Adult Content re: Hobby Lobby

Honestly, I don't know why I'm wasting my time writing this.  Probably because I'm stuck inside from all the rainy weather, and I don't presently have a song to work on.  Maybe I'm just bored and angry.  It's not like many will read this, much less respond with a like, a re-post or a comment.

We're fucked.  Why?  Gee, where should I start?  Because we have too many asinine Republican politicians saying batshit crazy things like:

"It's (birth control) a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."  - Rick Santorum

"If we took away the minimum wage…we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level."  - Michele Bachmann

And of course, if their insanity isn't bad enough, there are people out there who actually VOTE for idiots like this, so how f*g stupid do THEY have to be???

And then we have this most recent SCOTUS decision regarding Hobby Lobby.  One of the biggest problems - as I see it - is not just that the male justices are Republican ass-lickers, not just that David Green (CEO Hobby Lobby) is a f*g hypocrite because he makes his millions off of trinkets from China, where they DO practice abortion on a mass scale, but that a lot of the people pissing and moaning about this whole situation are incapable or unwilling to make finer distinctions where religion is concerned.  And that unwillingness to properly dissect this issue clouds their thinking where any other issue is concerned.  

In other words, we'll likely see another shitload of anti-religious copy-and-pasting on the internet when in fact the whole problem is abuse of religion, not religion per se.

Basically, too many people are just too f*g lazy to look objectively at an issue and it's just easier to trash something in a wholesale fashion than deal with specifics.  Thinking is hard.

Religion isn't to blame for what happened with Hobby Lobby.  David Green is to blame.  Justice Roberts is to blame.  Indeed, Justice Ginsburg's dissent is quite clear about how a corporation is not a religious organization.

What we have here are people like Green and Roberts who abuse a system of law and mislead people into thinking that the issue is one of religious freedom. This is no different than the open-carry ammosexuals who insist that toting around loaded weapons in public is the ultimate exercise of their freedom.  And by so doing, they serve as a bad example of a mature, responsible gun owner. Same way that some weed-lovers give all other cannabis users a bad name.

Green is a hypocrite.  Roberts is a lap dog.  And neither of those facts has any direct causal link to spirituality, itself.

A lot of women are enraged about this SCOTUS decision, as well they should be, but let us all properly focus and direct that rage.

Marital Longevity

This blog will probably not be any kind of revelation for long-term married couples, but hopefully, I will hit a few notes here to which you can relate.

I don't consider successful marriage relationships to be rocket science, although I will admit that it requires a significant amount of effort.  Actually, that effort is  totally dependent upon the personalities of the two people in the relationship. If the people in question are fairly easy-going, and not terribly egotistical or selfish, maintaining the relationship will be much easier and more successful than if it involves two people who are all about themselves.

This blog entry is not scientific in that it's not based upon a pile of data, but that doesn't mean it's invalid.  My statements and opinions are based upon personal experience - our 44 year relationship as compared/contrasted to that of many couples we've known over the years.  Having been happily married for 44 years is a significant milestone when roughly half of all marriages end in divorce, so I think I can speak from some position of knowledge, understanding and success.

The diagram I created above is sort of borrowed from Maslow's hierarchy of needs, in that the lower sections are some of the more basic reasons for staying together and the upper sections represent things that can only be fully enjoyed and appreciated if your relationship has a firm foundation. Let's start at the bottom, shall we?

The gray base of the pyramid contains the only data I gleaned from the internet about why some couples remain together.  Granted, on one hand,it is a rather pathetic and dark reason (for the children), but on the positive side, one of the main joys of having children is raising them, watching them grow and develop, enjoying their innocence and sense of wonder. But it is sad to hear someone admit that the spark is gone in their relationship, and that they just put up with one another because the children deserve to have both a mother and father.  Hopefully, there's no blatant arguing or domestic violence going on; that certainly isn't healthy for any child.

The brown section represents the basic fear of loneliness; of growing old alone.  While there are some people who seem to enjoy a solitary existence, and while we all need periods of alone time, most people prefer to enjoy life with a partner, whether we're talking hetero or same-sex couples.  Someone to share Life's journey with, someone with which to share your thoughts, dreams, hopes, fears, etc.  Still, pretty basic stuff here, yet I've known people who - because of their upbringing - never really developed their inter-personal skills, and while there is a need inside them for companionship, they are basically so self-centered and incapable of giving, that they don't bring much to a relationship.  So, many people may desire companionship, but they just don't have much to offer the relationship in the way of empathy.  Truly, they'd be better off with a cat, only because dogs like to interact more with their owners.

The orange section is sad, and represents several couples I've known.  They're not happy in their relationships, and they've either tried (and failed) to repair what's wrong or they just don't know how to do that.  In either case, they plod along from day to day, not happy and perhaps not totally miserable, but just missing out on a lot of joy.  Whether the relationship is fairly new or many years old - and it's usually the man saying this - he doesn't want to get divorced because it's going to cost him more than just putting up with the current situation. That's truly pathetic. Perhaps there's not outright hatred and war, but there's no love, no real joy, and THAT'S the reason (hopefully) that people get married in the first place.

Now, we come to the good stuff - shared interests.  This area includes a lot of things, and it doesn't matter if its something small or large, as long as the two people involved enjoy doing it. It could be walks along the beach, or in the woods.  Or just sitting on the porch swing, reading.  When my wife and I first met, we were both passionate about music - recorded and live.  There was always music playing in the house.  We loved going to see top-name groups and performers and being part of the experience.  Soon, we learned that we shared an interest in camping, fishing, canoeing, exploring, nature, and gardening.  Life - for us - was not about acquiring things, but about doing things.  And, as much as our budget would allow, we've enjoyed pursuing those interests to the four compass points of the lower 48 states.  It's always been about the open road or what's around the next bend, or over the next hill.  And obviously, those shared interests have been part of a stable foundation for our life together. 

It really escapes me how couples can manage to forget the importance of sharing things together.  I don't know how they manage to drift into these separate unrelated individual activities.  And yes, yes, I realize that couples do need a certain amount of that, too.  As much as we share activities, we still do things, enjoy things by ourselves, but my point is, the majority of activities are shared and not solo.

And that brings us to the top of the pyramid, what I consider to be some of the highest quality moments; the ones that you can only fully appreciate if you love one another, if you like one another as people. I'm talking about the more tactile and intimate moments - from holding hands and cuddling to therapeutic massage to tender coupling to sweaty animalistic sex.  Surely, there is what we call casual sex and we've probably all had some of that, truth be told, but I'm talking about the kind of intimacy, the kind of bonding that only happens when people are in love (ok, and a combination of love and lust), and also when they've been together for a few decades.  That's some pretty powerful stuff, there. A relationship based primarily on sex can survive, but more often than not, it doesn't last long.  Sex is a powerful glue of sorts and I will admit that it's certainly one of our favorite activities, but it's also enhanced and amplified by the love we share and the years we've spent cultivating it.

I choose to put culinary delights in this top section, although they'd fit just as well in the one below.  And where physical pleasure is concerned, I don't want to diminish the pleasure and importance of hands-on therapy; rubbing sore muscles and such.  I can't emphasize that part enough for any couple, young or old.  Professional therapists get (on avg.) $60/hr for their services, and it's not that difficult to give your partner the benefit of healing touch.  You don't have to be a professional wrestler to give good massage. One of the biggest benefits of massage is just the relaxation of the muscles and the encouragement of circulation; getting the lactic acid out of the muscle tissues.  Of all the toys we own, one of our favorites is a professional folding massage table.  We've certainly gotten out money's worth out of that.

In addition to good therapy and good sex there's the sharing of ideas, philosophies, dreams on a mature level; discussing cosmic topics, controversial topics, or just anything that makes the brain tick. Intellectual stimulation.  And in fact, I neglected to mention above that the largest sexual organ in your body is your brain.  Related point - ED drugs like Viagra aren't magic.  They don't just automatically do what they do, like pain killers; they require mental stimulation.  Arousal.  Without it, they don't do anything.  So, what I'm suggesting is that mental stimulation - of any kind - is one of the higher order activities for couples.

And beyond that, what really escapes me, what I really find depressing about couples that are less than in love is that somehow, they seem to have lost track, lost sight of the fact of why they got together in the first place.  Granted, we all age, we all change, but down deep, where it counts, we're still basically the same person we were when we met.  I still have most of the same passions I had when I was 18.  They may have grown and developed, but they're the same passions.  And I still love my wife for the same reasons I loved her when we first met. 

Sadly, I've seen couples who seem to keep track of their affairs like accountants.  You'd think there should be a scoreboard in the kitchen.  Just about everything seems to be tit-for-tat.  Quid pro quo.  Gawd, what an exhausting way to maintain a relationship.  Like children counting out M&Ms, to be sure that no one got more than the other.

Do we argue?  Not very often, certainly not about things or money.  The minister that married us (one whom I did my Lutheran catechism studies under) told us that if we could avoid arguing about money, we'd be light years ahead of most couples.  And he was absolutely correct.  My answer to one person who asked if we still argued was,"we sorta got tired of that shit."  We'd sooner be in love than nit-picking about some stupid, small shit.

So, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.  We frequently joke about:  "yeah, we should have been marriage counselors."  We certainly have the experience….

Music That Sucks

I haven't written about music lately.  I've been making music, though.  Just finished recording a re-write of a hilarious John Prine song, Crazy as a Loon. It reflects my own brand of mental illness.  It was great fun.  When a song is autobiographical, they lyrics just about write themselves, and playing a country song was a nice change of pace. I try to keep things interesting. My previous recording was a love song, and before that, heavy rock.

But regarding other current popular music - whatever's on the Billboard charts, new artists - good grief, most of it really, really sucks. 

I listen to a lot of music; certainly not every genre, but a wide variety.  I watch a lot of concerts and other live performances on two satellite channels. Then, there's my iTunes radio and iTunes store.   Every Saturday, I listen to the classic Prairie Home Companion live radio show. It hardly gets more diverse than that.

I did a quick screen shot of some stuff I was checking out.  There are at least a dozen major music markets on my iTunes, and that's not counting a wide variety of rock, blues, jazz and pop. I thought it was interesting that although I appreciate a wide variety of styles, I could find very little new albums, songs and artists that appealed to me.

We all have specific, individual tastes.  Some are broad, some more narrowly defined.  But to find something that I enjoyed listening to, much less something I wanted to buy, that was tough.  I'm sure my own music career and journey have given me more criteria I might apply to a song, but you'd think there would be more out there that might appeal to me.  Apparently not.  Well not a lot of contemporary stuff, anyway.  And I don't think I'm stuck in the past.  I love something about most every musical decade.  As a child, I grew up listening to the Big Bands and vocal icons like Sinatra and Crosby. They were followed by Elvis, the Beatles and everything after that.  I wasn't particularly fond of the disco movement, although it was fun performing it live, perhaps more for the visual surroundings (ahem, cough) if not the music, itself.  Eh, the Bee Gees wrote a few decent tunes during that time.

Otherwise, I've always listened to and performed everything from classic country to hard rock.  And lately, as markets go, the overall quality of some of the country material might be higher than that of the rock genres.

When I listen to my iTunes radio these days, it's tailored to artists like John Hiatt, Bonnie Raitt, Eric Clapton, Marcia Ball, Jimmy Buffett, Eric Clapton, J.J. Cale, Diana Krall and Zac Brown - to name a few.

What have I heard new with the past year or so that caught my attention?  As female vocalists go (with a hot back-up band), I like Imelda May.  Listen to Johnny Got a Boom Boom.  Catchy kind of a throwback tune, and live, onstage, Imelda and the band have great stage presence.  As rock goes, Theory of a Deadman has a solid, not obnoxiously loud rock sound.  The vocals are good, and lyrics creative.  I suggest Lowlife or Bad Girlfriend.

It's not a matter of being overly-critical or unable to appreciate less complex forms.  Just today I liked hearing a new duet by Emmylou Harris and Rodney Crowell, Hanging Up My Heart.  This song was written and engineered in a very classic, old-school country style.  It was simple and clean sounding and still had such a level of precision to it.  

I watched dozens of new acts on Jools Holland's music program and many of them are performing almost painfully simple songs; very few chord changes, very elementary percussion and the lyrics…..meh.  And I'm not comparing it to people like Bob Dylan or Tom Waits.  It's just pretty thin, limp and watery stuff.  Fluff.  There are a whole slew of bands doing sound-alike material, much of it with a fairly neanderthal dance club percussion. 

If there's any similarity between my musical tastes and my culinary tastes, I appreciate subtle flavors, but there's something to be said for full flavors, texture and presentation.  Last week, I watched an absolutely riveting live performance by David Gilmour (Pink Floyd) from Gdansk, Poland, recorded a few years ago, and the man has such an astounding sense of timing and phrasing.  It's not just about playing loud or fast, or a lot of notes.  He plays with intent.

So I don't think a lot of this contemporary music sucks  just because I'm old.

It genuinely sucks.

This? Or This?

I'm just posing the question, here, whether we, as a society, as a civilization can come to grips with the fact that we have created our own industrialized Hell, our own environmental nightmare, and take logical steps to perhaps reverse some of that process, repair some of that damage…OR…are we just doomed to ride our jet skis and SUV's into the smoggy sunset?

Have we, over time, just become more and more comfortable, more and more entertained by technology and shiny objects, more accustomed to and desirous of an easier lifestyle, that we are unwilling to give up some of those comforts and toys if it meant cleaning up our environment, reducing our use of fossil fuels and chemicals?  Or will we just build more 3M factories to manufacture their #3210 Industrial Respirators?

Or do some of us fantasize that we can continue and sustain our current way of life; that we can have our cake and eat it too?

I don't have the answer.  I'm just asking the question.

Once upon a time…people grew more of the food they ate.  They didn't travel as much; either on domestic highways or on intercontinental flights.  Three generations often lived under one roof.   Then, gradually, people moved off the farm and to the big city.  People became more transient, more independent.  The American Dream (for many) gradually morphed into owning a larger home, having 2-3 children, two cars, maybe a boat and/or some other toys.  Maybe a summer home.  Suburbia flourished.  Malls were built.  Businesses sprang up to build the things we seemed to want, not just for utilitarian jobs (watering and cutting the lawn) but for entertainment and recreation.

How would it impact the economy if we suddenly stopped making jet skis, or thousands of 4-wheelers, or SUVs, or snowmobiles?  Or any of a hundred other non-essential products?  Could we re-absorb that labor force into something more utilitarian and sensible?  I don't know.

My gut reaction is negative.  Figuratively speaking - and I don't need a torrent of hate mail on this - I think that as a society, we've become a herd of obese fast-food addicts who can't go to the mailbox without our Hoveround.  I know there are people with a legitimate need for these devices; I'm speaking about the rest of us.  I think that on the whole, we've become so dependent on convenience that younger generations - in spite of having a historical record of America - think that this is some kind of natural progression.

I would gladly become part of a greener, more self-sustaining community and lifestyle.  I just think that the majority of non-handicapped consumers couldn't handle that.  Yes, we do have some cities that have taken mass transportation seriously and which exhibit higher levels of bicycle use, but that's nothing when compared to a city like Amsterdam.  We are making strides with solar and wind power, but I still think that a lot of people fantasize that this will just replace or current coal-fired power sources, and that we will just continue business as usual.  

Will the direction, pace and style of our consumerism continue, or can it significantly change?

I'm thinking it won't.  Not enough.

A Rose By Any Other Name

This blog is going to be rather redundant for most of my friends, as they all understand the concept of things like public water, public sewers, public fire departments, etc.  As a (supposedly) civilized and industrialized nation, we construct agencies and networks to provide for the general public in ways that the average individual or even small grassroots organizations cannot.

Surely, we all can (and do) help one another - friends, family and strangers - in small ways.  We shovel the sidewalk or cut the grass of the handicapped neighbor or elderly neighbor.  We do things that are just humane.  "Human kindness."  But we don't have the resources, the equipment, the training to deal with large fires or purifying water in large amounts.  For this - we need large utilities, organized and trained professionals.

Too many people get their undies in a knot over the word socialism, when in fact unemployment insurance, worker's compensation, family and medical leave, food stamps….socialism all.  Public parks, public libraries, police, public schools, public transit, AMTRACK, disaster relief, on and on.

Churches and non-profit organizations can only do so much, and as long as organized religions continue to build expensive, opulent houses of worship, it's unlikely that their membership is going to increase (or their coffers) because people look at that as waste, just as some Christians complain about paying taxes to help the poor and less-fortunate.  One of the largest churches in my home town has a new compound that looks like a landing strip for a UFO.  It's absolutely huge.  It's obnoxious.  Now, that congregation probably includes some very nice people who make some very nice contributions every Sunday, but on the surface, to the rest of society, it just doesn't look right.

We have social service agencies because we need a more structured way of dealing with problems.  Without it, you know damn well that many individuals would say,"screw 'em, let 'em starve, let 'em suffer," more out of penuriousness and lack of benevolence than anything. People who exhibit that "I got mine - screw you" mindset.  We're all part of the solution, and we're all part of the problem.  We'll always have poor people and those who are in dire situations.  We'll probably always have some unemployment.  And unfortunately, we'll probably always have slackers.  That's life.  But we don't let that fact deter us from the task at hand, or allow it to be an excuse for turning our backs on those in need.

But no.  On the whole, smaller organizations, churches and the like, much less individuals are not equipped to deal with the situation.

Even the Amish, that one might think of as a closed society; one that takes care of it's own, is not a perfect example. On an individual basis, groups may choose to avail themselves of various modern conveniences or not. They make use of local law enforcement, hospitals, and things like raw material processing (lumber, steel, engines).  They are far from self-sufficient. As regards their need for healthcare - just like the rest of us - their ability to help one another is still dependent upon having a large enough pool of resources (meaning money to pay medical bills) to draw from.  And, because - on average - the Amish don't avail themselves of more regular doctor visits (annual checkups), they exhibit a considerable amount of advance disease/illness situations, just like anyone else without access to basic health insurance.  So, while the Amish faith and lifestyle may satisfy their spiritual needs, it's far from sufficient to deal with larger social issues.

So, let's not get all frothy about the word socialism or the fact that we pay taxes to provide services for someone WE would not personally help or have sympathy for.  Don't like it?   Try the Amish. But uh….they still pay taxes.

Integrity

No one challenged Walter Cronkite's integrity.  No one dared.  No one would have even considered trying, even if Cronkite's broadcast was contrary to whatever political perspective they held.  If Uncle Walter said it, that mean it was true.  You could take it to the bank and pay bills with it.  Uncle Walter's word was gold.  You knew he wasn't shilling for one party or another.  I can't imagine him engaging in mindless banter after telling the story of a tragic death or national crisis.  But then, that wasn't the way it was done back then.

No, he didn't have a magic screen.  He did not have the ability to conduct interviews via hologram.  He did not have Twitter, Google Earth or computer graphics.  Yet, he had one thing without which none of those things matters:  integrity.

Walter Cronkite remains an untouchable icon, as he should.  We need heroes.  We need heroes in the news media, people who are above reproach by the extremist infotainment pundits who manipulate lesser minds.  We need to have a baseline of information that everyone will believe in and accept to be accurate.  We can still debate right and wrong, good and bad, but at least we can agree on the facts underlying our debate.  We haven't had that agreement in a long time.

But things were different back then, when the news divisions weren't underneath the entertainment divisions of networks.  Newsmen didn't banter or do promos and teasers.

Unlike today, there was a factual baseline by which all disagreement could be weighed.  We have lost that standard for what constitutes fact, and are now left to create our own set of facts.  We denigrate the news media's representations, and pick and choose what reality we wish to adopt.  We don't really debate anymore, since we're arguing alternate sets of facts rather than different value judgements based on an agreed-upon set of facts.

Without the standard, we have no common ground.  To improve the human condition, we require a standard.

And on the other side of the issue, we have this car full of clowns at Fox News; people who aren't worthy to hold Cronkit's overcoat. And this utter lack of integrity is NOT subject to "interpretation;" it is not a matter of opinion.  It is not a poem nor a theory.

Bottom line - in 1997, Fox fired two employees for refusing to include false information in a report on Monsanto's production of RGBH (bovine growth hormone).  The employees sued Fox, won, and were awarded $425,000, but Fox appealed the case and won.  The court ruling stated,"…the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news - which the FCC has called its 'news distortion policy' - does not qualify as the required 'law, rule or regulation' under section 448.102.'"

Furthermore, on Feb. 14, 2003, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization.  The attorneys for Fox argued that the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

How do any of these people sleep at night or look at themselves in the mirror?

We're talking about men and women that not only misrepresent the facts, but change the story from day to day, without any sort of retraction or explanation, just like in Orwell's 1984, where the characters Jones and Rutherford are recognized as heroes of the state one day, and denounced as traitors the next, and Winston Smith (the main character) merely changes the story in the news archives, as though it was never any other way.  And all the smaller, lesser minds think nothing of it.

We are a nation suffering from short term memory.  Fox talking heads tell it one way, then another, and no one calls them on the switch, much less the original lie.

There is not ONE of my friends, family, former college classmates or online friends that has to think about any of this for more than a second.  There are simply professions that should be held to a higher standard;  journalists, doctors, scientists, religious leaders, amongst others.  It's about integrity.  It's about pursuing and telling the truth, no matter where it takes you, regardless of one's personal feelings, beliefs, philosophies, or political leanings.

Ask any farmer in my neck of the woods; men whose word is bond, who seal many business deals with a mere handshake, not a contract.  If your word is no good, you're not worth much.  Integrity is everything.  It cannot be bought.

Indeed, where Fox News and others are concerned, Uncle Walter has left the building.

Sources:

1.  http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/07/18/the-standard-walter-cronkite/
2.  http://seattletimes.com/html/editorialsopinion/2009519564_pitts23.html
3.  http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/12/4054226/about-that-missing-plane-give.html

Beer and Me

I love beer, many different kinds, and of course, I have my favorites and those  I rather detest, but will drink because someone I like usually gave it to me and I don't want to be rude by refusing it.  The majority of the time, I drink what I like, but there are those occasions where what I like isn't available, so I usually just smile and go bottoms-up.  

So many beers ~ so little time.

With food, many of us developed what you might call a standard from our days of youth.  I grew up in a city that had a significant Italian community, so there was a wealth of restaurants and styles from which to choose, and invariably one evolved an opinion on who had the best pizza, pasta, bread, etc.  Whether or not it was the best is debatable, but somehow, it did become the standard by which you judged similar dishes later in life. 

And so it was with beer, for me.  What I grew up understanding as beer, were full-bodied lagers (OK, this is America, now, not Germany) like Schlitz.  Beer was a beverage that had the taste of yeast, barley, a slight bitterness (from the hops) and in addition to giving one a buzz, it had a way of filling you up.  There were no advertised light beers back then; Miller Lite didn't hit the American market until 1975. 

Back in the day, we could drink at age 18, at beer bars, and I consumed my share of whatever was on tap at that time.  Living right in between Milwaukee and Chicago, you can pretty much guess what was being distributed in that area.  But it was my exposure to a local deli-liquor store that really opened my eyes (and my palate) to what the world had to offer in the way of fermented beverages. Here were beers from all over the world, and most significantly, from Germany and the Netherlands.  Once I introduced my taste buds to real, imported old world brews, everything changed.  I realized that there was such a wide variety of flavors (and alcoholic content) that I bought imports whenever I could, and drank a very basic German-style beer (Old Style) in between.

A few years ago, we were in LaCrosse, WI while on vacation, and decided to tour City Brewery (formerly Heileman), makers of Old Style and Special Export.  At the end of the tour, in the hospitality bar, the bartender asked me if I had enjoyed the former two beers in my youth and I said,"yes."  At that point, he served me up a glass and bid me taste it.  The effect was like remembering being in your mother's kitchen as she was making bread.  We have taste memory just like we have visual memory.  I smiled and asked what it was, and the bartender said,"That's the original Old Style recipe. We only sold Miller the name!  We now sell that as LaCrosse Lager."  He then drew a glass from another tap and served me.  I tasted it and again, it was like getting into a time machine.  He could see that I recognized the flavor. "That, my good man, is the original Special Export recipe; sold as City Lager."

Unfortunately, they discontinued City Lager, but I still by cases of LaCrosse Lager to this day.

Anheuser-Busch - the largest brewer in the world - is now owned by the Belgians.  Miller - the second largest - is now owned by the British, under the name SABMiller.  Thank God, the next largest are Heineken and Carlsberg.  Just because Busch and Miller are European-owned, doesn't mean we're going to suddenly stop making watered-down lite beers here in America.

I confess I don't understand the whole lite beer thing.  OK, I understand less calories, but please don't try to convince me that it has comparable taste to other full-bodied, legitimate beers.  One of the funniest lines I ever heard was,"Miller Lite is like sex in a canoe - fucking close to water."  I saw an ad for Miller Lite a couple years ago, in which they claimed to add hops three times, and my immediate reaction was,"What….in a tea bag?"  

I know people who consume pitchers of light beer at a sitting, and I just figure it's because they like to pee a lot.  I mean, if you wanted flavor, you wouldn't drink it.  If you wanted to get a buzz, you'd drink something stronger.  So, urination is my only answer.  You can't say it's less filling, if you're consuming it by the liter!  

It's so great these days to not only have myriad choices of beer, but also countless smaller craft breweries, where one can sample infinite flavors and they're all made fresh, on the premises.  I'm never happier than when I can visit a local brew pub.  I have one just up the road from me, and they do a fantastic job.

Once, at a midwest summer festival, I asked the brewmaster of a local brewpub why he didn't have a share of the business on the midway.  His response was classic.  "I'm in the business of making beer; Miller is in the business of distribution."  It was a matter of volume - not quality.

My favorites?  Stouts.  For me, Guinness - while being a totally legitimate beer -  is almost a light stout.  I'm always looking for a coffee stout or an oatmeal stout; something with a full body, smooth head, and just the right amount of bitter.  I drink porters on occasion, although as a rule, porters tend to be more on the sweet side.  A good stout is something you can linger over.  It's chewy.  It's savory.  I wouldn't drink more than a few in a row, or in a short period of time, as they really fill me up.  And that's rather the point; you know you drank a beer and not a glass of gold-colored carbonated water.  

There are a lot of beers of which I wouldn't order a second glass, but they were interesting and fun to try.  I mean, if you don't try, you don't know.  One brew pub had a beer that I told the brewmaster, tasted like cheese.  He laughed and said it was the particular brand of yeast used.  Some malt liquors obviously aren't beer, but again, interesting to try.  I do find Leine's  Summer Shandy refreshing on a hot day, but again, I wouldn't drink several of them in a row.  I just don't identify sweet with beer.

At another local Wisconsin brew pub, I tried a vanilla stout and I was dubious, but found I liked it.  I didn't think of it as sweet.  The vanilla was subtle, and blended well with the bitter stout.

I once had the idea of making a stout float with a scoop of vanilla ice cream.  In a word - don't.  The flavor is not the problem; it wasn't bad, and tasted like I expected.  It's a chemical reaction, and when the ice cream hits the beer, it begins to foam like an experiment gone wrong, and doesn't stop until the beer is super-saturated with the cream.  The bartender was amused and I did my best to keep up with the foaming action.

There are imperial stouts and other beers on the market that are finished in whiskey and wine barrels and while they're fun to try and usually give you a heckuva buzz for the buck, the flavor is almost too rich.  The hints of whiskey and oak tannins just create a beverage that's more like a cocktail than a beer.  And no way would I drink more than one at a time.

And then, there are beers that are more experimental in nature (as in mad science) that use things like roasted goat's brains and roasted bull's testicles.  I might enjoy meat with my beer, but not in my beer. No thanks. You go right ahead.

Three breweries I really respect are:  New Glarus, Leinenkugel's, and Boston Beer Company.  They all get a share of my total business.

Well, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.  And now, I think I'll go have a beer.