My last encounter with Erie wasn’t quite what I expected, but since I believe you should try everything twice, I opted to check out their IPA. Here it is, the Misery Bay IPA from Erie Brewing Company.
Aroma: Citrusy hops, with almost a hint of sweet chocolate malts.
Appearance: Pours golden amber, almost no head.
Flavor: Grassy hop taste, warming alcohol, with some earthy malt and a nice, full and bitter finish.
Mouthfeel: Nice carbonation, medium-bodied.
Overall: Odd aromas to this beer out of the bottle, but the taste is really nice. The lack of a head is disappointing though, although maybe it’s an aspect of my glass. Aside from the appearance aspect, this is a pretty nice IPA.
There is a page quickly making its rounds on Facebook, consisting of tweets from idiotic tweens who didn’t know that the Titanic was actually a real ship. If there is any justice in the world, when these kids apply to college and jobs in the future, those with the power to make decisions will pull up the tweets, shred the applications, and send these kids on a spaceship headed far away from this planet.
How did this happen? That’s what everyone wants to know. How did we get to the point where people are so stupid that they didn’t know the Titanic was a real ship? In my mind, the answer is pretty simple. There’s too much technology related crap taking up kid’s time and because of that, they’ve stopped reading books. So I’m making an argument here with two clauses, so I guess I have to *prove* them.
Okay, you’re a 12 year-old. Your life consists of getting up in the morning, going to school, maybe doing an after school activity, eating, homework and going to bed. So what do you do in your spare time? You could go upload pictures of your cleavage to Facebook, show everyone what you like on the Internet via Pinterst (I spelled it wrong and I don’t fucking care), you can play Angry Birds for 5 hours straight, you can watch the world collectively make fun of people who just want to try and sing on American Idol, you can watch 16 year olds whine about their birthdays on MTV, the list goes ON AND ON AND ON. All this crap that is basically looking at some sort of screen, reading/watching some sort of crap that does nothing to educate you.
You know what I did at that age? I fucking read books. I didn’t have cable, so TV was basically pointless to watch. There weren’t cell phones and there sure as hell weren’t games on them. The Internet wasn’t invented (or maybe it was, but it wasn’t fast enough to even load Gmail) so I didn’t waste time on a computer. I walked to the fucking library in the shopping mall nearby and I read books. You know what I learned from reading before I was a teenager?
-all about Steven Spielberg and the making of Jaws
-how an early special effects technician pasted cutouts of sailors onto ants and had them run around a burning model ship to film a disaster sequence
-that the “crash of 1929 didn’t involve any vehicles
-that there was a chemical leak in India that killed a LOT of people and one guy saved a bunch of people on a train by not allowing it to stop in his station
-that there are things called space shuttles and one of them exploded in 1986 and it was a national tragedy
-that there was a series of children’s books involving a kid named Fudge
-that King snakes could eat other snakes
-that there are a lot of blurry photos of UFOs
AND YES, THAT THE TITANIC WAS A REAL FUCKING SHIP
Alright, time to put my hockey knowledge to the test. My NCAA basketball bracket was a total bust, but with fewer teams and 7 game series, there is slightly less chance for upsets. Nothing too in depth here, but my predictions for the first round of the playoffs, starting with the Western Conference:
Vancouver Canucks (1) vs. Los Angeles Kings (8)
On paper, this is a pretty easy choice. The Canucks boast one of the best offenses in the game and no matter what you think about Roberto Luongo, he should be able to stop a Kings offense that has failed to live up to its potential and if he can’t, Cory Schneider is set to take over with his sparkling numbers. While the Kings defense has been stingy and goalie Jonathan Quick could steal a game or two, I don’t see them beating the Canucks in a best of seven, especially with Daniel Sedin set to return. Even without both Sedin’s, Vancouver’s going to take this one. Prediction: Vancouver in 5.
St. Louis Blues (2) vs. San Jose Sharks (7)
The Blues come in giving up less than 2 goals per game. Their transformation under Ken Hitchcock has been simply miraculous. They have 2 strong goalies and an allow about 26 shots per game, compared to 33 for the Sharks. The Sharks took it to the wire to even make the playoffs and they have struggled so badly on offense that I don’t see them beating the Blues in goals output. However, I see a potential for a few OT games in this series. The worry for the Blues is on the power play, as they are only running about 16%, while San Jose has a 21% conversion rate. But, factor in that the Sharks have an atrocious penalty kill (2nd to last in the league) and I see those factors cancelling each other out. I see the Sharks getting two wins, but that won’t be enough to save the team from getting blown up in the off-season as ownership realizes there is no grit/leadership in the dressing room to carry the team to a Stanley Cup. Prediction: St. Louis in 6.
Phoenix Coyotes (3) vs. Chicago Blackhawks (6)
Man, I had to think about this one for a while. The problem is that Phoenix simply lacks the offensive weapons to take over a series. The Coyotes play strong defensively, and Mike Smith sure has been hot coming in, but they have a hard time coming back after going behind. But I wonder if Chicago get it together on defense enough to actually get a lead. Offensively, they are having some issues Their powerplay is atrocious and another potential issue for Chicago is their penalty kill, which is under 80%. Part of this has been due to inconsistent goaltending, which is not a problem the Coyotes have. This series could probably go either way, but Phoenix did own Chicago during the regular season. I see a few OT games in this one. Prediction: Phoenix in 7.
Nashville Predators (4) vs. Detroit Red Wings (5)
This is the year for Nashville, in that they must produce if they want to convince Ryan Suter and Shea Weber to stay. They are the elite shutdown D-pairing in the league and with Hal Gill added to the backline (although he is questionable as I write this), the Predators look solid defensively. In my mind, it really depends on if the Predators can take advantage of home ice and if Alexander Radulov shows up to bring the goods. Detroit has an AWFUL road record so I can see them dropping the first two games on the road. They have struggled lately and will be facing the best powerplay in the league. I feel like getting the first goal will be key for games in this series. Prediction: Nashville in 7.
And now for the Eastern Conference:
New York Rangers (1) vs. Ottawa Senators (8)
Quite a few people see a potential for an upset, but I don’t buy it. The Rangers have a lights-out goalie and the 3rd best defense in the league. The Senators have been a surprise team, led by a superb defenseman in Karlsson. They actually score more goals than the Rangers as well, but I see that trend ending this series. The Rangers just have too much talent and momentum to get upset. The Senators could steal a game or two, but goaltending is going to be an issue for them compared with King Henrik. Gaborik is obviously going to have to produce, as is the Ranger powerplay which needs to get a LOT better to win the Cup. But the Rangers do well when scoring first and can protect leads. I see them winning this round pretty easily. Prediction: New York in 6.
Boston Bruins (2) vs. Washington Capitals (7)
Some experts are picking an upset here, but I’m no expert, and I think it comes down to Tim Thomas outplaying whoever is in goal for the Caps. Washington snuck into the playoffs with some help from Buffalo, so one could argue that they’re peaking, but I don’t see the lack of commitment disappearing suddenly for the playoffs. The Bruins have a scary good offense when it is clicking and the Caps have been plagued by defensive issues since well, since forever it seems. Special teams seems like a washout, so it comes down to drive. Boston wants to repeat and expects to make it there. Washington thinks they can surprise, but I think their surprise came when they performed so poorly all season. Prediction: Boston in 5 with at least one blowout of the Caps.
Florida Panthers (3) vs. New Jersey Devils (6)
I’m not sure if I would pick the Panthers to beat Ottawa if that was their matchup. Martin Brodeur has been too good the Devils and their offense is getting strong seasons from Kovalchuk, Parise and David Clarkson. Florida is going to need to score a lot of goals and I don’t see that happening as they lack a 30-goal scorer. Too bad though, as they are a promising team that has gotten strong goaltending all around (I think Jakob Markstrom is going to be a solid #1 in a year or so for someone). New Jersey has the best penalty kill in the league, so I don’t see Florida winning the special teams battle. Better luck next year. Prediction: New Jersey in 5.
Pittsburgh Penguins (4) vs. Philadelphia Flyers (5)
The matchup I love to hate. As a Penguins fan, I’m confident we can beat any team 4 out of 7 times, but the Flyers are such a huge rivalry that it makes it a simply brutal first round matchup. Whoever comes out of this is going to be hurting, which doesn’t bode well for the rest of the playoffs, unless say they match up against the Senators (unlikely). What’s left to say about these teams? The Penguins have the scariest offense in the game with an absurd power play. When they are firing on all cylinders, they are a Cup team. However, the Flyers are strong, nasty and have plenty of talent. Scott Hartnell has taken his game to another level and is poised to take over the first round. My hope is that we avoid any injuries to key players and win the battle on special teams and that Philadelphia’s goaltending playoff woes continue here. Here’s to possibly the best series we’ll see this year. Prediction: Penguins in 7.
*This is a day early because I missed last week and have a Stanley Cup Playoff prediction post coming tomorrow night.
Apocalyptic thrillers usually fall into one of two categories, the “road” movie or the “hideout” movie. Great example of the “hideout” movie would be “Night of the Living Dead” and “Dawn of the Dead.” The “road” movie involves well, “The Road” and other films in which characters try and reach some sort of destination. “The Road” was essentially a zombie film, with dangerous cults filling in for the zombies. To imagine “Stake Land“, think “The Road” which vampires. There’s actually a lot of similarities. There’s a man, and a boy. The man’s name is “Mister”, that’s as close as we get to a name and although the boy with him isn’t his son, he’s essentially taken the role of father/protector.
And yes, the movie has vampires. In the opening scene, we’re treated to an incredibly NASTY attack on a family, which really surprised me in that it sort of involved an unwritten (kind of) rule about horror movie kills. Let’s just say this moment tells you that this movie is for real (as real as you could get anyway in a movie about vampires) and it won’t hold back in terms of killing anyone.
The boy and Mister set out for a location called “New Eden”, which is fitting considering the dangerous religious fanatics they encounter along the way. Since vampires themselves are usually just scary, and not so much evil, the movie uses the religious group to add some psychology to the savagery, much like “The Road” made it scary because the cults were cannibals and you didn’t want to be eaten by other human beings.
Like “The Road” much of the film is set in dark tones, there is a lot of darkness, grays, browns, no real signs of anything living, very little vegetation. It’s a cold “literally” world that involves some small towns/pockets of survivors, but there is fairly little dialogue, characters aren’t expanded upon that well. I guess that’s the one flaw of this film. We like horror movies because they put characters in danger, but if you don’t really care about/get to know them, then it’s a wasted exercise. I enjoyed the film, but some moments would have been heightened simply had I known more about certain people.
However, I will say that the ending is satisfying and carries with it some not so subtle religious undertones, which is interesting because of the way the film handles religion earlier. There is actually a really poignant moment during the final showdown, which I had to watch twice to make sure that I had seen what I thought I’d seen. While “Stake Land” isn’t perfect or prophetic, it’s a more than competent genre exercise. It’s only drawback is that it has come after so many others, that it seems like it’s simply retreading old territory. If you can get past the fact, and if you’re in the mood for a movie like this, then it’s pretty darn good.
Wisconsin, the home of the brewers, and I don’t just mean the baseball team. It’s got a LOT of breweries, some of them making very good beers. And so we dive back into IPA season with the IPA from Lakefront Brewery.
American India Pale Ale, 6.9 % ABV
Aroma: Great hop aroma, with hint of grass and malts.
Appearance: Pours golden/copper in color, clear, with an off-white head of foam. Nice lacing on the glass.
Flavor: Nice hop profile, piney essence to it that is balanced on the end with malts and a trailing very nice bitter hop finish.
Mouthfeel: Medium bodied, coats the mouth well with nice carbonation that I’d expect from an IPA.
Overall: Pretty solid IPA. The nose doesn’t linger too strong, the alcohol is present but not overwhelming. For a hop head, it’s got a great profile and solid taste. A very nice/great example of the American IPA style.
I did not know this, but the Dixie Brewing Company does not actually exist as a location anymore. It was shut down after Katrina but never rebuilt itself as an actual brewery. However, the name still exists and the brand is contracted out, so they are brewing beer under the name, but at other locations (such as the Joseph Hube Brewing Company in Wisconsin). That’s sad because I really enjoyed their Blackened Voodoo Lager and I like to support craft breweries. I hope that someday they’re able to re-open their location in New Orleans, but until then, we’ll take in brews like their Slow Brewed Beer, from other locations.
Dixie Slow Brewed Beer,
American Lager, 4.5 % ABV
Aroma: Grassy hops, faint malts.
Appearance: Pours faint yellow, with a large head that quickly dissipates into almost nothing, completely translucent.
Flavor: Nothing too heavy, a balance of malt and hops with a more dominant hop profile, and then a faint hint of malt sweetness on the finish with a dash of citrus hops bittnerness. Tastes like the corn/grain mass market beers.
Mouthfeel: Incredibly light, decent carbonation.
Overall: For the style, it fits perfectly. It’s drinkable and light, easily a session beer. However, I like more flavor in my beer and the lack of malt profile and the domination of grain flavor makes this a beer I wouldn’t drink again. For someone who wants a craft Bud or PBR clone, then this is your beer. For me, not so much.
*Note, if you’re pressed for time/have ADD, read the first few paragraphs and then go to my conclusion at the bottom.
I was reading Men’s Health and came across the following article on barefoot running. I won’t rehash the article, but based on the study it cites, is proposes that that barefoot running is no more efficient (meaning the amount of energy you’re expending) than running in shoes and in fact, it might increase your energy consumption. Based on what I read about the study, I was a little skeptical, so I pulled up this article, which goes into more detail. Now, if you read that article, what it really comes down to is the following conclusion:
Running in lightweight shoes requires 3-4 percent less energy than running barefoot.
So we’re going to do a thought experiment, go through the study and see how they got to this conclusion and if it’s really anything you should be paying attention to (i.e. be featured in Men’s Health).
First, we’ll start with the research question. Is barefoot running more efficient? Well, more efficient than what? The study envisions the efficiency argument as “how much oxygen people consume (and how much carbon dioxide they produce)” while they run. That’s a fine measure for me. However, let’s be clear about what we’re testing. Barefoot vs. lightweight shoes, barefoot vs. regular shoes? The point of barefoot/minimalist running is that it’s supposed to increase efficiency by encouraging midfoot strikes and good running form. Advocates argue that having less support allows your foot to land less on the heel (which acts as a brake and decreases efficiency, and was advocated by Nike and other inventors of the popular running shoes with tons of cushioning) and more on the midfoot, which increases your stride and allows you to run more efficiently. Basically, land on your midfoot=get that 180 stride goal. So really, what I think the researchers first missed is that point of running barefoot/minimalist. It’s easier to get to the 180 stride goal, thus is more efficient.
What I think they should have done rather was track the amount of energy spent maintaining the 180 stride goal in shoes as opposed to running barefoot or in minimalist shoes. But they did not, so we’ll move on.
So they get a bunch of males who are experienced barefoot runners and have them run on a treadmill. There’s the first problem. The running mechanics for running on a treadmill versus running outside are totally different. A treadmill forces you to keep up with the speed of the machine while running outside forces you to propel yourself forward while the ground stays in one place. But we’ll move on.
They had the runners run in yoga socks on the treadmill, and counted that as “barefoot” running. Then, they had them use shoes. The shoes they wore were Nike minimalist shoes that clocked in at 150 grams. STOP. The shoes they are using as the “shoe” control are in fact, designed to encourage a midfoot strike and 180 strides, JUST LIKE RUNNING BAREFOOT. This part of the study is poorly designed because the appeal of barefoot running and the barefoot running movement isn’t founded on being an alternative to MINIMALIST SHOES that weigh 5oz per shoe, but rather, an alternative to standard running shoes that weigh around 14oz per shoe.
But, moving on. The runners run in barefoot and with the Mayfly shoe. Then the researchers start to add weights to their feet, I assume in order to simulate the weight of wearing a shoe. So what happens is, they have people running in socks, they attach weights to the socks equal to that of the Mayfly shoe, and they compare THAT to running IN THE SHOE! It’s a ridiculous comparison. Running with weights attached to your foot in equal amount to a shoe, does not equal the same mechanic/situation as running with the shoe. From the article:
When subjects ran barefoot with an additional 150 grams of weight added to their feet, about the same amount of weight as a Mayfly running shoe, they were 3 to 4 percent less efficient than when they wore the Mayfly, according to the study published in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. The reason why is the subjects of another study at the Locomotion Lab. The research has yet to be completed, but Franz said that he thinks the drop in efficiency may have to do with the need for barefoot runners to compensate when the cushioning of the shoe is removed.
NO. The reason why is probably because attaching weights to a foot is not the same as having it run in a shoe. This study really does nothing to solve the debate on whether running barefoot is *better* than running in regular running shoes and even if its methods were better, its findings are really insignificant to the average person who is thinking about switching from 14oz to 5oz shoes.
Really, the problem is that they are simply misunderstanding the barefoot claim. The barefoot claim is really more of a midfoot/stride/form claim. It says that in order to hit the optimal stride, you should run in a light shoe that encourages a midfoot vs. heel strike and 180 strikes per minute. These researchers are trying to pull apart the mass vs. shoe impact, which is stupid because the barefoot purpose is not to make you more efficient than running with weights LITERALLY attached to your socks (like they did in the study).
Pulling apart (studying) the weight vs. shoe mass effects is STUPID because the separation of the two NEVER occurs in real life. Runners add shoes, then they add weight. No one considering switching to barefoot running is going to add WEIGHT WITHOUT SHOES. This study is dumb.