My Open Letter in Support of Surly Brewing

It is an exciting time for craft beer lovers living in the United States. Never before has there been so much choice: quality beers crafted at different breweries across the entire nation. Beer is representative of many different things for each individual person. But to me, beer is an experience.

Beer is something that I actively seek out, visiting my favorite breweries to sample my favorite beers–straight from the source. I want to see how the beer is made, I want to smell and taste the local and artisanal ingredients that go into a quality batch of craft beer, and I want to talk to the people who are making the beer I drink and I want to hear their stories. Destination Breweries, like Stone Brewing Co.’s Bistro and Gardens in Escondido, California, constitute veritable paradises for beer lovers such as myself. These all-encompassing locations offer amazing fresh and local food, they highlight the craft beers that are brewed literally in the room right next door, and they initiate memorable conversations between the local, regular clientele and those individual who routinely make the pilgrimage to their favorite Destination Brewery.

I have always been a fan of Surly Brewing, despite their limited distribution in the United States and my inability to readily find their beers in California. When I heard about their proposal to create a Destination Brewery in Minnesota, I immediately thought to myself: “I cannot wait to schedule a vacation to Surly!” I make it a priority to take these types of vacations as often as possible–whether visiting my local breweries up in San Francisco, or planning a cross-country trip to Dogfish Head in Delaware or Brooklyn Brewery in New York. I eagerly await the day that I can visit Surly’s brewery, enjoy some delicious food, sample some incredible beers, and enjoy the local atmosphere that I may not otherwise have had the chance to experience.

To follow the latest news, and to lend your support, please visit: http://www.surlybrewing.com/brewersblog/

Or, follow @SurlyBrewing on twitter...or find them on facebook!

Yes, I Recognize the Futility of being a Buffalo Bills Fan

Merriam-Webster defines the word 'futile' as "serving no useful purpose : completely ineffective."

Two games into the 2010 NFL season, and it looks like the Buffalo Bills' season is, by strictest definition of the word, futile.

Two games, two loses. Two opening drives that featured incomplete passes and confidence-destroying, sacks-for-losses from an ineffectual quarterback. Two games into the season and it looks as if the Bills are already treading water, with the fan base, team analysts, and even the in-game announcers desperately looking forward to the 2011 draft, where maybe...maybe...the Bills will acquire some talent. Two games into the season and perhaps the best news is that our starting linebacker will only be out two weeks with his latest injury.

After watching these two games this season, it feels like the past ten seasons all over again. As I understand, the purpose of the regular season is to win, the purpose is to make the playoffs. Most of the effective teams have, in fact, been to the post-season within the past decade [sorry Detroit]. Maybe I am suffering from some sort of a 'childhood lens' syndrome, where I recall everything as being so much bigger, better, and brighter in the days of my youth. But after these two games, I am having a hard time determining how the 2010 Buffalo Bills are the same franchise that I grew up watching in the mid-1990s.

Over the years, coaching change after coaching change, and lame quarterback after quarterback after quarterback, has produced two games this season that were downright embarrassing.

When will this franchise right its course? Can it even do so without something as drastic as moving the team? For the sake of upstate NY, and for the memory of Bills teams past, I hope that this year's team will display at least some promising signs for future success. But something has got to give here. A team cannot attempt to rebuild every year. That would simply be futile.

Beer Review, Week of Jan. 24: Fade to Black

This week's selection is a seasonal release from Left Hand Brewing Company, a regional brewery based out of Longmont, Colorado. The psychedelic black and white label reads 'Fade to Black Ale' [named after, or perhaps in homage to, the Metallica song?], and this beer represents the brewery's winter seasonal. It is touted as being perfect for "that time of the year when the day seems to fade away."

While technically an ale, in that the beer was brewed using a top-fermenting yeast, the style of the beer is better characterized as a foreign export stout. Foreign export stouts are a broad class of stouts that can encompass a variety of flavor profiles, ranging from flowery and sweet to dry and bitter.

POUR

The beer poured even, without an overabundance of carbonation being released immediately. A milkshake-thick, tan colored head formed, propelling the distinct aromas outward from the beer [see pic]. The head slowly settled, lacing beautifully onto the edges of the glass.

SIGHT and SMELL

Fade to Black had a wonderful deep aroma that gave off hints of licorice and molasses, with a subtle coffee scent coming from underneath it all. The beer did not give off any overt alcoholic odor, despite weighing in there at 8.5% ABV. As far as appearances go, this beer was one of the darkest I have ever seen. The Left Hand website describes the color as being "black with ruby edges." I would describe the color as "black, period." Even held up to a light source, it was an extremely dark brew.

TASTE

The beer started with a sweetness and maltiness that sat right upon the middle, fat part of the tongue. The residual aftertaste was surprisingly bitter and hoppy, a taste that might be best compared to a bitter baker's chocolate. And while the beer did not give off an alcoholic smell, the 8.5% ABV became clearly evident when tasting the beer. The mouthfeel on the beer was full bodied, and provided a roasty and smoky essence. The beer was extremely delicious and given its rich milkshake-like qualities, could go well with a scoop of vanilla-bean ice cream.

QUICK HITS

Style: Foreign Export Stout

ABV: 8.5%

IBUs: 30

As far as winter seasonal releases go, this offering from Left Hand delivered. I enjoyed it more than some of the Christmas seasonal beers I tried this year, simply because it was not overly spiced up, or over-embellished with any one particular flavor. It was rich but well-balanced, and delivered several intriguing and sequential tasting experiences [a nice bitterness at the end]. If you can still get your hands on some, I encourage you to give it a try.

Cheers!

Beer Review, Week of Jan. 17: Brew Free! or Die IPA

The first thing you may notice about this week's selection, is the CAN! When I initially decided to sample this beer, I was certainly a little apprehensive...everyone knows that good beer doesn't come in a can! Canned beer is inherently light, watery and always tastes like aluminum...

Well, the folks up at 21st Amendment Brewery in San Francisco [and many other craftbrewers across the country] are out to change the negative perceptions people maintain toward canned beer. In fact, on the packing, 21st Amendment offers "Six Good Reasons to Open a Can of Beer."

First, cans keep fresher because the beer never sees any light, and cannot be damaged by UV rays. [as my college buddy would say, 'Never trust a green bottle...'] Secondly, cans are lined so the taste of the beer remains unaffected. Cans weigh less and chill faster than glass bottles, and they are easier and cheaper for smaller breweries to ship and distribute. Cans are easier to recycle and perhaps more importantly, cans get recycled at a higher percentage rate than do bottles. And finally, cans will go "where no glass dares"...for example, beaches, parks, stadiums, boats, pools, golf courses [and into those sweet hats].

21st Amendment offers their IPA, their Watermelon Wheat beer, and their limited edition 'Insurrection Series,' all in can format. If all of these reasons aren't convincing enough to try canned craft-brew, Brew Free! or Die IPA should definitely provide incentive.

POUR

This beer poured smooth and clean. Cracking open the can not only provided that great sound, but unleashed the flowery aroma of the beer. The pour formed a white head that clung to the side of the glass, and released good deal of carbonation that forced the aroma and flavors to the forefront of the brew.

SIGHT and SMELL

Beautiful copper color with an evanescent glow. The beer had a white head, that did not quickly dissipate, forming beautifully intricate 'spider-webs' of suds on the inside of the glass as I drank. The beer smelled flowery and clean, with no real discernible alcoholic undertones.

TASTE

I am loving these West Coast Style IPA's, and this one delivered. The taste was bright, bitter and bold, but not unbalanced or overpowering. The flavors were clean and polished, not messy by any means. The flowery taste masked the alocholicity (7.0% ABV) of the beer, but you got the feel of residual heat down the throat. The hop flavors are balanced nicely with a malty/sweet hint, and thus, the mouth-feel is not overly bitter but does give a little of that bite in the cheeks.

QUICK HITS

Style: American IPA

ABV: 7.0%

IBUs: 70

All in all, this could be one of my [current] favorite IPA's. It is certainly a notch down from Pliney the Elder, in terms of big brash and bold hoppy bitterness. But still, Brew Free! or Die IPA delivers that classic American IPA flavor, all wrapped up in a portable, environmentally friendly can! I recommend this brew to any IPA fan, seeking a canned craft-brew experience.

Cheers!

NY Times: Another Brick in the (Pay) Wall

According to a Slashdot article, the NY Times has confirmed an earlier speculation that it will be placing its online content behind a pay-wall, beginning in 2011.

While many of the details and key aspects of the pay-wall system have yet to be determined, the NY Times will begin charging users who regularly visit the site each month. But for instance, it is not certain whether the pay plans will be monthly, daily, or per article/view. It does appear that occasional users will still be allowed access to a certain number of free articles.

This announcement from the NY Times, and similar past announcements from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp, concerning the institution of pay-walls for online news content may be an industry effort in futility. Can instituting a pay-wall, or removing a news site from Google's index, actually be advantageous to content owners?

I am reminded of a statement made by a panelist on the legal podcast, the Intellectual Property Colloquium, which compared the music industry to the news industry in terms of online content survival.

The panelist noted that the music industry was too late in adopting a strategy for online survival...refusing to partner with Napster during the early days, placing heavy DRM onto music legally purchased, etc. Only now does the music industry seem to be settling into an online business model that can generate enough revenue to promote content creation. [Granted there are myriad issues that still exist surrounding the music industry and online content...the current model is far from perfect (and to what degree is dependent on the evaluating perspective)]

Conversely, the news industry was too quick to open up their content and initially adopt a free online model. The general manner in which people consumed news began to evolve, and users started to access free online news content to replace, rather than supplement their daily news consumption. The free online model quickly denigrated into one that could not generate enough revenue to sustain the creation of news content [and the traditional business model itself is currently unsustainable, as people migrate online for news] .

Now, the news industry has to put the proverbial cat back into the bag, and get users to pay for something they are accustomed to accessing for free.

Unlike smaller news operations, the NY Times is clearly not under an immediate financial threat; after all, the pay-wall doesn't go up until 2011. The first attempt at a NY Times pay-wall model failed in the past...the question is, can one work in 2011? And will it be enough to ensure the survival of "premium" news content online?