Note the maple sugar rim on the tasting cup (we weren’t the only team with a serving gimmick)
Late at night, at last year's New Mexico Brewer's campout in the Pecos, a legendary cider-maker voiced an opinion that I think most people share, deep down: everything is better with bacon.
Would even apple cider benefit from bacon? And if you're going to do that, why not make it a full breakfast drink? That exquisite essence of pancakes, maple, could play a part as well.
Thus was born the Maple Bacon Cider competition.
A year has passed, and last weekend the entrants reunited to submit their entries for judgment. I am pleased to announce that my sweetie and I won in the categories of Best Appearance and Presentation, Best Bacon Expression, and Best Overall. We didn't win the Best Maple Expression or Best Apple Cider, but I think we did fairly well in those aspects too.
Would you like to recreate our winning Maple Bacon Cider? Well, you can't. Even I can't, because I didn't take good notes on the final ratios of everything. But here's how to go about it.
You’ll need a hard cider as your foundation. Cider making is a whole topic on its own, so I'm not going to go into depth on that here. Look around. Apple harvest time is coming up in a few weeks, so now's a good time to think about sources. We used a blend, approximately a third consisting of store-bought Scrumpy's, a little over half being my 2008 cider (which I think isn't all that great, but I sure drain those bottles quickly whenever I open one), and the balance being my 2008 cyser (which is very sweet, suffering from a stuck fermentation at about 1.050 -- dunno what I'm going to do about that, yet) plus the bacon extract (see below). Really, any good cider base will do, although its dryness or sweetness might be influenced by your maple tactic.
For maple, there are a few approaches. I can tell you the one that does not work: putting maple syrup in your cider prior to fermentation. Oh, the sugar will ferment, but for some reason, the maple flavor doesn't really come through. You'll want to add maple syrup after fermentation, which means you're going to be sweetening, so means you might want to have a pretty dry cider to start with. Or save yourself some trouble and just use maple extract. I believe that the Best Maple Expression winner used an extract.
The hard part is the bacon. This is the true challenge and the real reason the competition happened. The president of the Dukes of Ale is going to blackmail me with a video of me drunkenly expounding my team's "two pronged approach" to baconating our cider, but really, it was a three pronged approach.
First, make a bacon extract. Fry up some bacon and eat it. Pour the grease into a jar, and add a distilled spirit. We used vodka, but bourbon is a great choice too. Swirl the grease and vodka together every once in a while for a few days. Then put it into the refrigerator. The fat will congeal, and you can skim most of it off. Pour the vodka through a coffee filter to separate the rest. Your vodka ought to now have some bacon aroma and flavor. Don’t bother trying to extract flavor from the meaty, non-fat part of the bacon. That doesn’t work.
Second, liquid smoke. Part of what we think of as bacon flavor, is really just the curing. If you smell hickory smoke, you can't help but think you smell bacon. (Go easy with the stuff, though. In a half-gallon batch, half a teaspoon is enough, possibly even too much.)
Third, and this is part of why we also won Best Presentation and Appearance, is to fry up some bacon immediately prior to serving. Each taster gets a stick of bacon dropped right into their glass. C'mon, you're looking at a piece of bacon, and it's putting a grease slick on top of your cider. Don't tell me you don't taste bacon, even if it's just psychological.
I was surprised and almost disappointed that all entries were drinkable. None of the submissions were gross. Fortunately, next year’s competition raises the difficulty and is more open to interpretation, so maybe some adventurous soul will go too far: barbecue beer.
It's hard to believe that things used to be different. In some people's cases, the change has even happened in our lifetime.
There was an underclass who was constantly discriminated against. These second-class citizens used to not even be allowed to vote, and the idea of one of them winning such an important election was absurd.
But the voters have spoken, and made clear the will of the people: the artificial distinction that separates these fellow Americans from the rest of us, is something we no longer need (or should) to recognize. For many years, The Man has encouraged us -- no, taught us -- that we shouldn't respect "those people," but now one of "those people" is The Man.
Here are some population numbers taken from Wikipedia. United States: 305,312,000, New Mexico: 1,969,915, Albuquerque: 518,271.
From this, we can say that the president of the U.S. answers to about 305312000 consituents. A member of the U.S. Senate (2 NM seats) from NM answers to about 984957 constituents. NM's members of the U.S. House of Representatives (3 NM seats) answer to about 656638 constituents.
The governor of New Mexico answers to about 1969915 constituents. In the New Mexico state legislature, your representative in the Senate (42 seats) answers to about 46902 constituents, and your representative in the House (70 seats) answers to about 28141 constituents.
The mayor of Albuquerque answers to 518271 constituents. Each member of the Albuquerque City Council (9 seats) answers to about 57585 constituents.
Who do you have the best chance of reaching? At what level does your vote make the most difference? Who is accountable and who can most safely blow you off?
JULIET (working at Hollywood Video in Commerce City, Colorado)
Poison and dagger hap'ly fail'd us then And blessing came soon after tragic tale. To feed my four year son, I toil all day Now selling Video from Hollywood. How I wish lov-ed Romeo would visit That we might make plans, our son's future waits. O, is that him I see now coming here?
Juliet dear! Your workplace, strange for such a weighty conversation. Yet it must be done. He must be raised Montague, a Westside Baller, surely you agree.
No, that won't do. I know what's best for him. Crip and a Capulet like me he must be rais'd. It breaks a mothers heart to see a child join such a weak and lesser gang as Ballers. He needs strength which comes from blue ID and nation'l franchise. Crip he be!
Foolish you are, and I am glad it's not your call to make. As father I assert my right to choose my son's gang, he will be a Westside Baller. Mind your place, woman!
Last week there was a story about census officials having trouble with the handleheld computers that they had planned to use in the 2010 census. What struck me was that there was a $600 million contract for the computers. I remember wondering: how can it cost that much to count people? $600 million is a lot of money. It sounds like a waste of money, to repay some contractor that funded someone's campaign, all in the name of flashy high-tech that probably doesn't work any better than pen and paper.
I was wrong about everything. Everything!
$600 million is not a lot of money; it's a drop in the bucket. And apparently, not getting to use the computers is going to increase the cost by two billion dollars.
Waitaminute.. increase the cost by? You mean increase the cost to, right?
Gutierrez said reverting to a paper-based census, in addition to other costs not associated with the handhelds, is expected to increase the cost of the 2010 census to between $2.2 billion and $3 billion through fiscal year 2013. That would bring the total cost of the 2010 census to between $13.7 billion and $14.5 billion. He said the bureau would need an increase of $160 million to $230 million for fiscal 2008 to cover costs associated with returning to paper, with an additional $600 million to $700 million for fiscal 2009. Gutierrez added that the majority of the cost increases would occur in 2010.
$13.7 billion total cost, on the low end. According to the 2000 Census, the US population was 281,421,906. Divide $13.7 billion by that number, and you get $48.68 per person. That's what it costs to count you.
One of the areas in which they compete, is selling mysterious devices. We're not sure what these devices do, or how they do it, but we use them to count votes.
The other way they compete, is having their lawyers use variations on the Streisand effect to see who can draw the most attention to their shadiness. In a brilliant move that will leave Premier's PR team green with envy, Sequoia has pulled into the lead: they sent a threatening letter to Princeton CS professor Ed Felten and the state of New Jersey. The issue? New Jersey election officials had some problems with Sequoia machines on Super Tuesday, so they were planning to send a Sequoia voting machine to Felten for an independent audit. It's hard to program a computer to count button presses, but maybe a computer science professor can figure out the subtleties that eluded Sequoia.
The threat to New Jersey: "it violates their established Sequoia licensing Agreement for use of the voting system. Sequoia has also retained counsel to stop any infringement of our intellectual properties, including any non-compliant analysis." Apparently the machines were licensed to New Jersey rather than sold, and checking to see if they work, isn't one of the allowed uses.
The threat to Felten: Sequoia will "take appropriate steps to protect against any publication of Sequoia software, its behavior, reports regarding same." If he does get ahold of one of the machines and sees something wrong with it, he better not talk about it.
The result? New Jersey backed down. The machines will not be inspected. Take that, all you paranoid malcontents who complain about government trampling our [intellectual property] rights!
Some people believe the current law is fair. As long as the telecom company at least reasonably tried to obey the law, they deserve to be cut some slack.
Some people believe that is not fair, and that reasonably trying to obey the law, let alone actually obeying, is still too onerous. Furthermore, lifting this requirement that the telecoms try to obey the law, isn't good enough today. That requirement should be lifted for activities in the past, as well. Existing lawsuits should be immediately thrown out, before the courts make any determination as to whether or not the old law was broken.
There is a bill in the Senate, S.2248 (maplight) with a provision to grant retroactive immunity in civil lawsuits, to telecom companies that assist the U.S. Government with warrantless wiretaps. If this bill becomes law, telecoms will no longer need the "good faith" defense.
The lancet fluke changes an ant's behavior so that it grabs ahold of grass blades to get eaten by cattle or sheep -- but only at night. When the morning comes, the ant returns to its normal day-to-day life. (Have you been feeling inexplicably tired, lately?)
Ceti eels enter humans through the ear and wrap themselves around the cerebral cortex, making the victim extremely susceptible to suggestion. Later as they grow, follows madness and death. They can be used as pets by eugenically-bred leaders, though they're still not quite domesticated.
Contestants are asked a question: What percentage of Americans polled, said <insert statement here>. Many of the questions bewildered me, and there was no way I could have answered them, such that if the answer had been 1 percent or 99 percent, neither answer would have been more (or less) surprising than the other.
Then the question was asked: "What percentage of Americans believe the police should be able to search your home without a warrant, if they suspect that you have drugs?"
Let that sink in. It's a question about values, not law. It's not a question about the country we live in; it's a question about the country that we want to live in. They weren't polling to find out if Americans think the police can legally do that. It's not a question about whether or not police suspicions should be enough for a judge to issue a warrant. It's not a question about whether or not drug offenders should be punished.
Should police be able to search your home without a warrant if they suspect you have drugs?
Americans disagree about a great many things (which actually encourages me) and that's why we pursue such a wide variety of (sometimes conflicting) agendas. And yet, I like to think that surely we're all (mostly) agreed on some very basic and simple things. There is simply no mainstream group in America, no matter how liberal or conservative, who publically advocates the repeal of the Fourth Amendment. Nor have I ever heard anyone put forth a radical interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, such that it wouldn't apply to the situation described in the poll question. On this point, there appears to be unity and consensus.
Appearances are deceiving. Power of Ten's polls resulted in 28 percent. Twenty-eight percent of people polled, think that the Fourth Amendment is just plain wrong, and their dream society—the world they want to live in—doesn't include that law.
Furthermore, 28 percent is a lower bound. Everyone has some issue that hits close to home and pushes some emotional button, even if they don't view drug possession with much moral outrage. Should police be able to search your home without a warrant, if they suspect you are a pedophile? Should police be able to search your home without a warrant, if they suspect you are planning to fly an aircraft into an office building? Should police be able to search your home without a warrant, if they suspect you are bribing senators to enact legislation that has no purpose other than to serve your business interest?
Twenty-eight percent was a surprise to me. Of course, there's more than one way to interpret it. Maybe people were deliberately lying to the poll, as a prank. Maybe it was just a flippant answer where they didn't think about what they were saying. Maybe they misheard the question and didn't perceive the "out" in "without a warrant." And maybe they were telling the truth.
If they were telling the truth, that's over one in four Americans. Are you one of them? Could one of them be someone you know? Could one of them be in the room with you, right now?