I was walking along on my way to a restaurant last night when I heard the guy ahead of me exclaim, “Oh! I know where we are! This is the bridge where that transvestite flipped us off!”
A few minutes later, I passed a middle-aged couple who was walking along the same sidewalk. The guy, in a style that very much sounded like Tommy Chong asked, somewhat slowly, “Honey, are we going to smoke some POT tonight?” I’m not sure, but I don’t think the guy was doing an impersonation.
The beer that made Milwaukee famous hopes to stage a comeback by returning to a brewing formula discarded over 30 years ago.
Louis Glunz Beer was the first distributor of Schlitz in Chicago, where a few taverns and liquor stores on Monday began carrying a classic version of the modern-day brand. Glunz, a fourth-generation family business, began distributing Schlitz in 1893.
Schlitz had been available only in cans for several years until the brand’s owner, Pabst Brewing Co., began selling it in bottles last year in Minneapolis and Tampa, Fla.
That bottled version of Schlitz, which uses a traditional recipe last used in the early ’70s, was snapped up by older baby boomers who remember the beer from its glory days, before Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. cheapened the formula. On Monday, 10 Chicago taverns and liquor stores began carrying the bottled version.
If demand expands, sales of classic Schlitz could spread to Milwaukee and other cities, Wortham said.
Changes not popularSchlitz was advertised for decades as “The Beer That Made Milwaukee Famous.” By the 1950s, it was the nation’s largest brewer, with additional breweries outside Wisconsin. But in the ’60s and ’70s, Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. did some things that affected the beer’s taste.
In 1967, Schlitz patented a process that accelerated fermentation, according to the book “Breweries of Wisconsin” by Jerry Apps. That was followed by apparent changes in ingredients, including a different type of barley and the use of corn instead of barley, Apps wrote.
Drinkers noticed and turned away, said John Gurda, Milwaukee historian and author.
“That stuff was undrinkable in the ’70s,” Gurda said. “It had a very pronounced chemical taste.”
My experiences over the last few years have taught me that quality control has not been a recent point of emphasis for Schlitz. Still, I’m excited about this. I think a B-double-E-double-R-U-N is in order. With one solid road trip we (as in anyone else who is willing and I) can pick up some Schlitz (maybe some Stroh) and definitely some Fat Tire.
I really haven’t been keeping up the acetone in gas thing which I have, in the past, written about in depth. I have kept up only to the point that I read the generally hilariously unhelpful comments and I also notice that those acetone pages are driving the vast majority of the revenue on the site. But I felt like it was a good time to comment on the comments.
First, let me say that I will gladly reverse course when someone provides verifiable, repeatable, (at least semi)-scientific evidence that says that acetone really does increase fuel mileage nearly as well and as broadly as claimed. So far, I have still yet to see anything resembling good evidence.
Second, some people ask whether acetone is really safe to put in your fuel system. Of the affirmative responses, the answer is usually: “acetone is a main ingredient of fuel system cleaners, so yes.” I have yet to verify that acetone is indeed a main ingredient in any common gasoline additive. But, if it is true, it has important implications. First, it is pretty much common knowledge that such additives are not capable of drastically increasing fuel mileage. Second, it undermines the argument that oil companies (who of course primarily make and market fuel additives) are afraid of acetone.
Finally, a comment about the vast oil conspiracy. I’ve argued before that if such a conspiracy exists, the powers-that-be are horribly inept; extreme oil company profits are not the norm; they are the exception. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that they aren’t woefully inept at managing their vast conspiracy. Let’s further say that they are in fact quite skilled at market manipulation and screwing the consumer. With those assumptions of their power in place, I simply cannot fathom why they would not desperately seek increase mileage while simultaneously controlling the oil market to increase prices at the same time. Why do I say this? It’s simple really. If they can completely manipulate the market, why would they not find a way to double mileage and use half the material sold at double the current price for double the profit per unit? They could get same amount of profit for half the work. And, and, and, they would then have even more saved up to sell in the future. In short, with acetone, they could maintain profits, do less work, and increase future income potential.
But who really knows with the acetone thing. Even though it is backed by only scant evidence, and thoroughly dubious logic, I remain open to the possibility that it works. I just wish that someone who says that it works would bother to satisfactorily prove that it works (whether or not the conspiracy theories make any sense).
Although I don’t keep up with this blog as much as I might like, I am often pleased when I can go back and see what I wrote at some point in the past. I just ran across a post from April 1st, 2007. I think it needs an update:
This year I’m starting my plants from seeds. I should say that I have started my plants from seeds. After about 1 month I have 20 tomato plants and 30 pepper plants started.
I’ve been spending much time doing yard work lately.
These 42 bags (plus 2 not pictured) are the result. I think I can probably fill another 30 bags with old leaves and that damnable English ivy which has/had overgrown much of the back yard.
Last Saturday at 8PM the world celebrated/marked Earth Hour. But, judging from load data from the United States, you either weren’t aware of the event or you completely ignored it. My boss asked this afternoon if we had noticed any major load drops during Earth Hour. We didn’t. We looked. Then we looked some more. And we still didn’t. At least, not for the markets we monitor (those markets include the Midwest, Northeast, and the areas in between).
After looking at the data, I did a quick Google search to see what people were saying about the event.
Some are taking Earth Hour and climate change very seriously.
Tonight at 8 p.m., I’ll be joining the (hopefully) millions of people around the world in making a statement about climate change by turning off my lights for an hour.
One hour of one day out of one year. That’s some very, very serious action being taken.
Other writer/bloggers are clearly doing what writer/bloggers do… writing based on half-assed, non-supported assumptions.
There’s no denying it’s an idea that has caught on. Millions of people around the world turned off their lights for Earth Hour on Saturday night, following the lead set by Sydney last year. Darkness fell across Canada, Fiji and Denmark, in Dublin and big US cities such as San Francisco, Chicago and New York.
The author, I guess is technically correct. The sun did set on those big US cities. But if that was the author’s point, then they’re clearly trying to mislead. Or they’re just guessing.
And others, of course are also taking climate change and emissions very seriously; they unplugged… and started to burn stuff.
At 10 minutes before 8pm, sp and I dutifully went around shutting down computers (yes, we have more than one. He’s a programmer, duh), switching off appliances and all other equipment, turning out lamps and unplugging all power cables. It gets embarrassing when you realise that it might just take that long, because in your day-to-day life you are using that many items which draw electricity.
Then we fetched our candles, trimmed the wicks, lit them with a sense of ritual and appropriate gravitas, before placing them at various strategic points. I’m all for turning out the lights but really, there’s no need for fractures and concussions.
IN OTHER NEWS, Congress brought in leaders from Big Oil. I tried to avoid reading about it because I knew it would accomplish nothing other than give a few Congressmen a couple extra points in the polls.
I did like this sub-headline from CNN:
Lawmakers criticize industry for taking tax breaks amid record-high prices while underinvesting in renewable resources.
Goddamn. I can’t even begin to imagine why a company would take tax breaks available to them. The nerve of those guys…
And just why aren’t those bastards investing in alternatives?
Exxon has long said it is in the business of oil, and that it prefers to leave renewable energy up to the renewable energy companies.
Can you believe that shit? The nerve of a private company… not willing to spend billions of dollars to pursue it is absolutely not interested in.
