Sunday Night Suds - Laker Red

This week's Sunday Night Suds Beer Review looks at Laker Red. What kind of beer is red you might ask? Is it an ale or a lager, or perhaps a stout or a porter? The good folks at the Brick Brewing Company don't let on which style the "Red" beer is, although they do have a rather annoying jingle ("Mak'er a Laker, It's a buck a beer") on their website that I can't get out of my head. To hear it, click on the following link, http://laker.abuckabeer.ca/ but be forewarned, it sticks in your mind. I wind up singing it to Sarah at least three or four times a day.

So why review a Canadian beer that brands itself as "a buck a beer?" Initially, I have to admit that I was interested because the COR (the Kashruth Council of Canada) indicated that many beers brewed by the Brick Brewery of Waterloo, Ontario are under their hashgacha. I then tried mightily to find it at many of the more comprehensive beer stores in NY, but with no success. This only raised my curiosity.

Last week we took the kids to Niagara Falls for a few days. Of course, now that I was in Canada, I had to try to score some Laker. So after a full day at the Falls, we took the kids out in the car to Sobey's (the local supermarket chain) to try to supplement what we had brought on the trip. I also went looking for Laker so that I could have a cold one with my daf yomi later that evening. I was sadly disappointed when I learned that beer in Canada is only sold in beer stores. Oddly, all the beer stores are called just that, "Beer Store." And the ones in Niagara closed at 9 PM. Well, the next day before we left the area, we went to the beer store and I found four styles from the COR list of approved beers. (To see the COR list, please click here http://www.cor.ca/en/21709?pr_view=0#).

The Laker Red is just that, Red. Its in the lager family (although the experts at BA call it an ale, the Laker website describes it as a lager, a sentiment I concur with), and has a little foam and a soft red color. There is no heavy aftertaste and actually not a very strong flavor after the initial sip. The beer advocates who have reviewed it have not been kind, but I found that its a refreshing pour after a long day driving in the car. Just make sure to chill it and serve it in a glass.

Laker Red is certified kosher by the Kashruth Council of Canada. For the experts' take on Laker Red click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/416/19489 .

As always, please remember to drink responsibly and to never waste good beer unless there is no designated driver.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Max Kellerman's Monday Musings Vol XXIV - Of realism, baseball and separation

Today's Max Kellerman and Brian Kenny show was yet another example of the fusion of sports talk and social commentary which is the Kellerman and Kenny show.

Before getting to sports, there was an interesting call to the show that I heard while I was on my way back from court. The caller said to Max that Max frequently says "I could make the argument." The caller then said that although you could make an argument, that does not mean that you should. Max then commented that "just because a position is defensible, doesn't make it right." It fell in line with another call that came in Friday when the Yankees were at their season's nadir. When a Yankee fan told Max that he takes it too far with Yankee puffery, Max responded that people listen to a sports show because they want hope and that if he was negative all the time people would not listen. The two comments showed that Max has the capacity for intellectual honesty. In fairness though, you can usually tell when Max is knowingly taking things too far to prove his point.

There was also an interesting observation about Michael Strahan. After the news broke that Osi Umenyora was finished for the season, a story began percolating about Strahan possibly coming out of retirement to fill the void at defensive end for the New York Giants. Then a comment was attributed to Strahan that he would play for the Giants if they paid him $8 million and said nice things to him. Max and Brian said that they could not pay him $8 million (I guess that ESPN does not pay as well as I thought) but that they could give him kind words. Of course the kindest words (as noted by Max and Brian) are "eight million dollars."

There was also discussion about the Mets continued bullpen woes. Max observed that Heilman, Feliciano, Smith and Sanchez are among the league leaders for appearances. He then absolved Smith and Feliciano from blame (they are situational pitchers in his eyes) and buried Sanchez and Heilman for not doing the job. Then Max had a suggestion - use Santana in the pen and let him pitch the last three innings every second or third day to ensure victory. [This was before the news broke that Maine was going on the DL]. Personally, I think that Max has the right idea, but I would use a different starter. The main problem for the Mets pen has been that when a pitcher comes in with runners on base, the batter usually makes contact. If the Mets were to use Oliver Perez in the role envisioned by Max, the problem would be diminished. Perez strikes out almost a batter an inning and walks one slightly less than every two innings. Santana is far too valuable to take out of the rotation as he pitches deeper into games and is more of an intimidating presence. But that's just my two cents.

There was a great line from a caller about Carl Pavano - he pitches great on 500 days rest. Max joked that instead of going with a five man rotation, the Yankees should go with a five hundred man rotation.

As always, the Max Kellerman show (in my opinion) had an element of Torah thought. It was observed that Robinson Cano's numbers have greatly improved since Melky Cabrera was sent to the minor leagues. Max then reiterated his previous observation that Melky and Cano had partied too much together. Max then talked about how after kindergarten he had always been separated from his best friend so that they would not make too much trouble.

This of course finds its roots in Torah. When Sarah observed that Ishmael was doing many bad things, she was concerned about his impact on Isaac. When she brought her concerns to Abraham and requested that he send Ishmael away, Hashem said to Abraham "All that Sarah tells you, listen to her." (Bereishis 21:12). Sometimes, people need to be separated for their own well being...

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Sunday Night Suds - Saranac Belgian White Ale

Tonight's Sunday Night Suds beer review looks at Saranac Belgian White, yet another interesting brew included with the Beers of Summer mix box.

As devotees of this page are aware, I am actually a big fan of the Saranac beers brewed by the FX Matt Co. While I can't say that every variety is a hit, they more often then not produce a brew worth talking about. Interestingly, I received an e-mail from one of the better Long Island beer stores (Big Z in Huntington) that they were having a Saranac sponsored beer tasting this past Friday and Saturday. While I could not attend the Saturday event, I was sorely tempted to go to the Friday tasting, not to try the beers since there was no way I could get a designated driver to take me home, but really just to meet the Saranac people and properly thank them for the beer they produce.

But back to the Belgian White. The brew notes on the Saranac website indicate that they brew the beer with oats, wheat and barley malt. The use of oats is unique to Witbier (of which the Saranac Belgian White models itself after) as I am unaware of any other variety which uses oats in the brew process.

The beer itself is a lighter taste than a classic Witbier or Hefeweizen, in fact I would compare it favorably with the "original flavor" Blue Moon (as opposed to the seasonal varieties). It has moderate carbonation and a rich amber color with a little bit of foam that stays well beyond the pour. It goes very well with meat dishes such as steak, barbecue and Asian food. It would probably go well with pizza too, I just have not had the opportunity since you only get two bottles in the summer box and they are not offered in six packs of their own.

Saranac Belgian White Ale is under the Kosher Supervision of the Vaad of Detroit as are all beers brewed by Saranac. For the experts' take on the Belgian White please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/99/1462 .

As always, please remember to drink responsibly and to never waste good beer unless there is no designated driver.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Torah Tidbits - Parshas Eikev

I recall once hearing a mashal about a man who was stranded in a foreign land. The man found that the streets were littered with precious gems, much like gravel. The man picked up the gems and began putting them in his pocket, believing that if he could only find a way home he would become a wealthy man. As time wore on, he realized that he was not going home anytime soon and he began to learn about the land he was in. In this country, the most valuable possession was milk. The man worked and worked and was able to buy a cow. He then redoubled his efforts and became an exceedingly successful dairy farmer. Once he had enough money, he purchased a ship and loaded it with vats of milk for the long voyage home. Upon his arrival in his home country, he realized the fallacy of his actions as the (now spoiled) milk was worthless.

I can't remember where I heard that mashal, but it is appropriate when considering an interesting posuk in Parshas Eikev. In Devarim 10:12, Moshe tells the assembled Jews, "V'ata Yisrael, mah Hashem Elokecha shoel mey'imach, ki im lirah es Hashem Elokecha..." Translated ino English, the Torah tells us that Moshe says to the Jews, what does Hashem ask of you, only to fear him and to go in his ways...

Rashi, in his second explanation of the pasuk indicates that chazal (citing to Gemara Berachos 33b) learn out from this verse the famous concept - "hakol bi'yidei shamayim, chutz mi'yiras shamayim" - everything is in Hashem's hands except fear of Hashem.

As noted by the Vilna Gaon, what a person considers valuable is what is least prevalent where he dwells. The Gaon brings a pasuk from Isaiah (33:6) where the prophet writes that fear of Hashem is what Hashem stores in His treasure house. The Vilna Gaon explains that to Hashem, the most valuable commodity is yiras shamayim. Since Hashem created the universe and all the worldly possession therein, He obviously has the power to make more gold and jewels, thus He has no need to store these things in His treasure house. Yiras shamayim is an entirely different topic as Hashem does not create it. In order to bring yiras shamayim into this world, we must choose to act and live our lives in the way that Hashem intends. If we choose the correct path, we can create more of this treasure, which Hashem will anxiously store in His royal storehouse, as to Him this is the most valuable treasure. However, the choice to do so is entirely up to us.

As this is one of the sheva d'nechemta, it would be appropriate to note that while the choice to build our level of yiras shamayim is ours alone, Hashem will assist us if we ask. The Ma'ayana Shel Torah brings the Ohel Torah who has an interesting take on the concept of hakol bi'yidei shamayim, chutz mi'yiras shamayim. He writes that "hakol bi'yidei shamayim" - when a person prays for something, Hashem can decide whether or not the person is worthy of receipt. This is tempered by the end of the phrase - "chutz mi'yiras shamayim" - that if a person genuinely wants to return b'teshuva, there is no doubt that Hashem will always grant him assistance in this endeavor.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Wednesday's Weird But True Legal Cases - Vol XXIV

Today's Weird (but true) legal case follows the same theme as last Wednesday's offering - when is the First Amendment trumped by a municipality's need for order at a sporting event. Thanks to all those who wrote in about last week's case and inspired me to look for similar situations arising in other jurisdictions.

In State v. Morgulis, 166 A.2d 136 (Superior Ct. App Div 1970) a New Jersey appellate court considered a matter in which an attendee at a High School basketball game expressed himself and as a result was convicted of "uttering loud and offensive language in public" and "disturbing a place of assembly" thus earning himself concurrent thirty day jail sentences.

The facts recited by the Court in its decision include that:

On February 7, 1969 defendant attended a high school basketball game, anticipating some form of confrontation between black students and the administration, and intent on obtaining pictures and tape recordings of the events. During the pre-game activities the mayor announced that if anyone should show disrespect for the flag by refusing to stand during the national anthem, spectators would be barred from future sports events. Defendant shouted that it was illegal and unconstitutional to force anyone to stand during the ceremonies. He admits that disputes immediately flared up between himself and nearby spectators. At this point a plainclothes detective mounted the bleachers and sat next to defendant. The detective testified that nearby fans had requested defendant to be quiet; they wanted to watch the game, and some of them began to move away and express displeasure with defendant's mouthings. Defendant then gestured obscenely and loudly uttered a lewd chant: “_____, _____, Gestapo, _____, _____,” patently indecent language which need not be reproduced here. The detective then arrested defendant and quietly led him out of the gymnasium.

Following the defendant's conviction in municipal court he appealed to County Court where after a trial he was found guilty on both charges. On appeal to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, the defendant argued that his conduct was protected by the First Amendment's right to freedom of expression. In so doing, he argued "that the offending conduct must have been his initial retort to the mayor and, relying on Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 82 S.Ct. 248, 7 L.Ed.2d 207 (1961), contends that the State may act to limit speech only in the narrowest of circumstances."

In stating the law in NJ, the court noted that,

While it must be conceded that the State may not unreasonably restrict personal freedoms, it is equally apparent that the State may protect its citizens, in the exercise of their right to peaceable assembly, from riotous or potentially dangerous disturbances. In any event, the long line of cases attempting to delineate the permissible limits of restriction are neither consistent in theory nor particularly reconcilable in practice. Moreover, it might here be noted that defendant's reliance on Garner is misplaced, for the holding in that case, a conviction of sit-in demonstrators for ‘breach of the peace,’ rested on the lack of adduced evidence that any ‘disturbance’ had in fact occurred.

In light of the above, the court affirmed the conviction, explaining that:

While it is obviously less forceful to argue that ‘order’ must be maintained at a basketball game, surely the municipality is entitled to exercise some degree of supervisory control over the more disruptive elements at an interscholastic event. We find that the State presented sufficient competent and credible evidence to indicate that the Totality of defendant's conduct in the bleachers was loud, offensive, disruptive and disturbing to the neighboring spectators. Certainly, the constitutional provisions guaranteeing freedom of speech do not extend to intemperate and intentional offensiveness which impinges on the rights of others. Moreover, defendant's conviction under N.J.S.A. 2A:170-28 does not rest so much on what he said or on when he chose to say it, but rather on the allegedly abusive and disruptive character of his intentional outburst.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Gittin 39

Gittin 39 continues the discussion as to how to fully emancipate slaves in order to both allow them to achieve financial independence and to permit them to marry. On Gittin 39b, the gemara revisits a scenario first broached on 38b, in which a slave owner had declared that his slave was financially free (hefker) without giving the slave the requisite emancipation document (shtar schichrur). When first raised on 38b, Rebbi had said that the only way that this person could be fully free (and thus be permitted to marry) was if the slave received the emancipation document.

When the topic was broached again on 39b, R' Chiya was asked what was the actual controversy that prompted the discussion. In the answer, the gemara provides insight into the concept of kinyan chalifin. By way of introduction - as taught more generally in Bava Metzia, a kinyan chalifin is a method of transfer by which a person uses an object to act as a surrogate for the transaction. This is traditionally accomplished with an item such as a handkerchief (i.e. kinyan sudar) whereby the buyer gives the seller the handkerchief and in so doing effects the transfer of the item that he wants.

R' Chiya explained that the scenario in our gemara involved a female slave who belonged to a man who was dying. She asked the man to set her free, to which he threw her his hat and said that she should take the hat and make a kinyan on it, while at the same time freeing herself as the hat would serve as the kinyan chalifin for her emancipation.

When asked whether this was an effective form of emancipation, R' Nachman indicated that it was not. The gemara then explains that observers thought that R' Nachman answered negatively because he follows the school of thought of R' Shimon that the emancipation must only be by document and cannot involve a monetary transaction. The gemara indicates that this is incorrect, as the rationale behind R' Nachman's ruling was that the kinyan chalifin was ineffective because the kinyan must be carried out with an item that belongs to the individual who is accepting the transfer. This is an important point as it relates to kinyan chalifin, as it underscores that it can only be accomplished with an object that belongs to the buyer. Had the owner attempted to emancipate the slave with an object that belonged to her as the kinyan, the emancipation would have been proper. However, since the kinyan chalifin was done with an object that belonged to the "seller" it was ineffective.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!