Last night I was checking out more video clips from "Don Exodus", the fella who made the video debunking the videos of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Guess what? The guy is a Christian.
But...but...but...how???? Don't all Christians believe in creationism? Don't you have to reject evolution in order to believe in Jesus Christ? Isn't the whole argument over Intelligent Design an argument between people who believe in God and people who don't? Umm, that would be no, no, and no.
Oddly enough, I thought that it was really cool that this guy was a Christian. After reading Ray Comfort's blog entries, I was starting to feel like religious people were idiots, even though my experiences tell me otherwise. So, this guy was a nice little reminder that there are plenty of people who are intelligent and still believe in God. It's a bit humbling, really. Even though I'm secure in my beliefs, it's good to have a reminder every now and then that I don't know and understand everything.
If you liked the video that I posted, check out his others. Or, just check out one of the better ones below:
Friday, May 9, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Ray Comfort vs. Reality
Ever hear of Ray Comfort? He's an evangelist who's buddies with Kirk Cameron (he of Growing Pains and annoying proselytizing fame) who has a series of videos called "The Way of the Master." Basically, it's all about spreading the word of God (read: selling their books and crap). He has this one spiel where he asks people on the street if they've ever told a lie. Of course, everybody says yes, and then he asks if they've ever taken God's name in vain. He continues along with the 10 Commandments and goes on and on until he concludes that they need to be saved by Jesus. I could go into greater detail, but just trust me that it's full of all sorts of assertions and logical fallacies.
He also likes to attack evolution, and he demonstrates his basic ignorance of the subject each time he does so. Luckily for him, most people aren't very informed, so the people he talks to aren't able to point out just where he's gone wrong. For instance, when he begins describing evolution, he talks about the Big Bang and how "first there was nothing" and then there was an explosion. Well, for one thing, the Big Bang theory doesn't say that there was "nothing" it just states that there was a Big Bang, and there is evidence to support that. Secondly, the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, but hey, why argue actual points when you can make up some of your own?
I first found out about him when somebody sent me this link to his "Atheist's Worst Nightmare" video. In it, he claims that a banana proves that there is a God. Do check it out, but don't take a sip of your drink before doing so:
Ummm...yeah. He's got me there. Never mind the fact that coconuts and pomegranates are pains in the ass to eat. Let's also not pay attention to the fact that the bananas that we enjoy are the products of selective breeding, and they do not exist that way in the wild. But hey! It's spreading the word of Jay-sus! Why bother yourself with little trivialities like facts!?
Mr. Comfort has a blog, which I've been checking out and even sometimes posting on it. It's a pretty funny site, as he keeps saying the same old crap, a few die-hard fans of his will tell him his post was brilliant, and a bunch of atheists point out how illogical he is (or how he continues to make the same factual errors over and over again.) Sometimes I think that he's really an atheist himself, and he's doing a Stephen Colbert-type of a sendup of fundamentalists Christians.
Anyway, I let most of the other atheists make whatever points I would have, but I felt the need to respond to his assertion that humans are intrinsically evil. According to his brand of Christianity (I realize that there are many sane Christians out there who find Ray Comfort to be as offensive as I do), we're all sinners and deserving of hell, whether our sins are murder or stealing gum - all of the sins are equal. Also, the only way to be saved is to believe in Jesus and give yourself over to him. According to him, and I shit you not, Anne Frank is burning in hell, as well as all the other victims of the Holocaust. Nice loving God he's got there. Of course, he gives all sorts of convoluted explanations filled with doublethink that explain why this only proves that his god is a god of love, but anybody with half a brain can see right through it.
So, his point that we're intrinsically evil caused me to respond as follows:
“What a depressing belief system you subscribe to. Humankind is intrinsically evil? I don't buy it. Are we capable of evil? Sure. But we're also capable of good. For instance, while taking a walk one time, I saw a hummingbird on the road. I picked it up to get it out of danger, and I warmed it up (it was a cold day) in my hand. Eventually, it recovered from whatever shock it was in and it flew off. If I was intrinsically evil, then I would have smashed it, or I would have simply left it lying on the street. Your assertions make absolutely no sense.”
He then took that quote to make a blog post of his own. Notice how he completely skips around my actual point without ever directly addressing it.
http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-didnt-kill-sick-bird.html
I responded yet again, but I didn't go into too much detail. What's the point, really? The guy makes a living scaring and shaming people into believing his theology, and the more believers he gets, the more money he's going to make. If you want to see more of his silliness, with comments by somebody who actually knows what he's talking about, check it out:
He also likes to attack evolution, and he demonstrates his basic ignorance of the subject each time he does so. Luckily for him, most people aren't very informed, so the people he talks to aren't able to point out just where he's gone wrong. For instance, when he begins describing evolution, he talks about the Big Bang and how "first there was nothing" and then there was an explosion. Well, for one thing, the Big Bang theory doesn't say that there was "nothing" it just states that there was a Big Bang, and there is evidence to support that. Secondly, the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, but hey, why argue actual points when you can make up some of your own?
I first found out about him when somebody sent me this link to his "Atheist's Worst Nightmare" video. In it, he claims that a banana proves that there is a God. Do check it out, but don't take a sip of your drink before doing so:
Ummm...yeah. He's got me there. Never mind the fact that coconuts and pomegranates are pains in the ass to eat. Let's also not pay attention to the fact that the bananas that we enjoy are the products of selective breeding, and they do not exist that way in the wild. But hey! It's spreading the word of Jay-sus! Why bother yourself with little trivialities like facts!?
Mr. Comfort has a blog, which I've been checking out and even sometimes posting on it. It's a pretty funny site, as he keeps saying the same old crap, a few die-hard fans of his will tell him his post was brilliant, and a bunch of atheists point out how illogical he is (or how he continues to make the same factual errors over and over again.) Sometimes I think that he's really an atheist himself, and he's doing a Stephen Colbert-type of a sendup of fundamentalists Christians.
Anyway, I let most of the other atheists make whatever points I would have, but I felt the need to respond to his assertion that humans are intrinsically evil. According to his brand of Christianity (I realize that there are many sane Christians out there who find Ray Comfort to be as offensive as I do), we're all sinners and deserving of hell, whether our sins are murder or stealing gum - all of the sins are equal. Also, the only way to be saved is to believe in Jesus and give yourself over to him. According to him, and I shit you not, Anne Frank is burning in hell, as well as all the other victims of the Holocaust. Nice loving God he's got there. Of course, he gives all sorts of convoluted explanations filled with doublethink that explain why this only proves that his god is a god of love, but anybody with half a brain can see right through it.
So, his point that we're intrinsically evil caused me to respond as follows:
“What a depressing belief system you subscribe to. Humankind is intrinsically evil? I don't buy it. Are we capable of evil? Sure. But we're also capable of good. For instance, while taking a walk one time, I saw a hummingbird on the road. I picked it up to get it out of danger, and I warmed it up (it was a cold day) in my hand. Eventually, it recovered from whatever shock it was in and it flew off. If I was intrinsically evil, then I would have smashed it, or I would have simply left it lying on the street. Your assertions make absolutely no sense.”
He then took that quote to make a blog post of his own. Notice how he completely skips around my actual point without ever directly addressing it.
http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-didnt-kill-sick-bird.html
I responded yet again, but I didn't go into too much detail. What's the point, really? The guy makes a living scaring and shaming people into believing his theology, and the more believers he gets, the more money he's going to make. If you want to see more of his silliness, with comments by somebody who actually knows what he's talking about, check it out:
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Comic book movies
Kirsti and I saw Iron Man on Sunday, and without giving anything away, let me say that it was great. (94% on the Tomatometer - the critics agree.) The thing is, I was only really looking forward to this one when I started to hear about who was involved. I mean, I figured that I'd probably see it one way or another, as I check out most comic book superhero movies whether they look good or not (except Catwoman - even I have my limits). Still, Iron Man has never been one of my favorite characters, so I didn't originally expect much from a movie. (Unlike Daredevil, who has a lot of really great comic book stories, but the movie was a bit of a turd.)
I did get excited when I heard that Robert Downey, Jr. was going to play the lead, as I'm not only a fan of his work, but I felt that he was right for the part (as most comic book fans did - just like how we all knew that Tobey Maguire was perfect for Spider-Man). The rest of the cast seemed pretty solid. What added to my enthusiasm was seeing director John Favreau talk about the film at WonderCon. He seemed to have genuine enthusiasm for the character, and he seemed interested in making something that was true to the comics.
So, Iron Man was good stuff. How does it rank up with the others? I'd say that it's up there with Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2, and the original Superman. I don't consider it to be just a good comic book movie (like I do with Hellboy - although I have hopes that its sequel will transcend it above the genre a bit); I consider it to be a good movie, period. It had genuine human emotion, characters that I cared about, a definite arc for the character, inner conflict, etc. Not only that, but it had some really fun dialogue, and it was genuinely funny. Some of the older comic book movies (looking at you, Batman and Robin) would try and interject humor into the story, but it only made the characters seem like clownish buffoons. Iron Man's humor just made the character seem more human, so it definitely worked.
The thing is, many people will look at me funny when I say that I read comics, although these are the same people who will see movies that are based on comic books - movies that they really enjoy. Yet which ones do I hear the non-comic fans rave about the most? The very ones that I mentioned. And why are those ones so good and so much better than some older adaptations (looking at you again, Batman and Robin)? They're better because they're true to the source material. While they may change some plot elements, they always get to the heart of what the character is all about. That's why they're so good, and yet they still don't seem to bring more people to the comics. Ahh well, their loss, I guess.
Still, it's nice now that there are some movies that I can point to when I want people to understand what comic book superheroes are all about. I remember trying to explain to people how the Batman movies (even though I still like the first two) didn't really capture the character as he is in the comics. (In fact, I'd have to point to the Animated Series to let them know what the "real" Batman is really like.) People seemed to think that they knew what superheroes were all about, but they clearly had no idea. Now though, I have several movies that I can point to. What's great about superhero comics? See Iron Man and you'll get a good idea.
Oh, and I've been meaning to work this in here somewhere, but I couldn't manage it. So, I'll just shoehorn it into the end: Transformers sucked ass.
I did get excited when I heard that Robert Downey, Jr. was going to play the lead, as I'm not only a fan of his work, but I felt that he was right for the part (as most comic book fans did - just like how we all knew that Tobey Maguire was perfect for Spider-Man). The rest of the cast seemed pretty solid. What added to my enthusiasm was seeing director John Favreau talk about the film at WonderCon. He seemed to have genuine enthusiasm for the character, and he seemed interested in making something that was true to the comics.
So, Iron Man was good stuff. How does it rank up with the others? I'd say that it's up there with Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2, and the original Superman. I don't consider it to be just a good comic book movie (like I do with Hellboy - although I have hopes that its sequel will transcend it above the genre a bit); I consider it to be a good movie, period. It had genuine human emotion, characters that I cared about, a definite arc for the character, inner conflict, etc. Not only that, but it had some really fun dialogue, and it was genuinely funny. Some of the older comic book movies (looking at you, Batman and Robin) would try and interject humor into the story, but it only made the characters seem like clownish buffoons. Iron Man's humor just made the character seem more human, so it definitely worked.
The thing is, many people will look at me funny when I say that I read comics, although these are the same people who will see movies that are based on comic books - movies that they really enjoy. Yet which ones do I hear the non-comic fans rave about the most? The very ones that I mentioned. And why are those ones so good and so much better than some older adaptations (looking at you again, Batman and Robin)? They're better because they're true to the source material. While they may change some plot elements, they always get to the heart of what the character is all about. That's why they're so good, and yet they still don't seem to bring more people to the comics. Ahh well, their loss, I guess.
Still, it's nice now that there are some movies that I can point to when I want people to understand what comic book superheroes are all about. I remember trying to explain to people how the Batman movies (even though I still like the first two) didn't really capture the character as he is in the comics. (In fact, I'd have to point to the Animated Series to let them know what the "real" Batman is really like.) People seemed to think that they knew what superheroes were all about, but they clearly had no idea. Now though, I have several movies that I can point to. What's great about superhero comics? See Iron Man and you'll get a good idea.
Oh, and I've been meaning to work this in here somewhere, but I couldn't manage it. So, I'll just shoehorn it into the end: Transformers sucked ass.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Summer Beers
What with the warmer months coming on, I'm trying to plan ahead and have some appropriate beers for the warmer months. While I'm sure to always have your basic amber/red ales handy, as they're pretty much good all year round, I'm keeping in mind the weather when I make my selections at my local homebrew shop.
I mentioned in my last beer-related blog my American Ale. It's a nice, all-purpose beer that's refreshing and goes well with food. This weekend, I wanted to pick up two kits for this month, and as I plan on making them back to back, I want to save some money by reusing the yeast on the second batch. (Yeast is usually around $5). Of course, I'd need to make two kinds of beers that use the same yeast.
I went with the German Hefeweizen. I'm using a different yeast than the last time I made it, and I think that this one is going to be a little more authentic than my first batch. (It'll have more of that banana-smell to it, in other words.) As my second beer, I noticed that More Beer had a new kit - a Dunkelweizen! For those of you who don't know, it's basically a dark Hefeweizen. Very refreshing with a little bit more body and character to it. I've only had a few of these before, and they're really nice when done right.
Of course, I doubt that I'll ever be able to duplicate that awesome Hefeweizen that I had when I was in Nuremberg. Gutman was the name of the brewery, I believe, and I'm pretty sure that they don't bottle their stuff, and they definitely don't export it. That was awesome, and I had two big glasses with my lunch. (Normally, I don't like to have more than one if I still have a lot of stuff to see and do that day - this stuff just tasted too damn good to say no to a second.)
So, the Hefeweizen should be ready in about three weeks (unlike a lot of beers, it's not necessary to age it out - it's almost better to have it as fresh as possible). Give it another two for the Dunkel. The Hefe is sitting in the closet right now, fermenting rather violently.
Perhaps I might even feel a little less antisocial when summer rolls around and I'll invite some folks over for brats and beers. Should be fun.
I mentioned in my last beer-related blog my American Ale. It's a nice, all-purpose beer that's refreshing and goes well with food. This weekend, I wanted to pick up two kits for this month, and as I plan on making them back to back, I want to save some money by reusing the yeast on the second batch. (Yeast is usually around $5). Of course, I'd need to make two kinds of beers that use the same yeast.
I went with the German Hefeweizen. I'm using a different yeast than the last time I made it, and I think that this one is going to be a little more authentic than my first batch. (It'll have more of that banana-smell to it, in other words.) As my second beer, I noticed that More Beer had a new kit - a Dunkelweizen! For those of you who don't know, it's basically a dark Hefeweizen. Very refreshing with a little bit more body and character to it. I've only had a few of these before, and they're really nice when done right.
Of course, I doubt that I'll ever be able to duplicate that awesome Hefeweizen that I had when I was in Nuremberg. Gutman was the name of the brewery, I believe, and I'm pretty sure that they don't bottle their stuff, and they definitely don't export it. That was awesome, and I had two big glasses with my lunch. (Normally, I don't like to have more than one if I still have a lot of stuff to see and do that day - this stuff just tasted too damn good to say no to a second.)
So, the Hefeweizen should be ready in about three weeks (unlike a lot of beers, it's not necessary to age it out - it's almost better to have it as fresh as possible). Give it another two for the Dunkel. The Hefe is sitting in the closet right now, fermenting rather violently.
Perhaps I might even feel a little less antisocial when summer rolls around and I'll invite some folks over for brats and beers. Should be fun.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
The conservative doth protest too much, methinks
If you're on the Internet, you're probably aware of Wikipedia. If you're somehow accessing this page via telepathy, then let's just say that it's an online encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Obviously, there are potential problems with this, but it's a pretty cool resource. I tell my students that they can't cite it for their papers, but that it's a good starting point to find legitimate sources (that is, if the article lists them - which is usually a sign that it's a reliable article).
Apparently, some extremist right-wingers are upset about Wikipedia because apparently it has a liberal bias. They don't care for its articles on evolution, for instance, because it says crazy stuff about how it's essentially the foundation of the biological sciences. Wikipedia also lists all of the problems with creationism and Intelligent Design. Conservapedia's founders call that liberal bias - I'd call it more of a factual bias.
Whatever. That's fodder for a potentially lengthy discussion. While the accusations regarding things like evolution are ridiculous, they may very well have a point when it comes to other topics. Still, what prompted me to write this was when I saw Conservapedia's own page of user statistics. Check out the most viewed pages:
Main Page [2,599,881]
Homosexuality [2,392,690]
Teen Homosexuality [417,353]
Wikipedia [385,013]
Arguments Against Homosexuality [332,598]
Homosexual Agenda [331,862]
Ex-homosexuals [317,409]
Homosexuality and choice [311,998]
Homosexuality and Health [292,885]
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia [289,721]
I'm detecting a pattern...hmmm...what is it...oh yeah, lots of stuff on homosexuality! Wow. Are Conservapedia's users obsessed much? You just can't make up crap like this. Do you think this even occurs to the users of Conservapedia when they see these statistics? Think that maybe one of them says, "Wow. I perhaps care about gay people a little bit too much. Maybe it's because nothing would make me feel more complete than the warm loving touch that only another man can give." Nah, I doubt it. I figure they'll just continue their shenanigans at the local rest stop or airport bathroom.
I almost feel sorry for them. Imagine what it would be like to hate what you are? Still, I am amused when guys like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig get caught with their pants down. (I'm just waiting for that "Focus on the Family" guy to get caught kneeling in front of a big strapping lumberjack. You know it's bound to happen).
Apparently, some extremist right-wingers are upset about Wikipedia because apparently it has a liberal bias. They don't care for its articles on evolution, for instance, because it says crazy stuff about how it's essentially the foundation of the biological sciences. Wikipedia also lists all of the problems with creationism and Intelligent Design. Conservapedia's founders call that liberal bias - I'd call it more of a factual bias.
Whatever. That's fodder for a potentially lengthy discussion. While the accusations regarding things like evolution are ridiculous, they may very well have a point when it comes to other topics. Still, what prompted me to write this was when I saw Conservapedia's own page of user statistics. Check out the most viewed pages:
Main Page [2,599,881]
Homosexuality [2,392,690]
Teen Homosexuality [417,353]
Wikipedia [385,013]
Arguments Against Homosexuality [332,598]
Homosexual Agenda [331,862]
Ex-homosexuals [317,409]
Homosexuality and choice [311,998]
Homosexuality and Health [292,885]
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia [289,721]
I'm detecting a pattern...hmmm...what is it...oh yeah, lots of stuff on homosexuality! Wow. Are Conservapedia's users obsessed much? You just can't make up crap like this. Do you think this even occurs to the users of Conservapedia when they see these statistics? Think that maybe one of them says, "Wow. I perhaps care about gay people a little bit too much. Maybe it's because nothing would make me feel more complete than the warm loving touch that only another man can give." Nah, I doubt it. I figure they'll just continue their shenanigans at the local rest stop or airport bathroom.
I almost feel sorry for them. Imagine what it would be like to hate what you are? Still, I am amused when guys like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig get caught with their pants down. (I'm just waiting for that "Focus on the Family" guy to get caught kneeling in front of a big strapping lumberjack. You know it's bound to happen).
I smell like I sound
Yesterday morning while I was telling my wife my plans for the evening, she informed me that she'd be out all night as well. When I asked what she was doing, she replied, "Oh, you wouldn't be interested. My mom's neighbor got us free tickets to see Duran Duran."
Wouldn't be interested? Wouldn't be interested?!!! Woman, you press me too far!
I didn't say that, exactly, but I did convey that with my facial expression. Luckily for me, Kirsti was able to hook me up with a ticket as well. So, my friends and Rock Band (the video game, for those of you who don't know) would have to wait for another time.
I have to admit, I don't really follow the band or listen to a lot of their music. At least, not within the past twenty years or so. Now, when I was a little kid, that's another story all together. I remember the first song that I heard from them - "The Reflex." I was probably in third or fourth grade, and I became an instant fan.
From there, I wound up buying all their albums (some on tape, but I actually still own Rio on vinyl). The first one I bought was a tape of their first, eponymous release. I remember pretty much driving my family crazy because I'd listen to it over and over again. (Hey! What could I do? It was the only album I had!) Pretty ironic considering that nowadays I don't even like hearing the same song twice in one day.
While I lost interest over time, I never really stopped liking them. In fact, I found that much of their music held up pretty well - a lot better than some of the crap that certain family members were listening to at the time! Some of it might sound a little bit dated, but their songs were catchy and most of them genuinely have something interesting going on if you really pay close attention.
I'm sure it's no coincidence that my loss of interest coincided with their fall from the pop charts. Still, and surprising to many, they made a decent comeback in the 90s, and those hits were as good if not better than their older stuff (especially "Ordinary World"). Since then, they've managed to stay in the public eye more or less - not quite hitting the heights of their days of glory in the mid-80s, but not exactly playing the local rutabega festival either.
So, how was the concert? With the exception of a techno portion in the middle (which wasn't bad, just not my cup of tea) it was fantastic. Kirsti was especially impressed with how well lead singer Simon Le Bon's voice has been holding up. He was also quite the showman, and the whole band seemed to be genuinely having a great time. Surprisingly enough, it wasn't a big old nostalgia fest, as the set list consisted of quite a few new songs. I found myself liking them quite a bit, especially their current hit, "Falling Down."
So, my inner 11-year old was quite satisfied (I still seemed to know many of the lyrics by heart!) but so was my more discerning 34-year old self.
Holy shit! I'm 34?
Wouldn't be interested? Wouldn't be interested?!!! Woman, you press me too far!
I didn't say that, exactly, but I did convey that with my facial expression. Luckily for me, Kirsti was able to hook me up with a ticket as well. So, my friends and Rock Band (the video game, for those of you who don't know) would have to wait for another time.
I have to admit, I don't really follow the band or listen to a lot of their music. At least, not within the past twenty years or so. Now, when I was a little kid, that's another story all together. I remember the first song that I heard from them - "The Reflex." I was probably in third or fourth grade, and I became an instant fan.
From there, I wound up buying all their albums (some on tape, but I actually still own Rio on vinyl). The first one I bought was a tape of their first, eponymous release. I remember pretty much driving my family crazy because I'd listen to it over and over again. (Hey! What could I do? It was the only album I had!) Pretty ironic considering that nowadays I don't even like hearing the same song twice in one day.
While I lost interest over time, I never really stopped liking them. In fact, I found that much of their music held up pretty well - a lot better than some of the crap that certain family members were listening to at the time! Some of it might sound a little bit dated, but their songs were catchy and most of them genuinely have something interesting going on if you really pay close attention.
I'm sure it's no coincidence that my loss of interest coincided with their fall from the pop charts. Still, and surprising to many, they made a decent comeback in the 90s, and those hits were as good if not better than their older stuff (especially "Ordinary World"). Since then, they've managed to stay in the public eye more or less - not quite hitting the heights of their days of glory in the mid-80s, but not exactly playing the local rutabega festival either.
So, how was the concert? With the exception of a techno portion in the middle (which wasn't bad, just not my cup of tea) it was fantastic. Kirsti was especially impressed with how well lead singer Simon Le Bon's voice has been holding up. He was also quite the showman, and the whole band seemed to be genuinely having a great time. Surprisingly enough, it wasn't a big old nostalgia fest, as the set list consisted of quite a few new songs. I found myself liking them quite a bit, especially their current hit, "Falling Down."
So, my inner 11-year old was quite satisfied (I still seemed to know many of the lyrics by heart!) but so was my more discerning 34-year old self.
Holy shit! I'm 34?
Friday, May 2, 2008
Lime in the Crappy Beer
I try not to be a beer snob; I honestly do.
At least, I try not to frown upon the beer choices of others. I'm not always successful, but I honestly do believe that you should drink what you like. If you honestly don't like the way a Double IPA tastes, then you shouldn't drink it just because certain people tell you that it's good. (Although Lagunitas Maximus is awesome.) I honestly only get frustrated when people say ignorant things like, "I don't like dark beer" as though "dark" is somehow a flavor. This sort of thing irritates me a bit because it shows a closed mind - as there are a lot of different styles that could be classified as "dark". (And besides, how dark does it need to be in order to be considered dark? I once had somebody say that in reference to a Sam Adams Boston Lager! I never thought of that as being dark!)
While I also don't ever buy the macro lagers like Bud, Miller, Heineken, etc., I don't find them to be bad necessarily. They're not my preference, but I've enjoyed a few MGDs when that was all there was (or the best choice anyway - I'll take an MGD over a Heineken any day).
Honestly though, I don't understand why many people actually seem to prefer the taste of light beers though. I find that they range in style from basically flavorless to outright bad. I believe that I've mentioned Bud Select before, which is Bud's low carb beer. That was genuinely awful. I got a free one and I couldn't even finish it. I mean, I realize that taste is subjective, but I just can't imagine anybody drinking that and actually thinking that it tastes good. At best, somebody might find it tolerable. As a person who genuinely enjoys beer, who sips it slowly and savors it, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement - not when there are so many other options out there.
So, maybe you've heard of this new "Miller Chill." I admit, as soon as I heard about it, I thought it sounded like an awful idea. It's basically a light beer with salt and lime flavor added - basically to compete with Corona or something, I guess. (Know why people put lime in Corona! To make it taste like something! Or to hide the fact that it tastes like puke when it's any warmer than ice cold!) From what I figure, Miller Chill is a beer for people who don't actually like beer. I guess that there's not necessarily anything wrong with that - although, why not just find something else to drink? Whatever though, I really wasn't curious enough about it to try it.
Of course, the big companies like Miller and Bud can afford to do all sorts of promotions and giveaways at various bars. (It'd be heaven if North Coast, Lagunitas, Sam Adams, Sierra Nevada, etc. would ever do a promotion when I'm at a bar!) Last night, Miller was doing a Miller Chill promotion and giving out free samples.
Now, my friends have known that I've been mocking this beer for some time. A friend of mine (who actually appreciates good beer when he has it) has admitted to buying 12 packs of it, and I give him a hard time. (Oddly enough, he doesn't defend it - he even admits that it's crap.) My (half-joking) theory is that it was specifically marketed to the douchebag demographic, and while you don't necessarily have to be a douchebag to drink it, if you're a douchebag, you'll be interested in it.
So, I tried it. I honestly tried to keep an open mind. Now, was I expecting that it could possibly be as good as a Belgian Dubbel? Well, of course not. Still, I thought that it was possible that I could be surprised and find it perhaps at least drinkable - perhaps even slightly refreshing.
Wrong. It was bad. Thing is, with a lot of bad beers, they actually taste okay on the first sip or two. Even with Bud Select, it took a few sips until I decided that I simply couldn't have any more. This one was bad right from the get-go. It's hard to explain, but here goes: You know how they make lemon-scented Windex? Well, imagine that they made lime-scented Windex. If they did, Miller Chill is what I imagine it would taste like. I know what lime is supposed to taste like, and this wasn't anything lime-like - not even an artificial candy lime. Perhaps the salt did it, but I doubt that this is an all-natural beer. I mean, it's not like light beers in general stick with the basic beer ingredients of malt, hops, yeast, and water in the first place - so why put in authentic lime and salt flavor? You gotta imagine that would be expensive, and the point of these beers is to make them cheap.
I didn't say anything though, as I was sure that my friends would have chalked it up to me having already made up my mind before taking a sip. I don't know. Perhaps that's what it was. Or maybe I'm right. (My friend who drinks it described it as being worse than he remembered.) Another friend called it a good beer after doing yard work on a hot day - you know, a beer that's good on certain conditions. I'm not buying that either though. For me, there are plenty of good, quality beers that taste good on a hot day. I'm going to be homebrewing a Belgian White beer which is perfect for that sort of a thing. My American Ale is also pretty light and refreshing, without being low on taste - or tasting gross when it warms up a little.
Of course, if you're not a homebrewer, you don't have as many options. Still, the summer offerings of Sierra Nevada and Sam Adams (among others) both do the trick nicely as well. And they taste good even if you HAVEN'T been doing yard work! Why settle for crap when you can have something good? Here are some other recommendations for summer yard work beers (if you're over 21, that is):
Spaten
Lagunitas Pilsner
Wittekerke (available at Trader Joe's for $4.99 a six pack - not the best example of a Witbier, but well worth the price!)
Hoegaarden
Trader Joe's Bohemian Lager
Springboard (New Belgium)
Black Diamond Belgian Blonde
Bud Light Lime (kidding - although I've never tried it - doubt I ever will)
At least, I try not to frown upon the beer choices of others. I'm not always successful, but I honestly do believe that you should drink what you like. If you honestly don't like the way a Double IPA tastes, then you shouldn't drink it just because certain people tell you that it's good. (Although Lagunitas Maximus is awesome.) I honestly only get frustrated when people say ignorant things like, "I don't like dark beer" as though "dark" is somehow a flavor. This sort of thing irritates me a bit because it shows a closed mind - as there are a lot of different styles that could be classified as "dark". (And besides, how dark does it need to be in order to be considered dark? I once had somebody say that in reference to a Sam Adams Boston Lager! I never thought of that as being dark!)
While I also don't ever buy the macro lagers like Bud, Miller, Heineken, etc., I don't find them to be bad necessarily. They're not my preference, but I've enjoyed a few MGDs when that was all there was (or the best choice anyway - I'll take an MGD over a Heineken any day).
Honestly though, I don't understand why many people actually seem to prefer the taste of light beers though. I find that they range in style from basically flavorless to outright bad. I believe that I've mentioned Bud Select before, which is Bud's low carb beer. That was genuinely awful. I got a free one and I couldn't even finish it. I mean, I realize that taste is subjective, but I just can't imagine anybody drinking that and actually thinking that it tastes good. At best, somebody might find it tolerable. As a person who genuinely enjoys beer, who sips it slowly and savors it, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement - not when there are so many other options out there.
So, maybe you've heard of this new "Miller Chill." I admit, as soon as I heard about it, I thought it sounded like an awful idea. It's basically a light beer with salt and lime flavor added - basically to compete with Corona or something, I guess. (Know why people put lime in Corona! To make it taste like something! Or to hide the fact that it tastes like puke when it's any warmer than ice cold!) From what I figure, Miller Chill is a beer for people who don't actually like beer. I guess that there's not necessarily anything wrong with that - although, why not just find something else to drink? Whatever though, I really wasn't curious enough about it to try it.
Of course, the big companies like Miller and Bud can afford to do all sorts of promotions and giveaways at various bars. (It'd be heaven if North Coast, Lagunitas, Sam Adams, Sierra Nevada, etc. would ever do a promotion when I'm at a bar!) Last night, Miller was doing a Miller Chill promotion and giving out free samples.
Now, my friends have known that I've been mocking this beer for some time. A friend of mine (who actually appreciates good beer when he has it) has admitted to buying 12 packs of it, and I give him a hard time. (Oddly enough, he doesn't defend it - he even admits that it's crap.) My (half-joking) theory is that it was specifically marketed to the douchebag demographic, and while you don't necessarily have to be a douchebag to drink it, if you're a douchebag, you'll be interested in it.
So, I tried it. I honestly tried to keep an open mind. Now, was I expecting that it could possibly be as good as a Belgian Dubbel? Well, of course not. Still, I thought that it was possible that I could be surprised and find it perhaps at least drinkable - perhaps even slightly refreshing.
Wrong. It was bad. Thing is, with a lot of bad beers, they actually taste okay on the first sip or two. Even with Bud Select, it took a few sips until I decided that I simply couldn't have any more. This one was bad right from the get-go. It's hard to explain, but here goes: You know how they make lemon-scented Windex? Well, imagine that they made lime-scented Windex. If they did, Miller Chill is what I imagine it would taste like. I know what lime is supposed to taste like, and this wasn't anything lime-like - not even an artificial candy lime. Perhaps the salt did it, but I doubt that this is an all-natural beer. I mean, it's not like light beers in general stick with the basic beer ingredients of malt, hops, yeast, and water in the first place - so why put in authentic lime and salt flavor? You gotta imagine that would be expensive, and the point of these beers is to make them cheap.
I didn't say anything though, as I was sure that my friends would have chalked it up to me having already made up my mind before taking a sip. I don't know. Perhaps that's what it was. Or maybe I'm right. (My friend who drinks it described it as being worse than he remembered.) Another friend called it a good beer after doing yard work on a hot day - you know, a beer that's good on certain conditions. I'm not buying that either though. For me, there are plenty of good, quality beers that taste good on a hot day. I'm going to be homebrewing a Belgian White beer which is perfect for that sort of a thing. My American Ale is also pretty light and refreshing, without being low on taste - or tasting gross when it warms up a little.
Of course, if you're not a homebrewer, you don't have as many options. Still, the summer offerings of Sierra Nevada and Sam Adams (among others) both do the trick nicely as well. And they taste good even if you HAVEN'T been doing yard work! Why settle for crap when you can have something good? Here are some other recommendations for summer yard work beers (if you're over 21, that is):
Spaten
Lagunitas Pilsner
Wittekerke (available at Trader Joe's for $4.99 a six pack - not the best example of a Witbier, but well worth the price!)
Hoegaarden
Trader Joe's Bohemian Lager
Springboard (New Belgium)
Black Diamond Belgian Blonde
Bud Light Lime (kidding - although I've never tried it - doubt I ever will)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)