I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of professional pundits commenting on professional political candidates. I'm even getting tired of my own bitter analysis of said candidates. So today I'm exploring Michelle Obama's speech, delivered on Monday, August 25 at the Democratic Party's National Convention in Denver, Colorado.
The first thing I noticed was the way Michelle spoke. Her voice did not have the polished, smooth sound that we've come to expect from politicians. While I am sure that she is an accomplished speaker at small meetings where she works, and even before good-sized crowds on the campaign trail, she betrayed just a bit of stage fright when speaking to the very large gathering in Denver. It was enchanting, and lent sincerity and passion to her words. It said, "Yes I am nervous speaking to you, but I want so badly to get my message across, I'll face down my fears." The thought that she might make a mistake (she didn't) also gave the event an aura of excitement. I hung on her every word. When Barack Obama or John McCain speak, I am lulled into complacency by the knowledge that they have done those speeches many dozens of times and could probably perform them while asleep. Michelle's periodic slight hesitations brought back the thrill of what only live television broadcasts can deliver.
Now, let's look at some of her words, and how they affected me.
As someone who, like Michelle, was born and raised on the South Side of Chicago, I felt a thrill each time she mentioned that part of town. The South Side of Chicago is, for the sake of this post, broadly defined as that part of the city south of Madison Street. South-Siders are from an area that, especially when Michelle and I were growing up, was the industrial, blue-collar heart of the city. The Union Stockyards, the steel mills, factories, junk yards, lumber yards, and gangs vying for control of my public high school, all remain vivid in my memory.
This industrial strength, however, resulted in a social price: residents of the more 'gentile' North Side of the city, as well as the outer suburban ring of towns and villages, and the more spacious, sometimes even rural 'collar counties' (geographically forming a 'ring' around metropolitan Chicago) often looked down on South Side residents. White collar versus blue collar. Managers versus union workers. Rich versus middle class, lower middle class, and poor. Also, as most African-Americans were segregated into neighborhoods on the South and West sides, and the aforementioned North Side and suburbs were virtually all White, a strong racial division was also part of the scene. With these separations in place, there was still a sense of pride in living on the South Side. An 'us' versus 'them' grittiness that, at least for a moment or two, transcended race.
So, when Michelle expressed her pride in coming from the South Side, and described her life there, my own memories and emotions rushed forward. Some negative, but mostly positive. I wonder if that's because our brains constantly filter out the painful while retaining, and even enhancing, the joyous? She united me with her and her family. I wanted to visit with them, ask what their daughters wanted to be when they grew up. What high school will they attend? How are their neighbors? Is their garbage being picked up regularly, and if not, have they complained to their Alderman? Yes, all politics are grounded in basic needs.
But, moving on, Michelle also discussed her father:
"My dad was our rock. Although he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in his early thirties, he was our provider, our champion, our hero. As he got sicker, it got harder for him to walk, it took him longer to get dressed in the morning. But if he was in pain, he never let on. He never stopped smiling and laughing — even while struggling to button his shirt, even while using two canes to get himself across the room to give my Mom a kiss. He just woke up a little earlier, and worked a little harder."
Who amongst us cannot imagine a loved one, or perhaps even ourselves, in her father's shoes? Who amongst us would have the courage, every single day, to reach within, swallow those waves of pain, and not give up or even complain?
In music, lyrics are the most important factor in my judgment of a song. Yet there are times when the instrumental accompaniment has such an infectious beat, that you simply cannot resist it regardless of the silliness of the lyrics. It just so happened that, on August 25, 2008, Michelle's lyrics and her vocal instrument were both strong and proud.
Her emotions reached out from the television screen and grabbed my heart. I was moved on a human, not political, level. Michelle crafted a phrase that was particularly poetic and powerful. In describing how we, as a people, have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be, she went on to say, "That is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope."
WHERE THE CURRENT OF HISTORY MEETS THIS NEW TIDE OF HOPE.
My apology for the caps, but it was I felt it was worth shouting. Thank you, Michelle.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Iraq's Budget Surplus Raises Questions About Reconstruction Funding
On August 5, the Washington Times ran an article on Iraq's potential total budget surplus at the end of 2008. The article, "GAO: Iraq could have $79 billion budget surplus," went on to report:
"The Iraqi government could end the year with as much as a $79 billion budget surplus as ever-increasing oil revenues pile on top of leftover income the Iraqis still haven't spent on their national rebuilding effort, congressional auditors say.
A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) made public Tuesday prompted renewed calls from senators that Baghdad pay more of the bill for its own reconstruction, which has been heavily supported with U.S. funds.
The projected Iraq surplus, including unspent money from 2005 through 2008, has been building because of rising world oil prices, increasing Iraqi oil production, the government's inability to execute budgets for spending its money and persistent violence in the country, the GAO said."
The good news is that levels of violence have decreased, and Iraq's oil production is on the rise. So why is the resulting budget surplus not being spent on any number of needed rebuilding projects? Why is the money just sitting there? As the GAO report detailed, this surplus has been building since 2005. The estimated surplus from 2005-2007 was $29 billion. With crude oil prices rising rapidly since 2007, another $50 billion will be added. The GAO report suggested the following reasons for why the money has not been spent:
"First ... (the) relative shortage of trained budgetary, procurement and other staff with the necessary technical skills as a factor limiting the Iraqi government's ability to plan and execute its capital spending," the GAO said, adding that a second problem is the government's weak accounting systems. Third ... violence and sectarian strife remain major obstacles to developing Iraqi government capacity."
Iraqi lawmaker Haider al-Abadi stated that Iraq is pulling its weight in funding reconstruction. However, the GAO also reported that from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq spent just $3.9 billion on reconstruction. How does al-Abadi define "...pulling its weight...?"
The governor of Iraq's Central Bank, Sinan al-Shabibi, said he thought the problem with not spending money on reconstruction was due not to the bulk of funds being spent elsewhere, but because of security problems, and especially the lack of experts in Iraq's ministries.
The Washington Times article also reported that, "Since 2005, the United States has funded a number of efforts to teach civilian and security ministries how to effectively execute their budgets. The efforts included programs to advise and help Iraqi government employees develop the skills to plan programs and to effectively deliver government services such as electricity, water and security."
Have the students in these classes been doing their homework? Has their progress been tracked? Have they been assigned experienced mentors to aid their efforts? I thought the post-Rumsfeld era was going to be more efficient, productive, and professional in all aspects of this war. They got the Surge right. What about the rest? Does anybody care ... or will it just be more expedient to dump it all on President Obama or President McCain?
"The Iraqi government could end the year with as much as a $79 billion budget surplus as ever-increasing oil revenues pile on top of leftover income the Iraqis still haven't spent on their national rebuilding effort, congressional auditors say.
A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) made public Tuesday prompted renewed calls from senators that Baghdad pay more of the bill for its own reconstruction, which has been heavily supported with U.S. funds.
The projected Iraq surplus, including unspent money from 2005 through 2008, has been building because of rising world oil prices, increasing Iraqi oil production, the government's inability to execute budgets for spending its money and persistent violence in the country, the GAO said."
The good news is that levels of violence have decreased, and Iraq's oil production is on the rise. So why is the resulting budget surplus not being spent on any number of needed rebuilding projects? Why is the money just sitting there? As the GAO report detailed, this surplus has been building since 2005. The estimated surplus from 2005-2007 was $29 billion. With crude oil prices rising rapidly since 2007, another $50 billion will be added. The GAO report suggested the following reasons for why the money has not been spent:
"First ... (the) relative shortage of trained budgetary, procurement and other staff with the necessary technical skills as a factor limiting the Iraqi government's ability to plan and execute its capital spending," the GAO said, adding that a second problem is the government's weak accounting systems. Third ... violence and sectarian strife remain major obstacles to developing Iraqi government capacity."
Iraqi lawmaker Haider al-Abadi stated that Iraq is pulling its weight in funding reconstruction. However, the GAO also reported that from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq spent just $3.9 billion on reconstruction. How does al-Abadi define "...pulling its weight...?"
The governor of Iraq's Central Bank, Sinan al-Shabibi, said he thought the problem with not spending money on reconstruction was due not to the bulk of funds being spent elsewhere, but because of security problems, and especially the lack of experts in Iraq's ministries.
The Washington Times article also reported that, "Since 2005, the United States has funded a number of efforts to teach civilian and security ministries how to effectively execute their budgets. The efforts included programs to advise and help Iraqi government employees develop the skills to plan programs and to effectively deliver government services such as electricity, water and security."
Have the students in these classes been doing their homework? Has their progress been tracked? Have they been assigned experienced mentors to aid their efforts? I thought the post-Rumsfeld era was going to be more efficient, productive, and professional in all aspects of this war. They got the Surge right. What about the rest? Does anybody care ... or will it just be more expedient to dump it all on President Obama or President McCain?
Friday, August 15, 2008
History of South Ossetia
I first heard about the Georgia-Russia conflict when it was reported that Georgia was withdrawing its 1000 troops from Iraq to help quell the uprising in its breakaway province of South Ossetia. First of all, I was surprised at the extent of Georgia's involvement in the Iraq war. Secondly, I asked myself, "Where and what is South Ossetia?"
Then came the news that Russia had invaded Georgia. Great. Just what the world needs. More war. My gut reaction was against Russia. Media reports supported this feeling. But I knew nothing of the region or its history. And how was South Ossetia involved? After some research, I learned the following:
I start with a partial timeline from the Free Republic, followed by a more in-depth review, thanks to Answers.Com/Wikepedia, and the Belfast Herald:
1237-40 - Mongols invade Russia, forcing Ossetians to migrate south over the Caucasus mountains to present-day Georgia.
18th and 19th centuries – The Russian empire extends to the Caucasus, provoking strong resistance from the people of the north Caucasus. The South Ossetians do not join the uprising, some preferring to side with the Russian army.
1801 - South Ossetia and Georgia are annexed by Russia and absorbed into the Russian empire.
1918 – Georgia declares independence following the Russian revolution.
1921 – The Red Army invades. The South Ossetians are accused of siding with the Kremlin.
1922 - Georgia becomes a founder member of the Soviet Union. The South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast (district) is created within Georgia in April 1922.
1989 - Demands for more autonomy in the South Ossetia region lead to violent clashes between Georgians and Ossetians.
1990-91 – South Ossetia declares its intentions to secede, leading to more clashes.
"South Ossetia lies on the southern slopes of the Caucasus, a mountain range that is home to some 50 different ethnic groups, many speaking mutually incomprehensible languages and with long histories of violent enmity.
The Caucasus were brought under Russian control in a series of wars in the 19th century, fought against not only the often fiercely-independent local peoples but the Persians and the Ottomans, who coveted the high ground between the Black and Caspian seas.
The people of the Caucasus, many of whom adhered to ancient traditions and were resentful of outsiders' attempts to control them, were perhaps the most troublesome subjects of Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union that succeeded it. Stalin – whose father was reputed to be Ossetian – in 1922 divided control over Ossetia between the Georgian and Russian Soviet republics, a move which angered Ossetians and prompted occasional protests over subsequent decades.
When the South Ossetians attempted in 1989 to reunite with ethnic kin in Russian-controlled North Ossetia, the Georgian nationalist Zviad Gamsakhurdia marched supporters into the region to confront the secessionists.
In 1989-91, as the Kremlin's hold over its empire crumbled, the Caucasus witnessed a surge in nationalism. Regions like Chechnya declared independence from Moscow but in South Ossetia, local leaders proclaimed their region part of the Russian Federation rather than the emergent sovereign state of Georgia.
Sporadic clashes between Georgians and South Ossetians – who had mostly lived together in peace for decades, often inter-marrying – continued until 1991, when Tbilisi sent in troops to crush the separatist movement. More than 2,000 people are believed to have died in the fighting.
After a coup toppled Mr Gamsakhurdia as president, his successor, Eduard Shevardnadze, agreed to a deal with Boris Yeltsin for Russian peacekeepers to monitor a ceasefire. When Mikheil Saakashvili ousted Mr Shevardnadze in the 2003 Rose Revolution, he vowed to bring South Ossetia and another breakaway region, Abkhazia, back under Tbilisi's control.
He accuses Russia of sending cash and weapons to separatists in both regions, to ensure continued Kremlin influence in the oil-rich Caucasus – the BTC pipeline carrying oil from Azerbaijan to Turkey is routed through Georgia – and to undermine Georgia's bid to join Nato [sic].
Russia has given passports to the vast majority of South Ossetians and Abkhazians, and pledges to defend its citizens in those provinces. Many South Ossetians say they expect other Caucasian peoples to support their fight against Georgia, and reports are emerging of volunteers heading for the region from Abkhazia and North Ossetia."
South Ossetia, considering itself to be a de facto autonomous entity within Georgia, held its second referendum on independence in 2006:
"The unrecognized republic of South Ossetia, a breakaway region of Georgia with its capital in Tskhinvali, held a referendum on independence on November 12, 2006. The voters answered a question: "should South Ossetia preserve its present status of a de facto independent state?" 99% of voters supported independence.
The South Ossetian Information and Press Committee announced that the residents of the Georgian villages, that are not controlled by the separatist authorities, will be able to participate. Those choosing to do so were able to use ballots written in Georgian language. Terry Davis, Secretary General of the West's main election monitoring body, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which boycotted the poll, called the referendum counterproductive and said that the ethnic Georgians were not given the right to vote.
According to the de facto authorities, the referendum was monitored by a team of 34 international observers from Germany, Austria, Poland, Sweden and other countries at 78 polling stations.
On November 11, 2006, the South Ossetian State Security Committee exposed an alleged Georgian attempt to assassinate the South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity and organize a coup d'état in the region. Alan Parastayev, the former South Ossetian Interior Minister and Supreme Court chairman, has reportedly turned himself in to the State Security Committee and confessed to being a party to the plot. The South Ossetian authorities named Amiran Meskheli, the deputy head of the Georgian Interior Ministry’s Counterintelligence Department, to be in charge of the operation[8]. The Georgian Interior Ministry denied South Ossetia's assertions."
To those readers still with me, I thank you for your time and patience. Most conflicts, from personal to political, have levels of details and nuances seldom explored in today's world. I hope that this post provided information that will give us all some new information with which to judge this conflict.
Then came the news that Russia had invaded Georgia. Great. Just what the world needs. More war. My gut reaction was against Russia. Media reports supported this feeling. But I knew nothing of the region or its history. And how was South Ossetia involved? After some research, I learned the following:
I start with a partial timeline from the Free Republic, followed by a more in-depth review, thanks to Answers.Com/Wikepedia, and the Belfast Herald:
1237-40 - Mongols invade Russia, forcing Ossetians to migrate south over the Caucasus mountains to present-day Georgia.
18th and 19th centuries – The Russian empire extends to the Caucasus, provoking strong resistance from the people of the north Caucasus. The South Ossetians do not join the uprising, some preferring to side with the Russian army.
1801 - South Ossetia and Georgia are annexed by Russia and absorbed into the Russian empire.
1918 – Georgia declares independence following the Russian revolution.
1921 – The Red Army invades. The South Ossetians are accused of siding with the Kremlin.
1922 - Georgia becomes a founder member of the Soviet Union. The South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast (district) is created within Georgia in April 1922.
1989 - Demands for more autonomy in the South Ossetia region lead to violent clashes between Georgians and Ossetians.
1990-91 – South Ossetia declares its intentions to secede, leading to more clashes.
"South Ossetia lies on the southern slopes of the Caucasus, a mountain range that is home to some 50 different ethnic groups, many speaking mutually incomprehensible languages and with long histories of violent enmity.
The Caucasus were brought under Russian control in a series of wars in the 19th century, fought against not only the often fiercely-independent local peoples but the Persians and the Ottomans, who coveted the high ground between the Black and Caspian seas.
The people of the Caucasus, many of whom adhered to ancient traditions and were resentful of outsiders' attempts to control them, were perhaps the most troublesome subjects of Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union that succeeded it. Stalin – whose father was reputed to be Ossetian – in 1922 divided control over Ossetia between the Georgian and Russian Soviet republics, a move which angered Ossetians and prompted occasional protests over subsequent decades.
When the South Ossetians attempted in 1989 to reunite with ethnic kin in Russian-controlled North Ossetia, the Georgian nationalist Zviad Gamsakhurdia marched supporters into the region to confront the secessionists.
In 1989-91, as the Kremlin's hold over its empire crumbled, the Caucasus witnessed a surge in nationalism. Regions like Chechnya declared independence from Moscow but in South Ossetia, local leaders proclaimed their region part of the Russian Federation rather than the emergent sovereign state of Georgia.
Sporadic clashes between Georgians and South Ossetians – who had mostly lived together in peace for decades, often inter-marrying – continued until 1991, when Tbilisi sent in troops to crush the separatist movement. More than 2,000 people are believed to have died in the fighting.
After a coup toppled Mr Gamsakhurdia as president, his successor, Eduard Shevardnadze, agreed to a deal with Boris Yeltsin for Russian peacekeepers to monitor a ceasefire. When Mikheil Saakashvili ousted Mr Shevardnadze in the 2003 Rose Revolution, he vowed to bring South Ossetia and another breakaway region, Abkhazia, back under Tbilisi's control.
He accuses Russia of sending cash and weapons to separatists in both regions, to ensure continued Kremlin influence in the oil-rich Caucasus – the BTC pipeline carrying oil from Azerbaijan to Turkey is routed through Georgia – and to undermine Georgia's bid to join Nato [sic].
Russia has given passports to the vast majority of South Ossetians and Abkhazians, and pledges to defend its citizens in those provinces. Many South Ossetians say they expect other Caucasian peoples to support their fight against Georgia, and reports are emerging of volunteers heading for the region from Abkhazia and North Ossetia."
South Ossetia, considering itself to be a de facto autonomous entity within Georgia, held its second referendum on independence in 2006:
"The unrecognized republic of South Ossetia, a breakaway region of Georgia with its capital in Tskhinvali, held a referendum on independence on November 12, 2006. The voters answered a question: "should South Ossetia preserve its present status of a de facto independent state?" 99% of voters supported independence.
The South Ossetian Information and Press Committee announced that the residents of the Georgian villages, that are not controlled by the separatist authorities, will be able to participate. Those choosing to do so were able to use ballots written in Georgian language. Terry Davis, Secretary General of the West's main election monitoring body, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which boycotted the poll, called the referendum counterproductive and said that the ethnic Georgians were not given the right to vote.
According to the de facto authorities, the referendum was monitored by a team of 34 international observers from Germany, Austria, Poland, Sweden and other countries at 78 polling stations.
On November 11, 2006, the South Ossetian State Security Committee exposed an alleged Georgian attempt to assassinate the South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity and organize a coup d'état in the region. Alan Parastayev, the former South Ossetian Interior Minister and Supreme Court chairman, has reportedly turned himself in to the State Security Committee and confessed to being a party to the plot. The South Ossetian authorities named Amiran Meskheli, the deputy head of the Georgian Interior Ministry’s Counterintelligence Department, to be in charge of the operation[8]. The Georgian Interior Ministry denied South Ossetia's assertions."
To those readers still with me, I thank you for your time and patience. Most conflicts, from personal to political, have levels of details and nuances seldom explored in today's world. I hope that this post provided information that will give us all some new information with which to judge this conflict.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Good News From Iraq: Al-Sadr Orders His troops To Lay Down Arms
The August 8 issue of the Chicago Tribune carried an Associated Press report that said, "Anti-U.S. Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr ordered most of his militiamen Friday to lay down their arms, and his spokesman said the young cleric might call off all resistance if the Americans accept a timetable to leave Iraq."
Who is Al-Sadr? Wikipedia describes him as, "Hojatoleslam Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr or Moktada al Sadr (سيد مقتدى الصدر Muqtadā aṣ-Ṣadr) (born August 12, 1973) is an Iraqi theologian, political leader and militia commander. Along with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, Sadr is one of the most influential religious and political figures in the country not holding any official title in the Iraqi government. Muqtada al-Sadr is the fourth son of a famous Iraqi Shi‘a cleric, the late Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr."
Al-Sadr's followers have been linked in the past with assassinations and terrorist attacks. But I suspect that the Iraqi people, Shia, Sunni, and Kurd alike, are weary of the violence and dissension. Maybe Al-Sadr recognizes this, or recognizes the futility of continued warfare.
I choose to look on the positive side of this development, and hope that Al-Sadr will remain true to his word. He has urged his militia to become part of a new organization known as the Momahidoun. Posters promoting this new group proclaim, ""It is an ideological, cultural, religious and social army that will be charged with carrying out an intellectual and scientific holy war and to free the minds, hearts and souls from the secularist Western onslaught and is absolutely prohibited from the use of arms," I am not too concerned with the fiery rhetoric of "holy war" and "secular Western onslaught." After all, President Ford, in a speech on his plan to stop inflation, launched a short-lived public relations campaign in which he described the scope of his 'attack on inflation' as "the moral equivalent of war." Overblown rhetoric seems to afflict politicians regardless of national origin.
If Al-Sadr wants to engage in a war of ideologies based upon intellectual debate, then let the best philosophy win. No intimidation. No violence. Let the Iraqi people decide what their post-Saddam country should look like.
It's also time for Senator Obama to admit that the Surge has been a major success. The troop increase has resulted in what was once considered a pipe dream - a more peaceful Iraq. This advancement has been so dramatic, that it has led today to a point where a secure Iraq, complete with withdrawal of our combat troops, is being seriously discussed by all parties in this war.
Wouldn't you get a Surge of patriotism to see the following: a joint appearance by Senators Obama and McCain, in which Obama admits that he had backslid and fallen into the traditional politician's trap of being unwilling to admit an error. But now he wants to thank McCain for his foresight on the Surge, admit to its success, turn to McCain, shake his hand, and both turn to the camera, raising each other's hand and proclaiming loudly, "On this we are united - a free and independent Iraq taking its rightful place in the family of nations!"
Who is Al-Sadr? Wikipedia describes him as, "Hojatoleslam Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr or Moktada al Sadr (سيد مقتدى الصدر Muqtadā aṣ-Ṣadr) (born August 12, 1973) is an Iraqi theologian, political leader and militia commander. Along with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, Sadr is one of the most influential religious and political figures in the country not holding any official title in the Iraqi government. Muqtada al-Sadr is the fourth son of a famous Iraqi Shi‘a cleric, the late Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr."
Al-Sadr's followers have been linked in the past with assassinations and terrorist attacks. But I suspect that the Iraqi people, Shia, Sunni, and Kurd alike, are weary of the violence and dissension. Maybe Al-Sadr recognizes this, or recognizes the futility of continued warfare.
I choose to look on the positive side of this development, and hope that Al-Sadr will remain true to his word. He has urged his militia to become part of a new organization known as the Momahidoun. Posters promoting this new group proclaim, ""It is an ideological, cultural, religious and social army that will be charged with carrying out an intellectual and scientific holy war and to free the minds, hearts and souls from the secularist Western onslaught and is absolutely prohibited from the use of arms," I am not too concerned with the fiery rhetoric of "holy war" and "secular Western onslaught." After all, President Ford, in a speech on his plan to stop inflation, launched a short-lived public relations campaign in which he described the scope of his 'attack on inflation' as "the moral equivalent of war." Overblown rhetoric seems to afflict politicians regardless of national origin.
If Al-Sadr wants to engage in a war of ideologies based upon intellectual debate, then let the best philosophy win. No intimidation. No violence. Let the Iraqi people decide what their post-Saddam country should look like.
It's also time for Senator Obama to admit that the Surge has been a major success. The troop increase has resulted in what was once considered a pipe dream - a more peaceful Iraq. This advancement has been so dramatic, that it has led today to a point where a secure Iraq, complete with withdrawal of our combat troops, is being seriously discussed by all parties in this war.
Wouldn't you get a Surge of patriotism to see the following: a joint appearance by Senators Obama and McCain, in which Obama admits that he had backslid and fallen into the traditional politician's trap of being unwilling to admit an error. But now he wants to thank McCain for his foresight on the Surge, admit to its success, turn to McCain, shake his hand, and both turn to the camera, raising each other's hand and proclaiming loudly, "On this we are united - a free and independent Iraq taking its rightful place in the family of nations!"
Friday, August 1, 2008
Anheuser-Busch Brewery Sold To Belgium Company: Thank You!
Fox News reported on July 14, "Anheuser-Busch, the maker of Budweiser and Bud Light, has agreed to a takeover by a giant Belgian brewer, a union that creates a global beer leader and brings to an end one of the most iconic names in American business." The Belgium company is InBev SA.
Normally, when an American icon is sold to a foreign power, I would delve deeply into the story. Perhaps I would rant on the loss of another part of our culture. An institution that had been born and bred and brought to profitability thanks to the sweat and toil of thousands of hardworking American citizens.
No delving, deep or otherwise, was necessary to comment on this sale. I'm delighted that Anheuser-Busch is now the problem, I mean property, of Belgium. The great U.S. of A. no longer has to endure the blame for producing Bud and Bud Light. Blame Belgium!
I mean, have you ever tasted Bud or Bud Light? And then tasted a full-bodied brew? One that has actual flavor? Bud and Bud Light fall into the lager category. Lagers were first brewed 500 years ago in central Europe. Bud, Bud Light, and every other American lager that I've tasted that are produced by large macrobreweries, as opposed to those produced by microbreweries, are watered-down, tasteless disgraces to the term 'lager.'
At some point, a decision must have been made to aim for what was perceived as the lowest common denominator amongst American beer drinkers: only include the briefest hint of beer taste, and serve it icy cold. Some beer marketeers must have decided that strong tastes and aromas might offend some demographic; or, if drinkers took the time to sip and savor their brews, fewer barrels would be sold. Also, profits could be increased by limiting the amount of hops, malted barley, and yeast used in the brewing process.
When lagers, ales, bocks, porters, stouts, et cetera are served very cold, their natural flavors, their 'personality,' remain somewhat hidden. I'm not suggesting that they be served warm, but from personal experience (especially with ales), I have found that their flavor is brought to a peak by taking a bottle out of the refrigerator, and letting it stand at room temperature for 8-10 minutes before opening. This is vital! The proper pouring technique is to tip your stein or glass at about a 45 degree angle, and s-l-o-w-l-y pour the brew down the side of the glass. Pouring it straight down creates an impressive head but causes irreparable harm to the carbonation and you'll end up with a flat, soulless drink.
I seem to have wandered a bit from my initial position concerning the sale of an American icon to overseas interests. That meandering may be due to my having imbibed, I mean RESEARCHED, a couple of Fat Tire Amber Ales, produced by New Belgium Brewing of Fort Collins, Colorado. Did I mention that Edward, my father, may he rest in peace, trained at Fort Collins (then known as Camp Collins) in 1942 as a member of the 10th Mountain Division (U.S. Army ski troops) before being shipped to Italy? There he was, a working class first generation American kid from the south side of Chicago who probable couldn't even spell 'ski,' so of course the Army put him in the 10th Mountain Division (he was very proud to have served in the 10th, by the way). Oops, there I go again. But speaking of Colorado breweries, won't some darned foreigners please buy Coors Brewery. Their despicable drizzle in a bottle is little more that tap water with a drop of food coloring.
Well, I hear that it's "Last Call," so I'll wrap this up with a suggestion. If you want to try a flavorful brew made in America, look for those produced by small, local microbreweries, a/k/a craft breweries. Use the search engine of your choice and type in, 'microbreweries' and then your zip code. I guarantee that you'll be more pleased with those choices than with what you may have settled for in the past. Cheers!
P.S. Young's Brewery in London produces a wonderful selection of brews that should be available in larger liquor stores. My personal all-time favorite, Old Nick (a barleywine-style ale) was made there but has been discontinued. I was deeply depressed until one of this blog's frequent commentators recommended an American brew entitled 'Arrogant Bastard Ale' produced by Stone Brewing Company in Escondido, California. This ale is a virtual twin to my departed friend Old Nick: a powerful sipping brew that is meant to be savored slowly. I highly recommend it, and feel that the following quote proves its author meets the Arrogant Bastard standard:
"I drink to make other people interesting."
-- George Jean Nathan (drama critic)
Normally, when an American icon is sold to a foreign power, I would delve deeply into the story. Perhaps I would rant on the loss of another part of our culture. An institution that had been born and bred and brought to profitability thanks to the sweat and toil of thousands of hardworking American citizens.
No delving, deep or otherwise, was necessary to comment on this sale. I'm delighted that Anheuser-Busch is now the problem, I mean property, of Belgium. The great U.S. of A. no longer has to endure the blame for producing Bud and Bud Light. Blame Belgium!
I mean, have you ever tasted Bud or Bud Light? And then tasted a full-bodied brew? One that has actual flavor? Bud and Bud Light fall into the lager category. Lagers were first brewed 500 years ago in central Europe. Bud, Bud Light, and every other American lager that I've tasted that are produced by large macrobreweries, as opposed to those produced by microbreweries, are watered-down, tasteless disgraces to the term 'lager.'
At some point, a decision must have been made to aim for what was perceived as the lowest common denominator amongst American beer drinkers: only include the briefest hint of beer taste, and serve it icy cold. Some beer marketeers must have decided that strong tastes and aromas might offend some demographic; or, if drinkers took the time to sip and savor their brews, fewer barrels would be sold. Also, profits could be increased by limiting the amount of hops, malted barley, and yeast used in the brewing process.
When lagers, ales, bocks, porters, stouts, et cetera are served very cold, their natural flavors, their 'personality,' remain somewhat hidden. I'm not suggesting that they be served warm, but from personal experience (especially with ales), I have found that their flavor is brought to a peak by taking a bottle out of the refrigerator, and letting it stand at room temperature for 8-10 minutes before opening. This is vital! The proper pouring technique is to tip your stein or glass at about a 45 degree angle, and s-l-o-w-l-y pour the brew down the side of the glass. Pouring it straight down creates an impressive head but causes irreparable harm to the carbonation and you'll end up with a flat, soulless drink.
I seem to have wandered a bit from my initial position concerning the sale of an American icon to overseas interests. That meandering may be due to my having imbibed, I mean RESEARCHED, a couple of Fat Tire Amber Ales, produced by New Belgium Brewing of Fort Collins, Colorado. Did I mention that Edward, my father, may he rest in peace, trained at Fort Collins (then known as Camp Collins) in 1942 as a member of the 10th Mountain Division (U.S. Army ski troops) before being shipped to Italy? There he was, a working class first generation American kid from the south side of Chicago who probable couldn't even spell 'ski,' so of course the Army put him in the 10th Mountain Division (he was very proud to have served in the 10th, by the way). Oops, there I go again. But speaking of Colorado breweries, won't some darned foreigners please buy Coors Brewery. Their despicable drizzle in a bottle is little more that tap water with a drop of food coloring.
Well, I hear that it's "Last Call," so I'll wrap this up with a suggestion. If you want to try a flavorful brew made in America, look for those produced by small, local microbreweries, a/k/a craft breweries. Use the search engine of your choice and type in, 'microbreweries' and then your zip code. I guarantee that you'll be more pleased with those choices than with what you may have settled for in the past. Cheers!
P.S. Young's Brewery in London produces a wonderful selection of brews that should be available in larger liquor stores. My personal all-time favorite, Old Nick (a barleywine-style ale) was made there but has been discontinued. I was deeply depressed until one of this blog's frequent commentators recommended an American brew entitled 'Arrogant Bastard Ale' produced by Stone Brewing Company in Escondido, California. This ale is a virtual twin to my departed friend Old Nick: a powerful sipping brew that is meant to be savored slowly. I highly recommend it, and feel that the following quote proves its author meets the Arrogant Bastard standard:
"I drink to make other people interesting."
-- George Jean Nathan (drama critic)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
