite subscribers. This only affects people who receive TV signals via an antenna. Those too poor or too cheap (or too smart) to pay for TV will have to buy a converter box for their analog sets. It's estimated that these boxes will retail for $50 to $70.

I guess Congress felt guilty that the government is mandating the switch. As such, money from the spectrum auction will be used to compensate people for the cost. Each household is entitled to two $40 vouchers. Everyone is eligible, though after the 22.25 million mark, only people who solely rely on antennas will be eligible. They'll be able to claim the remaining 11.25 million vouchers. There's are no other requirements for eligibility (other than having a street mailing address). Richie Rich can claim his two vouchers just as someone living in the 9th Ward of The Big Soggy.

So, 22.25 million plus 11.25 million gives us 33.5 million vouchers. Multiply that by $40 and you get $1.34 billion. Wow. Over a billion dollars available to make sure people keep watching TV. That's nothing short of amazing.

Did no one in our government see how ripe this program could be for abuse? While I don't believe that this program should've been created in the first place, how could a means test be excluded for consideration? Why should anyone with a taxable income of over $25,000/year get one of these? Of course, if you're too poor to afford cable or satellite TV, then you've got far more important things to worry about than being able to watch TV.

As much as I hate seeing the government spending more money when it's $9 trillion in debt, there are far better programs this money could've gone towards: Paying down the debt, repairing infrastructure, job training programs for all those whose jobs have gone overseas, healthcare for the uninsured, alternative energy research, and public transportation programs that will remove cars from the road. I'm sure that you can name a few yourself. I wish our government had. Instead, they decided we should keep watching TV.

\_/
DED

Corn Ethanol is Bad for Beer

I'm sitting here waiting for the wort to cool down to a reasonable temperature so that I can pour it into the carboy. The brew pot is sitting in a cold water bath with some ice thrown in for good measure. I figured that I'd kill some time.

I'm brewing a porter. It's been a bitch. I had to steep the crystal and chocolate malt grains and I haven't bought myself a lauter tun yet. I used coffee filters and my son's brand new fish net to make sure that none of the husks made it from the grist to the wort. Fortunately that stuff floats so I was able to wipe it off the sides of the brew pot. Broke my thermometer though. Had it since the Atlanta years. Fortunately that happened nowhere near the wort, which was covered anyway.

If you've ever checked out my homebrew page, tonight's batch is a variation on #15. More bittering hops. More malt. Even added cinnamon bark to the last 15 minutes of the boil to add some pizazz. I'm going to double the vanilla extract this time. I'll add that during secondary fermentation.

So why is corn ethanol bad for beer? Well if you haven't heard, farmers are abandoning hops and barley in favor of corn in order to take advantage of the demand for corn-based ethanol. This means that hops and barley prices go up. End result: Beer prices go up. And it affects us homebrewers too. At the supply store, hops prices were double and malt was up 40%. Ouch! Granted, I'm a retail user so I'm going to be paying more anyway. Breweries pay wholesale and get bulk discounts. But still, they're going to be paying more so beer drinkers are going to be paying more.

Ok the wort has cooled off and I've added it to the carboy. After topping it of with more cold water (from the water softener bypass) I get an OG that's a phenomenal 1.062! Oh shit! That's off the hook! That's, by far, the heaviest beer that I've ever tried to make. Time to pitch the yeast and put the beer (and me) to bed.

\_/
DED

Update: The shortage of hops is also due to bad weather. Link.

Beer in Review: Bocks Away!

I know I'm long overdue for a beer post. About 1 out of every 10 of my posts is about beer. I apologize for the slump. Between the holidays sucking up time and a post-New Year's sore throat ruining the taste of my favorite beverages, I had to put beer blogging on hold. In fact, my throat is still not 100%. So this post is working off of notes I took a while back and my memory.

As I mentioned here, I finally tried bock, and I liked it! So, I went out and bought a couple bocks. Unfortunately, I can only review one of them right now: Saranac's Black Diamond Bock.

The Matt Brewing Company continues to experiment with new beer styles in limited runs. The successful flavors get to come back as seasonals and limited releases. It's a business plan that Boston Brewery uses (much to my pleasure) and Magic Hat disdains (much to my chagrin). The Black Diamond Bock is one of those limited releases that runs during the colder months.

On the pour, the head is ok. Decent. A light brown to caramel color proclaims that its name has no relation to its appearance. The lager aroma rises to meet one's nose.

My tongue shouts, "malt!" Hops follow, but this beer remains smooth. It tastes German and sure enough, the major malt and hops ingredients are right out of Bavaria: Munich and Vienna malts coupled with the noble Hallertau hops. It all provides a reasonably strong 6.0% ABV kick.

So if you're like me and you find lagers a bit lacking, consider going darker and grab a bock. And if Saranac's Black Diamond Bock is available at your local liquor store, pick up a six pack.

\_/
DED

Harrassing Hannity

Ron Paul and Fox News don't get along. Paul wasn't invited to the New Hampshire Republican debate hosted by Fox. I don't recall if they gave the excuse that his poll numbers weren't there. Of course that ignores the fact that Paul trounced Fox anointed candidate Rudy Giuliani in Iowa. Anyway, an angry mob of Ron Paul supporters tracked down Fox mouthpiece and avid Ron Paul hater, Sean Hannity, and heckled him as walked to his hotel. There isn't much to see until you're a quarter or so away from the end.

It's not earth shattering, just nice to see. :)

\_/
DED

Root For Ron Paul

Anyone who's talked about politics with me in person, or read this blog for a long time, know that I'm a fan of Ron Paul. So, it should come as no surprise that he's my choice for the Republican nominee for President. I'm not under any illusions he'll win it, but that's not going to stop me from rooting for him. And my Democrat, liberal, and progressive (DLP from here out) friends should be rooting for him as well. I'm not insisting they vote for him. I know his social conservative views and philosophy of government's role in our lives runs contrary to theirs. They should just hope that he wins the Republican nomination.

Now why am I making this recommendation? Because I think that DLP's should hedge their bets. I'm sure that the thinking is, "We can't lose in '08. It's in the bag." To which I counter, "Really? Wasn't 2004 in the bag too?" I don't write this to rub Kerry's loss in anyone's face. I was rooting for the guy to beat W even though I didn't think he was the right choice. And it doesn't matter who's to blame. The point is that the Democrats lost the 2004 election when they should've won.

And what happened in 2000? Gore should've been able to ride Clinton's coattails to victory. With experience and 90's prosperity on his side, Gore should've made mincemeat out of the Doofus from Crawford. Bush the Elder got elected in 88 thanks to Reagan so why didn't Gore do the same if it was a sure thing? Doesn't matter. Supreme Court shenanigans handed the Presidency to W. While Gore won the popular vote, the margin of victory should've been much greater so as to render the conservative opinion of the Surpreme Court moot.

Which brings me back to my point: rooting for Ron Paul. Out of all the Republican candidates, Ron Paul is the one guy that's ok to lose to. Here's why:

He wants to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home. While he supported the retaliatory attacks on al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, he's clearly been against the war in Iraq. Not too many of the other candidates can say that they voted against the war from the start. Rather than buckle under, he stuck to his principles. Clearly, if the Democrats were to lose to him in November, they'd be safe in the knowledge that Iran wouldn't be invaded on Day 1 of his administration. Meanwhile, Chicken Hawk McCain and Rudy 9/11 have shamefully likened Paul to Hitler's appeasers in the days preceding WW2. Do the DLP's really want to risk running against either of these guys and losing?

He voted against the Patriot Act. While many in Congress were strong armed into supporting this measure, he voted against it. Not too many candidates can say that either. They were probably afraid of losing their seats in Congress by looking weak on terrorism. Amazingly, Ron Paul, a Texan, kept his. While the federal government continues to expand its powers, Ron Paul fights back. A repeal of the Patriot Act, termination of the domestic spying program, and a restoration of the 4th Amendment and Habeas Corpus would certainly occur in Paul's administration. There aren't any other Republican candidates that you can say that about.

He supports States Rights. While he often uses States' Rights as his excuse for trying to wrest control of abortion rights away from the Fed and towards the States, he's at least consistent. He's also against the War on Drugs. California and other states that have medical marijuana laws would be free from federal prosecution. It also means that states that wanted to keep abortion safe and legal would be free to do so. Don't believe him? Well, if W and a Republican controlled Congress couldn't banish a woman's right to choose in six years on a national level, then I don't see how it would change with a states' rights advocate in the White House with Democrats in control of Congress (assuming the 2006 results continue in their favor).

I hope my DLP friends see my point. With someone other than Ron Paul as the Republican candidate, a loss in this year's Presidential election would be a continuation of the same crap they've had to endure for the past eight years. More war. More encroachment on civil liberties. More subversion of the Constitution. The more smug among the DLP-ers might continue to dismiss my arguments, proudly proclaiming that the White House is locked up. It's just a matter of which Democrat. But this self-confidence is unjustified after the last two Presidential elections. Ever since 9/11, the neocons have been superb at playing the fear card. All it takes is one terrorist threat, real or imaginary, to sway people. And do you think that this administration wouldn't stoop that low to help out a fellow Republican in the polls? Well, they wouldn't if it was Ron Paul.

Root for Ron Paul.

\_/
DED

If you want to read up on Ron Paul, the Wikipedia entry strikes me as fair.