Max Kellerman's Monday Musings - Vol XLII - Murphy, Manuel, Millions and Memories

Today's Max Kellerman show (in my opinion) was not typical Max - a little basketball, a little baseball, some hockey and no Giants. Still there were some usual Max elements. I'll try to recap the high points in this post.

Max started off by asking the listeners how their weekend was. He immediately asked himself why he did that, since he said that in real life he hates small talk. Maybe he was talking to Louie and Lundberg, but did not want to let on that he was breaking the ban. Max let it slip about a week and a half ago that he can no longer talk to his producers. Unlike previous "bans", Max no longer mentions the producers by name. The listeners have apparently been muzzled as well, since I have not heard any "free louie and lundberg" calls. The only reason I am not doubting whether Louie and Lundberg are still on the show is that they are still featured on the show's home page http://stations.espn.go.com/stations/1050espnradio/show?showId=Max .

Max spent a little time at the beginning of the show on Jerry Manuel's announcement that Daniel Murphy will be starting for the Mets and that Ryan Church would be platooning with Fernando Tatis. Max wondered whether Church was in Manuel's doghouse. He also performed a feat of sabermetric analysis in talking about how the numbers from Murphy's AA and partial season with the Mets project him as an MLB player.

There was a great piece on Jim Calhoun and his press conference outburst at a "freelance reporter" who challenged him on his salary deal. Calhoun completed dressed down the reporter (and in my opinion rightfully so) for bringing the topic up at the press conference. He also mentioned that the UConn basketball program makes $12M a year for the school. No small feat when your program is in Storrs, CT - more than an hour away from any decent size city. As such, Max defended the salary that Calhoun makes (not that he really needed defending).

Max tied the Calhoun controversy into the ever present debate over Citibank and the naming rights at the new Mets stadium. Max correctly pointed out that big business needs advertising and that Citibank could justifiably spend $20 million on advertising. He then asked rhetorically whether people were saying that bailed out companies are not allowed to advertise (look out Detroit if that happens).

As usual, Max let a little of his personal life into the show. He talked about his wet socks, but I'll skip that one if its OK with you. The more interesting discussion came when he spoke about taking his three month old daughter (Esther) to visit his grandmother who is in a nursing home. He openly questioned why he had done this, because Esther nor his grandmother will have any memory of the event. He also talked about how all the old people wanted to touch Esther and how she keeps putting her hands in her mouth. I can sympathize with Max about the germ issue, but have to disagree with him about the memories. While he is correct that they may not remember it (I don't know what his grandmother has, but Alzheimer's and other age related memory loss is a horrible thing) there are ways to make it a positive experience for the long term. We took pictures of our older children with some of Sarah's grandparents when our kids were little. I am certain that her grandmother did not know who Penina was when we took the picture, due to her grandmother's advanced illness. However, by taking video and still pictures of my children interacting with their great grandparents, my kids will be able to do more than just listen to stories about their ancestors.

Speaking of Esther, Max returned to a familiar rant of his which has a link to Torah thought. Max talked about how he is "always getting ripped off" since his thoughts appear uncredited on TV shows or newspaper columns or even on the ESPN website. The concept of giving proper attribution can be found in the book of Esther which we will read in a few weeks. In Esther 2:22, the Megillah recites that Esther told the King in the name of Mordechai how Bigsan and Teresh were planning to kill the king. R' Elazar in the name of R' Chanina states in Gemara Megillah (15a) that this is a proof that whoever recites a saying in the name of the one he heard it from will bring redemption to the world. By telling the king that Mordechai was the source, Mordechai was recorded in the king's book as one who was owed a reward. This later set in play the saving of the Jewish people which began when the king could not sleep and asked that the book be read to him.

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 - Coopers Lager

Tonight's Sunday Night Suds looks at another of the great beers produced by the Coopers Brewery of Australia - Coopers Premium Lager.

I picked this beer up at American Beer on Court Street in Cobble Hill Brooklyn. Its a great beer store with a superior selection and staff who not only know what is in stock, but also know where the beers can be found in the store. You do pay a little more, but you really can't find a better combination of selection and service.

An interesting note about this beer is that as with most of the recent Coopers brews that are being imported into the US, the Coopers Premium Lager bears the Kosher Australia certification mark, along with the legend (in Hebrew) Kosher Parve L'Mehadrin. I find it difficult to resist trying beers that are labeled this way (although I was able to hold back from buying a sixer of the Extra Strong Vintage Ale which goes for a jaw dropping $23 a six pack).

The Coopers Lager was a typical lager as it poured a bright yellow color and had typical lager flavor and smell, albeit somewhat on the lighter side for alcohol taste. Although the website indicates that the beer is 5 % abv, it seemed to me to be a bit lighter than that. Since, I have no way to verify the alcohol content, I will have to trust them. Still, if you have tried it and agree with me, post a comment on the blog and let me know what you think.

Coopers Premium Lager is an excellent companion to most dishes as the lager flavor will not drown out your food. Of course, you could just have it by itself after a long day at work.

Coopers Premium Lager is under the kashruth supervision of Kosher Australia. For the experts take on the Premium Lager, please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/491/29393 .

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

Finally, if you've tried this beer or any others which have been reviewed on the kosher beers site, please feel free to post your comments (anonymous comments are acceptable).

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 Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Mishpatim

The following is a brief summary of a thought said over by R' Frand in his shiur this evening. I have attempted to reproduce this vort to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistencies are the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Shemos 23:5, the Torah instructs that if you see the donkey of someone who you hate lying under a burden, will you refrain from helping him? You should help along with him. The end of the sentence uses the language "Azov Ta'azov Imo." The use of the verb azov is odd, as it can also mean to leave someone alone. Rashi explains that the term azov can be used in different ways and that depending on the circumstances, a person should or should not be helped.

Targum Onkelos explains the use of the term azov in a more literal manner. When a person sees someone who he hates in a bad situation and the person feels that he wants to leave his enemy to suffer, the Torah teaches that he should abandon his feelings of hatred towards that person and assist him - hence the term "Azov Ta'azov Imo."

R' Frand connected the Targum's explanation of the pasuk to a story involving R' Bunim. He said that once R' Bunim was travelling on a cold winter night and wound up at an inn. As the innkeeper was feeding R' Bunim, he started to tell him about his financial troubles. It seemed that the inn was never full and the innkeeper was having a difficult time supporting himself.

While they were talking, there was a knock at the door. The innkeeper opened the door and a beggar entered. The beggar said to the innkeeper that he could not afford to pay to stay at the inn, but just wanted to warm up by the fire. The innkeeper allowed the beggar to come in and sit by the fire. Later, the beggar told the innkeeper that he could not get warm and then asked the innkeeper for a glass of vodka to warm himself up. Again, the beggar apologized for his inability to pay, but still asked whether he could have the vodka.

The innkeeper left the beggar and went to his vodka barrel. He filled a cup with vodka and then spilled it on the floor. The innkeeper then refilled the cup and again spilled it on the floor. This was repeated a number of times before the innkeeper finally brought a cup of vodka to the beggar.

R' Bunim then said to the innkeeper - maybe the reason you are losing money is because you keep wasting your resources. The innkeeper responded that he had not been intentionally wasting the vodka. The reason that he had poured out the first cup was that when he filled it he was upset and was thinking that it was a waste to give the vodka to someone who would not pay. The second time that he filled the cup, the innkeeper again had negative thoughts about his guest - thinking to himself that he was losing money by dealing with the beggar. The innkeeper continued to pour out the vodka cups until such time as he was able to do chessed with a full heart and leave behind his ill feelings for the beggar.

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 XLII

This week's weird (but true) legal case looks at the matter of Badgley v. City of New York, 606 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1979) a case with a very intriguing fact pattern.

In Badgley, multiple suits filed by Pennsylvania landowners were consolidated for a joint trial against the City of New York. The basis for the suits was that the City's diversion of water from the Delaware River had diminished the value of their properties which were situated along the Delaware River. After the District Court granted judgment to the property owners, the City appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. This post will discuss the Second Circuit's reversal of the District Court decision.

Before getting into the decision itself, I need to explain one of the reasons that this case appealed to me. Leaving aside the intriguing arguments mentioned in the decision, I have a personal involvement in the sense that I recall numerous summer canoe trips down the Delaware River where it adjoins New York on one side and Pennsylvania on the other. The decision itself talks about how the Eastern and Western branches join at Hancock, New York and that prior to the confluence of the branches, the Western branch passes Deposit, New York where it abuts both New York and Pennsylvania.

In arguing that the lower court decision was incorrect, the City of New York leaned heavily on the argument that the landowners were preempted from suit because of a prior settlement in a lawsuit involving the states of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. While most people know that the Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the land, it is generally thought of as an appeals court of last resort which reviews the decisions of lower state and federal courts. However, the Supreme Court also has the jurisdiction to hear lawsuits between the states themselves. I can recall a suit in the not too distant past when New York and New Jersey were arguing as to which state actually owned Liberty Island in New York harbor.

As was relevant to the Badgley lawsuit, in 1929 New York City announced that it was planning to divert water from the Delaware River to provide for the City's drinking water supply. Thereafter, New Jersey filed suit in the Supreme Court of the United States, seeking to block the diversion. Soon after, the State of Pennsylvania intervened to protect the supply of water to Philadelphia and Eastern Pennsylvania. After a considerable amount of testimony, a report was prepared by a special referee which was subsequently adopted by the Supreme Court in 1931. The decree limited the amount of water New York City could divert, while requiring that water be released by New York and New Jersey at regular intervals so as to protect downstream states from damages to municipal, recreational and fishery uses. Thereafter, in 1954 the decree was modified on consent of all states. Later in 1962 the four basin states entered into an agreement to create the Delaware River Basin Commission.

In reversing the lower court, the Second Circuit found that the Pennsylvania landowners could not bring suit because the prior lawsuit filed by the State of Pennsylvania had been filed as Parens patriae since Pennsylvania had been acting on behalf of all the citizens of the State of Pennsylvania. In so doing, the Circuit noted that "a suit may be brought by a state 'for an injury to it in its capacity of Quasi -sovereign. In that capacity the State has an interest independent of and behind the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its domain.'"

An interesting side note is that while the property owners tried to argue that they had independent rights, the court disagreed, explaining that:

[A]ppellees are correct in asserting that Pennsylvania could not have brought suit or intervened in the suit against New York to protect a mere collectivity of private riparian rights. But to draw from this the conclusion that the individual interests of Pennsylvania's riparian owners were not represented in the suit and are thus not affected by the Decree is to ignore the obvious fact that the riparian rights of the appellees are not independent of Pennsylvania's rights in the waters of the Delaware River but rather are derivative therefrom and are subject to change by the laws of that state. Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660, 670, 51 S.Ct. 286, 75 L.Ed. 602 (1931). Thus, it necessarily follows that the rights of Pennsylvania citizens cannot exceed those of Pennsylvania itself and the extent of Pennsylvania's rights in the Delaware River was conclusively determined by the terms of the Decree.

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 Irish Red

Tonight's Sunday Night Suds beer review looks at Saranac's latest offering - Saranac Irish Red Ale.

Irish Red Ales are truly ales for those who need to get their feet wet with hoppy brews, but are not yet ready for some of the more full bodied ales. I have seen some describe the Irish Red style as "the training wheels" for those looking to cross over from ales to lagers.

As described by the good folks at BA, Irish Red Ales are "[a] bit sweet, with a lightly hopped tea-like flavor, and an even dextrinous body, Irish Red Ales are easy to please. Look for well-rounded and blanced flavors, and a pleasant toasted malt character in many examples. A drying finish is common."

The Saranac Irish Red is a little lighter in flavor than the Samuel Adams Irish Red (reviewed here http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2008/10/sunday-night-suds-samuel-adams-irish.html ). The beer is light orange in color and has a bit of caramel in its flavor. Although there is some bitterness to the brew, it pales in comparison to IPAs (no pun intended) and is very drinkable. I had mine tonight with pasta and meat sauce, but this could easily accompany any meal.

Saranac Irish Red Ale is under the kashruth supervision of the Va'ad of Detroit, as are all other beer produced by Saranac. For the experts take on Saranac Irish Red Ale, please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/99/43835 .

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

If you've tried this beer or any others which have been reviewed on the kosher beers site, please feel free to post your comments (anonymous comments are acceptable).

Finally, as a follow up to last week's questions regarding Hoegaarden White Ale, I have been advised by the OU that the appearance of the White Ale on the Le Marais menu was in error and that the OU has not approved this beer for use in its restaurants. I am still looking into whether any other kashruth organization has approved the Hoegaarden White Ale for consumption. During the interim, I will remove the post to avoid any issues of maaris ayin or lifnei iveir.

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 Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Yisro

The following is a brief summary of a thought said over by R' Frand in his shiur this evening. I have attempted to reproduce this vort to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistencies are the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Shemos 18:1 the Torah writes that Yisro heard all that Hashem did for Moshe and the Jews. Rashi on 18:1 asks what did Yisro hear? He answers that the Mechilta teaches that Yisro heard about the spltting of Yam Suf and the war with Amalek.

Later, in Shemos 18:9, the Torah recites that Yisro rejoiced ("Vayichad Yisro"). Rashi again asks what was Yisro happy about? He answers that Yisro was happy about the manna from the skies, the well which followed them and the giving of the Torah. Rashi continues that on top of these things, Yisro was happiest that Hashem took the Jews out of Egypt because (again quoting the Mechilta) prior to this event, no slave had ever escaped Egypt.

Rabbi Frand then asked - why was this such an important event for Yisro? The splitting of the Yam Suf and the daily manna miracles were departures from the laws of nature. Why were these less significant to Yisro?

To answer the question, Rabbi Frand then re-asked the age old question - what does the line in the haggada mean when it states that if Hashem did not take the Jews out of Egypt we would still be there? He augmented the question by noting that today is the 200th Birthday of Abraham Lincoln - the man given recognition for freeing the slaves. If Lincoln could set the slaves free and apartheid had died in South Africa, why would the Jews still be slaves in Egypt?

R' Frand answered both questions by quoting the sefer Abir Yosef. He explained that the reason that no slave ever escaped Egypt was not because they had the best fences, or police or even dogs. Rather, the reason no slaves ever left was because the Egyptians broke down their slaves on a mental level, making them believe that they were subhuman. As a result of the Egyptians' intimidation tactics, no slaves harbored dreams of leaving Egypt.

Yisro was aware of the Egyptians' success in destroying the slaves' will to escape. As such, upon seeing how Hashem was able to take His people out of Egypt and reverse two hundred years of servitude and its impact on the human psyche, Yisro found this to be greater than the splitting of Yam Suf or the manna.

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!