Erm...

Charles: Today seems like a Samuel Adams kind of day. Happy Thanksgiving guys! Samuel Adams Coastal Wheat, its a new brew featuring the elusive lemon. I typically love wheat beers with all my heart, but I don’t know… This one misses the mark for me. It has this odd soapy undertone to it. Its like instead of lemon, they put in Lemon Dawn (For a different kind of clean finish) I may finish this glass and step away from it.

Lionel: SAMUEL ADAMS COASTAL WHEAT!!! Unfiltered so you get the full taste of the beer along with the lemon undertone. It’s quite refreshing (Ed. Note: Oh wow! A heartfelt review! I’m touched!)

Andriis: Guys… I’m afraid I have to agree with my beer-swilling brother (Charles, for those interested). The immediate taste is comforting and smooth. But that aftertaste… Slightly soapy? Did someone forget to properly rinse out my glass before pouring me a frosty brew? No, because the aftertaste is there after chugging from the bottle, too. What the hell? You’d think a beer with a lemon-undertone would be the truth. It is, actually. The truth is that it’s just not that good.

Price: $7.99

ABV: 5.1%

The face of ambivalence

Lionel hand modeling

Charles: Ah… Samuel Adams Hefeweizen… We meet again… How’s your mother? I remember when we met, I thought you were a nice light and tasty brew. You refreshed me with your simple subtle hoppy medley. Erm… This is hard to imagine how I got this sense. I felt that if I drank you, there wouldn’t be an overbearing aftertaste, and you would go down clean. I should stop personifying beer… If I continue this way, I’m going to lose all my friends, and drink my other ones.

Lionel: HEFEWEIZEN!!! Goes down pretty smooth, and it has a crisp taste to it! (Ed. Note: Descriptive, isn’t he?)

Andriis: I like wheat beers. Especially of the unfiltered variety. There’s something pure about it. What you get here is pure flavor. And cold is the way to go with this brew. But then again, I do this with all beers, from lagers to stouts. I think if you really wanna enjoy this beer, have it after a heavy meal. Steak and potatoes followed by Sam Adams Hefewizen. You win, dude. You win.

Price: $8.99

ABV: 5.4%

Enjoying the Hefeweizen

Det blev lite oväntat en sväng till Pipes of Scotland igår för att träffa lite vänner och fira det storslagna att det var på dagen 150 år sen utgivningen av Charles Drawins The Origin of Species skedde. Lite tråkigt nog har Pipes tappat lite på ölfronten sen de blev tvungna att anpassa sig efter Carlsbergs krav på total dominans på tappöl. Nåväl, de har fortfarande ett hyfsat utbud på drickbar flasköl.

Jag ögnade igenom kylarna och det enda nya som jag direkt lade märke till och inte hade provat var två nya öl från Samuel Adams (The Boston Beer Company)Imperial Series. Nämligen Imperial White och Imperial Stout så det blev till att prova dessa.

Började med Imperial White som dock visade sig vara på hela 10.3 %:

Lite grumligt persikofärgad med obefintligt skum.

Doften tung, söt, korianderkryddig, lite alkoholstickig.

Smaken till en början kraftigt söt, fruktig, lite torkade aprikoser, svagt åt något som kan liknas vid blomsterrabbat intuitivt. värmande.

Ja, den kändes intressant till en början med ett helt glas (330ml) blev för mycket av det söta i slutändan. Att dela på en flaska skulle nog räcka. Betyg: 3-

Imperial Stouten var något svagare på 9.2%:

Svart till färgen och ett litet men ganska kompakt skum.

Doften tung, rostad, lite åt salmiakhållet, touch av kaffe och lite mörk choklad långt där borta i dofthorisonten.

Smaken kraftig, rostad, men ganska snäll och mjuk i munnen. I eftersmaken dyker lite hög kakaohaltig chokladbitterhet upp likaså finns en andel tydligt kaffe.

En ganska snäll imperial tycker jag, kan ju i och för sig bero på att man drack den alkoholstarkare välkryddade white:n innan. Ok, fyllig och fint len men inte så mycket mer än så. Betyg: 3+

Jeg er jo nok ikke den eneste i det ganske land der er glad for et glas godt og kraftfuld øl. I denne tid er der nok at vælge imellem, da juleøllen vælter ind over os og det er da også meget godt, det meste smager jo ganske udmærket!

Dog savner jeg ofte en julebryg med noget mere mørk malt og spark end det mest gængse tilbyder. En der er kendetegnet ved de specifikationer er Nørrebro Bryghus‘ Julebryg, men den bliver hurtigt for julebrødsagtig.

For et lille stykke tid siden faldt jeg så over en Honey Porter fra Boston baserede Samuel Adams. En dejlig dyb og nuanceret porter med masser af dybt ristet malt, sødmen fra honningen, som ikke går ind og bliver for voldsom, og så en frisk krydret slutning fra humlen.

En rigtig lækker porter, som også kan gå ind og spille med på julemelodierne, da den har sødmen og det krydrede præg, sammen med det mørke og maltede, skål!

Beer served in its draft form is generally considered to be the best. It goes straight from the brewery to the keg and to you. Of course, not every drink can be from the tap. Beer is bottled and canned for mass distribution. The question as to what is the best method for beer quality is a complicated and highly contested one.

Cans protect beer from light and air, but some think it leaves a mettalic taste.

This is a hotly contested debate. Jim Koch, the founder of Samuel Adams made his company’s position clear on this issue, saying  “Beer shall be offered in bottles, not cans, so that no brew is jeopardized with the taste of metal.” Koch refuses to can his beer, forgoing millions in revenue from sporting events and other venues.

This anti-can opinion was not supported by all. Some brewers say that cans allow less light and air into the beer and thus make the beer better. The cans also allow the beer to get colder much faster than bottles. There is no winner to this debate, and in my opinion, I think that the actual taste difference is miniscule and the difference is all in your head. Some people just prefer holding that cold longneck!

Darker bottles prevent "skunking" more.

The question about which color beer bottle is best is another sticky issue.  Skunking happens when light reacts with a chemical in hops and produces a compound that really does smell rather skunky. Obviously the darker the bottle, the less skunking that can occur. Brown bottles are the best, followed by green and lastly, clear. Also, bottles in cases prevent sunlight and that of course, will further protect beer from skunking.

So, we have a good idea about what the different beer packing methods might be. But I will conclude stating my favored vessel for the end product. Pouring beer from the can or bottle allows the beer to “breath” and is suggested by most premium beers. Sam Adams has pioneered what it says is the ultimate beer cup.

Some say this cup was crafted by God himself...or maybe Sam Adams.

I acquired a Sam Adams cup at a Red Lobster several months ago and that cup has served many tasty brews since. This cup is made with space age technology. Laser etching at the base create bubbles for constant aroma release. There is a bead on the rim to create turbulence as the beer hits the mouth. The lip is turned outwards to deliver the beer to the tongue’s sweet-spot.

Interested in the cup? It will cost you $30 for a set of four. In my opinion, money well spent.

"She's gonna get fat."

As college students, we are constantly inundated with new knowledge. It can be useful, thought-provoking, or crammed into our head on a Starbucks-fueled binge several hours before an exam. However, very rarely do we question the validity of all this new knowledge (unless you take philosophy classes, then you’ll question away).

That’s where College Candy comes in. We’re not going to debate whether or not the Theory of Relativity actually exists (a disappointment, I know, but I’m a communications major and stopped taking science classes after Baby Bio fresh year). However, we are here to thoroughly investigate the most widespread college knowledge (no, not rhyming): the myth.

Alright guys, I’m gonna level with you: I’m a big fan of the brewskies. I like Sam Adams Pumpkin Ale, Sweetwater 420, the occasional stein of Newcastle, and the slightly more frequent funnel full of Bud Light. I particularly like that I can drink copious amounts of beer without the consequences that would come from drinking the same amount of vodka, water & lime. Most of all, I like that beer lends itself easily to day-drinking.

What I don’t like about beer (besides how much it makes me want to sing drinking songs) is that it makes me fat.

It’s not even the eventual, slowly-creeping-towards-your-thighs fat. It’s like an immediate, “I’m so carbonated and delicious and I’m going to make you so full you can’t suck in anymore” variety of fat. So it’s no wonder that beer contributes majorly to the Freshman 15, right? Ehh, yes and no.

The typical 12 ounce beer has around 150 calories. So obviously, each one you drink adds to your bottom line of calorie intake. The more calories you consume without burning them off, the more weight you’re gonna gain (I know, it’s all very scientific). But if you carefully measure out your Stairmaster time to counteract the beer pong tournament you plan on winning later and you’re still gaining weight, it might not be Natty Light’s fault.

A strange thing happens when I drink beer. Come the end of the party/night/gameday/Happy Hour, I feel this strange magnetic force pulling me in the direction of anywhere that serves cheese fries. I’m not the only one, right?  Ok, good.

Beer, while awesome, still has alcohol in it (actually I’m pretty sure that’s what makes it awesome). Alcohol has this sneaky, two pronged approach to weight gain. In and of itself, it’s a highly caloric waste of nutritional value. On top of that, it lowers inhibitions. So not only are you more likely to make out with that guy who dressed up as a Smurf for Halloween (my best friend is still trying to get the blue body paint off of her sheets), you’re more likely to think that a Big Mac is totally worth blowing your day of careful eating and yoga. And it might not stop at the Big Mac, because we all know McDonald’s is a gateway drug to pizza and Lucky Charms.

So, while beer will make you gain weight (without exercise and self-control), another often-overlooked aspect of weight gain is beer’s BFF, Drunk Eating. The best way to avoid gaining a beer gut that isn’t even beer? Don’t stock your fridge with unhealthy crap, keep snacks in pre-portioned containers or bags, and for the love of all that is holy do not ask the cab driver to stop at Taco Bell on the way home! Instead, eat a good dinner with complex carbs and protein on nights you know you’re goin’ out big. Good judgment before 5 rounds of flip cup might just ensure better judgment after you are dubbed queen of the first try flip.

• “[T]he importance of piety and religion; of industry and frugality; of prudence, economy, regularity and an even government; all … are essential to the well-being of a family.” –Samuel Adams, letter to Thomas Wells, 1780
  

In the October USABeerTrends beer survey, folks were asked what their “go to” beer is, if they had one.
45% of the respondents said they did, indeed, have a “go to” beer. The Top 5 “Go To” Beers in October were:

October's "Go To" Beer

5. Saint Arnold Lawnmower
4. Spaten Okktoberfest
3. Magic Hat #9
2. Samuel Adams Boston Lager

and the number 1 “go to” beer from our October survey

1. Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA.

Thanks to all who participated. Our next survey will be a Question of the Week. Look for it this Friday, November 6.

Cheers, and be safe!

It is misty with rain this last of October morning. I let my beloved cat, Belle, peek out the door and decide it wasn’t worth going out and getting wet, Very quiet too, with only a distant hum of a machine here and there, including the ancient Norge refrigerator, down here in the beer jazz cave, recently wired for the Internet.
Opening the old cold foot soldier, you need a flashlight to see what the contents are inside. The door light switch gave up the ghost last spring…
Let’s see what is in… oh yes, Avery’s Old Jubilation Ale! A tremendous malty pour with a chocolate ester nose. What does it taste like? Well, as a new world take on old English Winter Ale, it has a flavor note in the profile that is more like chocolate grape, rather than chocolate raisin. Deep and smooth with plenty of complexity.

What else is… oh yes, Samuel Adams Winter Lager, just arrived in the local stores this week. This version of their spiced dunkel weizenbock could very well be the best they have ever produced. Spices are used but are not overbearing, making this still a lager, rather than their equally great wassail, Old Fezziwg. I have often wished that Samuel Adams would produce a variety 12 pack that consists of 3 beers: Winter Lager, Old Fezziwg, and Holiday Porter.

Another perusal of Norge reveals that other than a few bottles of Point Classic Amber, there is nothing more important than going out and restocking this fridge with good beer. Halloween is one of the best reasons to party. There is music to be played. Creepy monster movies to watch. A day of celebration for young and old where Jack-O-Lanterns all unite. And you know the old saying: There is no such thing as too much beer!

Happy Halloween and thank you!

Not everyone admires the Founders.

As a reflection of his rebranding as a “progressive,” Ed Schultz accused Glenn Beck of “Psycho Talk” for thinking well of the Founding Fathers. After Beck mentioned his appreciation of Samuel Adams, Ed lectured Beck that the Founders deserved no honor, because they were evil white men.

[M]ost of these Founding Fathers that you think so highly of were actually slave owners themselves, and the ones that didn’t own slaves weren’t exactly abolitionists…[C]omparing progressives to slave owners while idolizing actual slave owners — that’s “Psycho Talk.”

In his remarks, he also indicted the Founders for allegedly believing blacks were only three-fifths of a human being.

There are three problems for Big Ed: He’s wrong about Sam Adams; he’s wrong about the Founding Fathers; and he’s wrong about the three-fifths compromise.

First, in the segment for which Schultz raked the high-rated Fox News host over the coals, Beck referenced one Founder specifically: Samuel Adams. As David McCullough wrote in his bestselling John Adams, “When Samuel Adams and his wife were presented with a black slave girl as a gift in 1765, they had immediately set her free.” Oops.

Second, Ed misinterprets the three-fifths clause. I refuted the common-yet-erroneous belief that this was a racist law deeming a black man “three-fifths of a human” here.

Watch Ed Schultz exercise the First Amendment against the men who authored it.

Finally, Ed falls back on the old saw that, yes, some of the Founders held slaves. In fact, there were more than a few abolitionists among our Founders. This obscure fellow named Benjamin Franklin wrote a biting satire of slavery. Founder and Presbyterian physician Dr. Benjamin Rush ardently preached abolitionism. Alexander Hamilton (he’s on the ten dollar bills Senate Democrats stuffed into Ed’s pockets) hoped black soldiers would be recruited for the Revolutionary Army, but an “essential part of the plan is to give them their freedom with their swords.”

The future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay wrote in 1780, “An excellent law might be made out of the Pennsylvania one for the gradual abolition of slavery. Till America comes into this measure her prayers to heaven for liberty will be impious. This is a strong expression but it is just.”

Hamilton and Jay famously collaborated on The Federalist Papers. They also led the New York Manumission Society.

At the Constitutional Convention, several delegates expressed their hope that the Constitution would outlaw the slave trade. George Mason condemned slavery like a fire-and-brimstone preacher:

Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities. He lamented that some of our Eastern brethren had from a lust of gain embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to the States being in possession of the Right to import, this was the case with many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it essential in every point of view that the Genl. Govt. should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.

John Dickinson of Delaware counted it “inadmissible on every principle of honor & safety that the importation of slaves should be authorised to the States by the Constitution.” John Langdon of New Hampshire could “not with a good conscience leave it with the States who could then go on with the traffic.”

Maryland’s Luther Martin so opposed the trafficking that he tried to tax the importation of slaves.

Even some from South Carolina, like Henry Laurens the second president of the Continental Congress, came to oppose the peculiar institution.

So, too, did slaveholders Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Washington wrote among his “first wishes” was “to see some plan adopted, by the legislature by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible degrees.” He declared, “I can clearly forsee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union.” Even Jefferson wrote, “there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity.” The common image of the Deist slaver must contend with this quotation: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events.”

As Gen. Schwarzkopf might say, Ed Schultz “is neither a constitutional lawyer, nor is he schooled in history, nor is he a political scientist, nor is he thoughtful. Other than that, he’s a great historian and prescient talk show host, I want you to know that.”

Much has happened since neglecting my favorite web site, due to crazy local events. I refuse to bore you with those details, so let me get to the subject at hand: Beer!
I am sure by now almost everybody has tasted their fall marzen, or what is commonly called Oktoberfest. I usually sample as many of these as possible, but this year I slacked off a bit, but still had time to try the Kostritzer version from the black bier people in Germany. A change of pace from the caramel malt laden versions around, like Samuel Adams Octoberfest.
But the caramel malt profile has become synonymous with autumn beers in the United States. As the weather turns cooler the body has a need for more malts, which makes super hop productions seem out of season for the moment.
Since it is autumn and we are rapidly moving towards Halloween, I do want to mention one of my favorite seasonal productions, that being Saranac Pumpkin Ale.
Many compare this beer to pumpkin pie, although I do not eat pumpkin pie as a rule. No, what I like about this pumpkin ale is the recipe. I prefer it over Brooklyn Brewery’s Post Road, which Matt Brewing does the contract brewing for.
About a month ago I attended a distributor trade show where Rochester, New York brewer Dundee had samples of their Oktoberfest. A very good take on the style, that is not as widely distributed as it should.
I also got to sample Sierra-Nevada’s Chico Estate. A complete “in-house” brew, using hops grown by the brewery. It was quite good, but time limitations prevented the kind of serious, sit down contemplation this smooth ale demanded.
At the very same show (hell, it might as well been called a party) the Schlitz Gusto folks were in full promotional mode. Schlitz Gusto is the trade book name for the revived early 1960’s formula of Schlitz, before the marketing geniuses came up with the idea of tweaking the recipe, to supposedly produce more, while using less ingredients. That lead to the ultimate disaster where Schlitz, the number one beer in America since World War II, lost its market dominance to Budweiser, and never gained it back. As a kid, I heard beer drinking adults refer to Schlitz as “Shits” when the reformulated suds turned people away in droves.
But corporate amnesia was in full play this evening. Like Microsoft wanting you to buy 7 and forget all about something once known as Vista, the Schlitz Gusto had not only tied in to their daddy or granddaddy’s beer, with its Schlitz classic logo, they even had buttons promoting it as the beer of choice for the 1969 Woodstock music festival.
I also had to marvel at the riffs being used by the sales representative. Not only was he promoting Schlitz with quite a bit of gusto, he also had on hand their strong (8.5%) malt liquor, which he made a distinction that it was not malt liquor (which is in fact, a rather ambiguous term) but a high gravity lager.
Which was also in full play at this trade show, the distinction between craft, regional retro and corporate has becomes pretty much of a blur. I know the so-called craft brewers want to seperate themselves from the rest of the brewing industry, but is that actually possible, or is it by now, just another marketing ploy? I mean after trying Samuel Adams Coastal Wheat, how is it different than other big brewer’s wheat productions? From Coors’ Blue Moon to Bud Light Golden Wheat?
As I stated in a previous post, the recipe is the final deciding factor. Consolidation of brewing interests can reek havoc on a beloved brew. Take what A-B Inbev as done to the venerable Bass Ale. Corporate concerns have forgotten all about the character of this famous ale, that once upon a time, in Burton-On-Trent England, was brewed with gypsum mineral rich water that provided a somewhat chalky but delicious finish. None of that is present in the concoction now sold as Bass.
Luckily, some recipes have not been changed, or in rare cases, actually improved. Two of the early winter arrivals are outstanding: Avery’s Old Jubilation Ale and Flying Dog’s K-9. Both of these examples show that if you are going to fork out some serious money for a six pack of beer, it had better be worth it. In the case of these two, I would say it is.
As always my only prayer is thank you.

Samuel Adams: Always a good decision. You’ve heard the phrase before, but only in relation to a beer commercial (a great beer, I may add). Few remember that Samuel Adams was one of our great founding fathers. Son of a merchant and brewer and cousin to President John Adams, Samuel was a renowned politician in his own right. As a member of the Massachusetts Assembly, he was the first to propose a continental congress of which he was later a member. He was a passionate advocate of independence and was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

I bring this up now because of a quote that was used on Glenn Beck’s show last night in which Adams was speaking out against tyranny. However, my focus is on one sentence in particular of that quote: “The religion and public liberty of a people are intimately connected; their interest are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together.”

What is Adams talking about? He is talking about church and state and how they cannot be separated. The state of America is a mess right now and it comes on the heels of banning prayer and religious recognition in public places. People have actually been arrested for praying! Even children songs about Jesus are now being replaced with lyrics praising Barack Obama, while Obama himself snubbed this year’s National Prayer Day.

In the meantime, we have kids beating each other to death with railroad ties in Chicago, and greed has put a stranglehold on our economy.

Our founding fathers, while they did have their religious differences, believed they were being guided by a higher power to establish the United States of America:

James Madison: “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”

Alexander Hamilton: “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interest.”

Benjamin Franklin: “All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.”

Charles Pinckney: “When the great work was done and published, I was struck with amazement. Nothing less than the superintending Hand of Providence, that so miraculously carried us through the war … could have brought it about so complete, upon the whole.”

George Washington: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

God is included in our Declaration of Independence. God is included in our Constitution. The founding fathers knew we needed to keep our religion included in our state affairs to keep our country strong and prevent tyranny from reigning. Here is the full Samuel Adams quote:

“Is it not high time for the people of this country explicitly to declare, whether they will be freemen or slaves? It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns us more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in the event. For wherever tyranny is establish’d, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent. It is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice. For they cannot live in any country where virtue and knowledge prevail. The religion and public liberty of a people are intimately connected; their interest are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together. For this reason, it is always observable, that those who are combined to destroy the people’s liberties, practice every art to poison their morals. How greatly then does it concern us, at all events, to put a stop to the progress of tyranny.”

More info: The Examiner

I don’t know if I’ve been living under a rock for the past couple months, or if I’ve just been too busy to notice some things going on around me. It must be the latter, because I don’t think living under a rock would be very cozy! Sometimes I might space out a little, and miss a few things that don’t exactly jump out at me. But seriously, this is a super busy time of year for me (and probably you, too), with the holidays coming, especially Halloween (one of my all-time faves!).

Anyway, back to why I was being kind of a space cadet: earlier this week I was taking a drive to the costume shop to pick up some supplies for my Halloween party this year. While stopped at a traffic signal I noticed a bumper sticker on the minivan stopped in front of me; the sticker said something like, Which way is it to the Tea Party? I have to admit that, right away, I didn’t know what it meant. The first thing that popped in to my head was, “it was in, like, Boston… Duh!” But after a little while I remembered that there’s been all kinds of political ballyhoo about taxes and all that good stuff that lots of people like to huff about… I recalled reading about organized protests, and that the groups are using a “tea party” slogan for the cause. Catchy I suppose, after all, the real Boston Tea Party had everything to do with taxes and representation.

If you know me, or if you at least read my little blog once in a while, you know that I looooove my US of A, and I’m a big history buff. So today’s chit chat (thanks to the catchy bumper sticker that caught my eye while I was having a “duh” moment) is all about the authentic Boston Tea Party of 1773.

Illustration of a Tea Plant

In the 1700’s, tea was the hot thing to drink. When I say ‘hot,’ I mean that it was the stylish beverage. And, well, it was also hot. Talk about your confusing homonyms! Anyway, everybody was loving their tea. Because taxes were so high smuggling was a worry to lawmakers, so Great Britain took a special step in making sure the colonies received their shipments of tea only from England. That way England could tax the supplier, then tax their buyers, and make a quick profit. Through a series of ‘deals’ with other exporting countries, tea was sold to Great Britain and, in turn, Great Britain sold that tea themselves to the colonies.

This little tax twist made the colonists none too happy, and here’s why: the British colonists argued it unconstitutional to be taxed because, according to the British Constitution, they couldn’t be taxed without consent from their elected people. It was Taxation Without Representation. In their case this referred to the representatives who they’d elected in the colonies. Since it was the British Parliament who slapped the taxes on the imports, and the colonists were not involved in electing members of British Parliament, the colonists said they shouldn’t be taxed by Great Britain. Their cries fell on deaf ears, and the taxes rained down anyway.

Taxes began to get heavy with the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767 (which levied tax and duty on lots of imported goods, not just tea). It was followed by protests and boycotts from the colonies. In 1770 Parliament lifted the Townshend Act (but kept the tea duty in place). Later in 1773 the Tea Act was introduced where England’s supplier, the East India Company, could cut out the middle-man (Great Britain in this instance) and sell tea directly to the colonies. This would now actually make tea cheaper for American colonists, but it was also right about this time when colonists just about had it up to here with the Brits. It came down to the ever long grievance of Taxation Without Representation.

The Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor

Now, here’s where the Boston Harbor gets turned in to the biggest cup of Lipton Brisk y’all ever did see. In every colony except Massachusetts, protestors were able to force the tea consignees (the guys who took the tea from importing ships) to give in or to return the shipments to England without paying tax. It wasn’t going that way in Boston, however. When the Dartmouth, a ship carrying tea, arrived in the Boston Harbor in late November, 1773, Samuel Adams called a meeting to pass a resolution urging the captain of the ship to go back without paying the duty, and Massachusetts Governor (and British Loyalist) Thomas Hutchinson refused to let that happen. Two of Hutchinson’s sons were consignees working the shipment and saw to make a commission profit on the cargo. Meanwhile, two more ships carrying tea arrived in Boston Harbor.

Dumping the tea overboard

On December 16, the last day of the Dartmouth’s deadline to unload its cargo and head back to England, Governor Hutchinson still refused to allow the Dartmouth (and the other ships) to leave. That night a group of men disguised as Mohawk Indians boarded the ships and dumped all the tea into the water. The Boston Tea Party was one of the many precursors that led to the American Revolutionary War. The event served to rally support for revolutionaries who would eventually prove successful in their fight for independence.

That, in an abridged nutshell, was the Boston Tea Party of 1773. As I stated a little bit ago, I love the United States of America, my country and sweet land of liberty, and I’m also a history buff. On the flipside of the coin, I don’t really like to get all huffy puffy political. I don’t think everything about government should deal in absolutes. Some sides are right about some things, and other sides have good points, too. You have to take the good, and then work with the not so good to make it better. But all’s I gotta say is that the current organized Tea Party protests happening around the country are not the same as what we know from historical events, so don’t get confused if you glance over a story in the newspaper.

I don’t know about you but I’ve had enough tea for today. It’s all a bunch of sour grapes. You know how the old saying goes… when life serves you lemons, make lemonade. I like that. Maybe I’ll put up stand at the end of my block. I promise not to tax you too much. LOL!

Tune in next week when I’ll be touching on the Tea Party signifigance going on right now in our current times.
Lexi

• “It is a very great mistake to imagine that the object of loyalty is the authority and interest of one individual man, however dignified by the applause or enriched by the success of popular actions.” –Samuel Adams

But not just any beer, birds & dogs, this was Samuel Adams’ Utopias:

Brewed by the Boston Beer Company under the brand name Samuel Adams’ Utopias, the beer has the highest alcohol content of any beer in the world at 25% (as listed in the Guiness Book of Records).  It weighs in at No. 2 on the Worlds Most Expensive Beer list, second only to Vielle Bon Secours, which can be found only in one bar:  the Bierdrome in London.  A pint will run you approximately $67 if you buy it in a store, which isn’t easily done as they only produce 8,000 bottles per year.  With a 12 year gestation period and a price tag of more than $100 per 24-ounce copper bottle, who can blame them.  There aren’t many people foolish enough to spend $4.17 for an ounce of beer, but there are people foolish enough to pay $20.  And I am one of them.

At the Draft Barn on Third Avenue in Brooklyn, one can by 30ml (1.01 ounces) for $20, or a pint for $320.00.  I smartened myself into sticking to 30ml (seen below).  The beer is sweet and tastes more like brandy than beer.  The Sam Adams people describe it as such: 

Truly the epitome of brewing’s two thousand year evolution, Samuel Adams Utopias® offers a flavor not just unlike any other beer but unlike any other beverage in the world. Its warm, sweet flavor is richly highlighted with hints of vanilla, oak and caramel.  With an alcohol content of 27% by volume, its complexity and sweet, malty flavor is reminiscent of a deep, rich vintage Port, fine Cognac or aged sherry while being surprisingly light on the palate.  And like the world’s finest after-dinner drinks, Samuel Adams Utopias is not carbonated and should be served at room temperature.

The beer is illegal in 12 states.  But it’s perfectly legal, if expensive, at the Draft Barn.

Daniel Shays is living proof that one man can make a difference, provided that man is a veteran of warfare, has easy access to weaponry, and lives in a decentralized state.

Shays’ Rebellion in 1786-87 Massachusetts is by now little more than a sidebar in the formation of America. After all, the rebellion failed, and as we all know, history is written by the winners. But Shays’ influence extends far beyond the Berkshire Hills where his rebellion began. The brief backstory: Shays was a war vet and a farmer. Like most men with that twin designation, he had very little money, and the newly established government had little pity for his situation.

So Shays and his fellow war vets/farmers got together, dragged along some of the militia, and made a run at Springfield, Mass.—future home of the Basketball Hall of Fame. As I mentioned like five lines ago, the rebellion failed, but not before they almost seized the Springfield Armory and, in the process, scared the bejesus out of a whole lot of high-ranking officials and provided one of the nation’s first great internal crises.

Shays’ Rebellion crystallized the precarious position the Founding Fathers were in after the Revolution. They themselves had revolted against a controlling state, in part due to what they perceived as improper taxation. In his mind, Daniel Shays was doing the same thing; he was acting in the same spirit he had years earlier when he fought against the Brits.

Samuel Adams suggested instituting martial law and a semantic law change that considered rebellion within a “republic” worthy of execution while rebellion within a “monarchy” “not only okay, but like, totally encouraged.” George Washington himself reacted very strongly to the news: “I feel infinitely more than I can express for the disorders which have arisen. Good God!”*

*Compare this to Thomas Jefferson’s more relaxed, “Wow, George. Chill out. Dude’s been put down. Sam’s got the whole thing under control.”**

**Jefferson, actually: “[A] little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”

Shays’ Rebellion came at a particularly unsteady time for America. By 1787, most had realized the limitations of the Articles of Confederation—even those beyond its Preamble. Change was already afoot, but Shays’ Rebellion certainly expedited the process. The endurance of the rebellion (it bridged two calendar years) revealed the severe limits of America’s heretofore decentralized state. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Constitutional Convention was held in May of 1787, and that Washington was among its eager (and most credible) attendants.

Furthermore, Shays did nothing short of reminding the Founding Fathers of a very important thing: This is what people were like. They bickered over any perceived unfairness, and when push came to shove, gathered arms and openly rebelled. When people like Daniel Shays are your citizenry, you start rethinking the wisdom of handing them any kind of power. As James Madison said, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”*

*That’s my emphasis there because Madison structured his sentence improperly. It would have resonated more as, “Liberty may be endangered not only by the abuses of power, but also by the abuses of liberty!”

Shays’ Rebellion, then, is not just responsible for speeding up the “revision” of the Articles of Confederation, but also for much of the new Constitution’s content. By reminding the Founding Fathers how dangerous—and potentially deranged—poor war veterans could be, Shays helped make sure that citizens couldn’t directly vote for many of their “representatives.” In other words, Daniel Shays is why we have the Electoral College.

• “Shame on the men who can court exemption from present trouble and expense at the price of their own posterity’s liberty!” –Samuel Adams