Centerfield

I was surprised to find that the 750 ml bottle of Eagle Rare at $19.99 was $2 less than the same sized bottle of Jack Daniels. Haven't cracked it yet though, as I decided to try a small label's single barrel batch of Rye whiskey.

Anyone have any info or thoughts on rye whiskey? I know it from the old tune American Pie (good ole boys are drinking whiskey and rye, singing this'll be the day that I die...) and figure it's safe to assume it's made using rye as the grain instead of corn. It's uncommon to find rye on the shelves in our area. I've been looking on occasion because my Canadian relatives like Rye.

My impression of it is that it's comparatively mild and easy-drinking, with a much lower level of burn in its aftermath, even though its alcohol content is comparable to other whiskeys. And even though I say burn, don't assume hat means I drink rotgut, I don't. I like a good single malt scotch. IMO, the single malts tend to have a more concentrated/focused burn where blended whiskeys have diffuse burn. The burn's loudness in such blends, is usually an indicator of quality, but if the alcohol content varies, you hvae to watch that assumption. Wild Turkey, for example, has a higher than usual alcohol content, if I recall correctly.

Anyway. I liked the rye. It was nice. The brand was Michter's.

Tully, something Cav and Bobby were discussing the other day brought to mind a question about welfare reform. I know I'm in the habit of asking you data questions, so I apologize, and am willing to do the work of trying to answer it myself if you don't have the time or inclination, but I'd probably still need some pointers from you. Anyway, a Jesse Walker article at Reason suggested that welfare reform in the 1990s had not really impacted overall welfare spending so much as it had resulted in spending migrating from AFDC to other similar programs. Is it accurate to think that federal welfare was substantially reformed in the sense of reducing spending (or reducing the rate of growth)? By welfare, I assume we're talking about whatever we'd generally assume to be "on the dole"....support for healthy working age people who aren't working (and their children), and not other things which could be broadly construed as social welfare programs, like medicare and social security.

I notice that Walker trotted out a 39% growth figure, which sounds scary, but annual growth of 3% for 12 years would produce close to that....

Again, I'll do the work if you can get me started. I don't even know which programs to count though. I'm aware that I'm asking for an indulgence. I'll pay tribute! :-)

Posted by: bk at August 24, 2006 09:26 AM

Tully turned me on to Eagle Rare and it's always at a good price. Pretty happy with it. Don't know much about rye whiskeys but I'm guessing Tully might.

Posted by: Scotch Drinker at August 24, 2006 10:35 AM

There are some good ryes out there. To be "rye whiskey" in American production means it has to be made with 51% or more rye in the mash. The Canadians used to make almost all their whiskey with high levels of rye, but very few do anymore. They do still make some good whiskies, though.

The best rye I've ever had is a single-malt from Anchor Brewing Co. called Old Potrero, but it's pretty pricey. I also liked Wiser's oldest back in the 80's, before they started reducing the rye content, but I haven't seen that in ages. A Canadian schoolmate used to always bring some back with him. Good for me I'm a sipper and not a drinker when it comes to whiskies!

Glad you like the Eagle Rare, SD. Good stuff and really smooth, especially for the proof. I think Jack is too strongly smoky, myself, but Eagle is lovely. The older I get the lighter I seem to like my whiskies, though I'm not reduced to Glenfiddich yet. (Not that this would be bad, but it is a very light single-malt.)

I dunno, Bryan, but I'll keep the question in mind as I meander around the research.

Posted by: Tully at August 24, 2006 11:00 AM

Via Drudge.

Blackberry email devices can be so addictive that owners may need to be weaned off them with treatment similar to that given to drug users, experts warned today.

I have a Blackberry that I use only when I travel. I maybe could make better use of it, but the way some of my colleagues use their Blackberrys befuddles me. For example, I see two guys from my office frequently in the morning walking the 3 blocks from garage we also park at, and they are checking their Blackberrys the whole way. Okay, that doesn't seem totally weird to me. What I find totally weird are the people who are so compulsive that they are checking their Blackberrys while waiting for the elevator, having left their offices only seconds earlier. What I find totally weirdest is the one guy who brings it into the restroom and is checking it while using the urinal. Not kidding.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at August 24, 2006 12:45 PM

They did not get the nickname Crackberry for no reason at all. I have access to email on my phone and have a wireless card for my laptop. Although, my email usage has dropped significantly the last few years. Got to be too much of a hassle. If someone really needs me, they can SMS me. Otherwise, I'll check email when i have time to sift through the spam.

As far as bathroom ettiquite, I think the most flagrant violation I have encountered was a guy who actually placed a call while in the middle of a rather flatulent session on the john. Bad enough to answer there, but make a call?!

I think the Blackberry news also ties well to the story on reducing vacation time. It seems that everyone either thinks things won't run without them or if they are not around to do it someone may not notice they were gone. I am a firm believer is seperating vacatios and work. Obviously, if you are a CEO or high government official, you can not really seperate. If you are a mid-level executive, things will be just fine for a week or two. Just leave a phone number where you can be reached, thank you. I know there are some people who live their work. I am not one of them. My idea of a vacation is going hiking in the backcountry of a place like Yellowstone National Park where cell phones don't work at all. I have my technology and com links with me at all time except when I go on vacation. One of the best things about being out of touch is catching up when you get back in touch. [Although, coming back from the Yellowstone backcountry a few weeks ago to find out about terrorist takedown and airline security changes that happened while I was listening to the coyotes yip and howl outside my tent in the evenings were a bit more then what I was expecting.]

Posted by: Jim M at August 24, 2006 01:49 PM

In other news, it's official: Pluto is not a planet. If there is intelligent life on Pluto, I'm sure they're disappointed. :)

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at August 24, 2006 02:21 PM

As far as Pluto goes, it just a conspiracy by the textbook manufacturers to get more textbooks sold. ;)

Posted by: Jim M at August 24, 2006 02:31 PM

They'd have gotten to sell a new batch anyway. At minimum, Xena would have had to be added. And if the proposed change in definition had been made, there would have been 50+ newly-recognized planets -- which would have been insane, as the astronomers have now acknowledged.

Posted by: wj at August 24, 2006 02:39 PM

Rampant anti-Americanism on the part of the astronomical community! Pluto being the first confirmed planet discovered by an American, and the only planet named after an American cartoon character.

Of course, I'm also still upset that the discovery of 2003 UB313 (by Americans, of course!) prompted the Internationalists, intent on robbing us of our stellar glory, to start re-defining what a planet is in the first place. Jealous backbiting midgets, I sez.

I am further dismayed that the Internationalists want to call 2003 UB313 "Persphone," rather than either of the more appropriate names of "Mickey" and "Goofy," as logic would suggest....

Posted by: Tully at August 24, 2006 02:58 PM

wj, "Xena" is just a nickname for 2003 UB313, and not a permanent designation. Those damn Internationalists will take that from us, as well.

Posted by: Tully at August 24, 2006 03:03 PM

I can't believe anyone would consider keeping the current names without selling the naming rights. How can we Earthans possibly leave all that money on the table?

I can hardly wait until someone figures out how to project a logo onto the moon, and people start launching large visible orbiting billboards. Just kidding, but I do remember a few years back some artist was floating a plan to launch an Earth-visible objet d'art to orbit Earth. I'm pretty sure someone put the kaibosh on it, but I'm no sure who exactly.

Posted by: bk at August 24, 2006 03:15 PM

Yeah, Brian, I read that sf story in my distant youth as well. A moon probe which was modified so that, instead of just putting out a puff of colored dust, it put up the logo of an (unnamed in the story) cola company, wasn't it?

Amazing that someone hasn't spent part of their advertising budget getting the Russians to send one already. (And the controversy would generate even more reams of free publicity, too! Definitely too good to miss much longer.)

Posted by: wj at August 24, 2006 03:29 PM

Like no one's ever thought of that before!

(Heinlein beat 'em to it in fiction by forty-some years.)

Posted by: Tully at August 24, 2006 03:32 PM

> And if the proposed change in definition had been made, there would have been 50+ newly-recognized planets -- which would have been insane, as the astronomers have now acknowledged.

You're just prejudiced against little planets! ;-)

Posted by: Jon Kay at August 24, 2006 05:20 PM

Not me! I'm the one arguing for the Big Tent here. It's those muffin-munchin' IUA types that want to toss out all the little guys.

Posted by: Tully at August 24, 2006 05:30 PM

(In truth it all much ado about definitionalism, which doesn't change a single orbit by a micron...)

Posted by: Tully at August 24, 2006 05:31 PM

> You're just prejudiced against little planets!

Hey, at least their feelings won't be hurt!

Besides, think of all the poor school children having to memorize dozens of planet names. If they have trouble learning to read and calculate at an 8th grade level in order to pass a high school exit exam, think what that would be like for them.

Posted by: wj at August 24, 2006 05:47 PM

Slashdot has a good thread on the planet decision (note: slashdot is best read in nested mode)

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/24/148245

Posted by: Jon Kay at August 24, 2006 05:50 PM

The story about advertising on the moon is "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. The plan was to use some rockets to drop some kind of very black dust behind them as they flew out a pattern which was the logo of the cola company, across the entire surface of the moon. Sort of a cross between sky writing and crop-dusting, I guess.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 25, 2006 12:57 AM

Pat, Pat, Pat...it grieves me to correct you....

The story is Heinlein's The Man Who Sold The Moon from a decade earlier, and the character who proposes it is DD Harriman. He uses the suggestion of a competitor doing that to squeeze some sponsorship dollars out of a soft drink company.

Posted by: Tully at August 25, 2006 08:55 AM

Oh yeah, and the story about PepsiCo/PizzaHut planning to project their logo onto the moon with lasers IS for real. They gave it up when the scientists explained to them that the lasers of the time weren't up to it, and that when they got good enough to do it assorted governments would have something nasty to say about it as well. High-power lasers capable of projecting a logo 240K miles could wreak havoc on low-level satellites and planes, mess up local radio communications with ionization, and violate some ABM treaties.

They settled for getting a big Pizza Hut logo on a Soyuz launcher heading to the ISS.

Posted by: Tully at August 25, 2006 09:00 AM

Hey, at least their feelings won't be hurt!

Patricia Tombaugh, the 93-year-old widow of Clyde Tombaugh, said: "It's disappointing in a way, and confusing."

Clyde Tombaugh, of course, is the Kansan who discovered Pluto.

Posted by: Tully at August 25, 2006 09:03 AM

I heard a disussion on the radio yesterday about Holst's "The Planets" now being complete as it only has eight parts and did not include a piece (movement?) for Pluto.

Posted by: WHQ at August 25, 2006 09:14 AM

Damn, I hate when you're not wrong. To add a bit more detail in a desperate effort to prop up my ego, Harriman was mostly trying to get one of the soft drink companies to pay to keep the moon advertising-free. He pitched the black powder logo ad to one bunch, and then pitched the "pay to keep the moon commercial free" to the other bunch. They would then market that they had bought the exclusive right to moon-wide advertising and were keeping it in trust for the public, so that they would never have to fear advertising of that sort.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 25, 2006 04:21 PM

Yep. All to finance his own moon trip, the one he ended up not making. (Until a later Heinlein short story, when he managed to get to the moon to die.)

Posted by: Tully at August 25, 2006 04:29 PM