Highly delayed in my review of a complex beer for the not-quite-as-snobish, last week I had the opportunity to spend some time with a bottle of the Boulevard Brewing Co. Bourbon Barrel Quad ("BBQ".) Since we're already a week behind, I'll include a few pennies on Great Divide's new Pilsner, "Nomad."
The one thing I've committed to in my half-assed review of beers, is to do my best to avoid silly adjectives that don't really explain anything about taste. These things started with wine drinkers (or perhaps interior designers) who use terms like "earthen-notes" and "fruity character" to describe the beverage they're drinking. Using the term "fruity" is copping out of an apples and oranges comparison by saying its both.
Its not.
Boulevard Bourbon Barrel Quad.
For those otherwise unawares, being a "bourbon barrel quad" really defines much of it's character. The bourbon barrel aspect should be straight forward, indicating that the beer is fermented in a bourbon barrel, usually for secondary fermentation after the beer has started fermenting. Most beers go through at least two separate fermentation stages in order to avoid imparting off-flavors caused by sediment that accumulates during initial stage.
The BBQ is based loosely on Boulevard's "Sixth Glass" abbey-style ale, and the "Quad" in it's name references it's definition as a Quadrupel ale. The initial fermentation was done with cherries, then separated out into multiple different bourbon barrels and blended after the last-stage fermentation. As the label states, it brings very little of the cherries sourness to the beer.
The beer will bring a slight sour and sweetness at first, then follows with the distinct flavor of bourbon on the back of the palate. Boulevard describes this similarly though they described "notes of vanilla and toffee," which leads me to believe they don't drink bourbon very often (or perhaps I'm not extrapolating far enough on the taste.)
Zooming out to the beer on a whole, the most remarkable aspect of the beer is simple: It is not a bourbon barrel stout. That's not a negative judgment by any means. Most beer aged in bourbon barrels is going to have a very over-powering bourbon taste, which is why I don't spend much time commenting on the more distinct flavor aspects. The important element in this beer is how well the Bourbon character fits into a Quadrupel style ale, and the fact that Boulevard was able to pull it off.
The best character analysis I could give, would be a faint sour beginning (cherries) that moves into the more spiced (with Belgians, think Coriander) taste that the traditional Belgian abbey would have, which follows with a very pronounced sweet bourbon at the end.
Worth the (characteristically) low price most stores will sell it; $11.99 if you can still find a bottle.
On to the lager!
Pilsner lagers are difficult to really define, because they're generally so similar. However unlike ales, a Pilsner Lager has 3 generally distinct elements that vary from beer to beer.
1. Hoppiness/Character - Generally Hoppiness in a Lager is considered an off-flavor. However, any beer needs to be hopped to balance out the sweetness of the malt. The ideal pilsner will still have a little bitter trace on the tongue, with a little sweetness to back it up, though it won't be so bitter it becomes dry or so sweet it's like soda-pop. Sometimes those extremes in a Pilsner are welcomed, however. (For a sweet pilsner, try the Oskar Blues "Mama's Lil' Yella Pils." For a Hoppy Pilsner, try Avery's "Joe's Pilsner")
2. The effects of temperature and food - The ideal pilsner should warm well, and not offend the palate as it's temperature rises above 34 degrees. Hoppier Pilsners will always contort some facial muscles as it warms up, too sweet and it will dominate the palate too much if you're eating.
3. Sessionability - The Pilsner lager was created as a session beer, that being... it was designed to allow you to drink a few without spending the latter half of your evening and the following morning hugging the toilet.
In all seriousness however, sessionability is actually more influenced by the gravity and (as a result) sweetness of a beer. Sweeter beers will generally have higher calorie content and will usually "fill you up" more. Not to sound cliche, but the old advertisements did have some validity. In addition, sweeter beers generally yield a higher alcohol content (yeast converts sugar to alcohol.)
So how goes the Great Divide Nomad?
1. It's definitely got a pricks worth of bite from the hops on the back of the palate, a little sweetness up front.
2. It warms well, and the taste doesn't deviate much from it's chilled state. It certainly doesn't distort the face like hoppy pilsners do, and while I have yet to try it with a nice dinner, the taste doesn't feel over-powering on the palate.
3. I'm on number 3 (literally) and after writing for about an hour I'm still sober, still eagerly awaiting dinner, and number 3 still tastes like number 1.
Overall: The happy medium between Polestar and Mama's. 5/5, and arguably the best beer Great Divide makes (except Austin's small batch Cuvass, which won't be released publicly.)
P.S. December's beer of the month was Victory Brewing Company's Dark Intrigue Imperial Stout. The Import of the Year, was a beer called " Gudeløs" by Bryggeriet Djævlebryg and the Danish Atheist Society. Try a bottle if you can dig it up!
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Rare Brew of the Month Club?
Maybe I should inspire this kind of notion... Anywho!
Grand Teton Black Cauldron Imperial Stout, simply quoting from their website found as follows.
http://www.grandtetonbrewing.com/BCIS.html
Grand Teton Black Cauldron Imperial Stout, simply quoting from their website found as follows.
http://www.grandtetonbrewing.com/BCIS.html
There are few styles of beer more flavorful than Imperial Stout. Our thick, rich version was brewed with plenty of caramel and roasted malts and subtly spiced with American Chinook and Styrian Goldings hops. We've accentuated the natural smokiness of the brew by adding a small amount of beechwood-smoked malt. At 22 degrees starting gravity and 8.0% alcohol by volume, this beer boasts flavors of chocolate and coffee, along with raisins and dried fruit soaked in sherry.
Black Cauldron is a strong ale, best enjoyed in moderation, and paired with full-flavored grilled or roasted meats or with dessert. Chocolate cakes, truffles, fruit tarts, caramel flan or crème brûlée are all excellent matches.
We've brewed our Black Cauldron Imperial Stout to recognize and honor the women in the history of brewing. Brewing has been women's work since the dawn of civilization. In all ancient cultures, beer was a gift from a goddess, and women maintained status and power through their skills as brewsters. This remains true today in indigenous cultures from Asia to Latin America, Africa to remote villages in Scandinavia. Around the world, women baked bread and brewed their own beer.
In Europe, the rise of cities brought commercial brewing, as governments realized the potential tax revenue to be had from large breweries. By 1445, the first all-male brewers' guild was established, the campaign against witchcraft burst forth across Europe, and the purge of women from brewing had begun. Beer historian Alan Eames has written that, when an occupation was listed, most of the women burned for witchcraft in Europe were brewsters or alewives.
Most of the imagery we associate with witchcraft today originated with the brewster. The large black cauldron bubbling over with foam? A brew kettle, of course. The black cat? Necessary to keep rats out of the grain store. The tall pointed hat? It allowed the brewster to be seen over the heads of taller men in the marketplace. A broom? The symbol of household domesticity, it is still associated with brewing all over the world.
Without the work of these women through the ages, it's entirely possible beer would not exist today. To learn more about the role of women in today's brewing industry, visit www.pinkbootssociety.org.
Specifications
Original Gravity: 20 Plato (1.080)
Malts: Idaho 2-Row Brewers, CaraMunich, Carafa Special & Beechwood Smoked
International Bittering Units: 43
Hops: American Chinook & Styrian Goldings
Alcohol by Volume: 8.0%
In summary. A fine Job ladies of history and while I will still second guess the occasional witches brew, a simple beer from the right woman is all it really takes for any of us. (Note, metaphor piled on top of metaphor piled on top of double entendre which makes it like.... a quadruple entendre.)
Original Gravity: 20 Plato (1.080)
Malts: Idaho 2-Row Brewers, CaraMunich, Carafa Special & Beechwood Smoked
International Bittering Units: 43
Hops: American Chinook & Styrian Goldings
Alcohol by Volume: 8.0%
In summary. A fine Job ladies of history and while I will still second guess the occasional witches brew, a simple beer from the right woman is all it really takes for any of us. (Note, metaphor piled on top of metaphor piled on top of double entendre which makes it like.... a quadruple entendre.)
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
So someone in my family once told me...
“Why don’t you have a girlfriend Joe? It’s just that you’re so cute…”
This is mostly an explanation for my family if they want to read it, and in part for anyone who cares to know why I wrote that old blog post about being frustrated and pissed off at the female gender…
To start this, I need to explain a few personality characteristics and mental aspects of myself.
I think too far down the road. – As I’m talking to a girl I’m even remotely interested in, flashing through my mind are abstractions and ideas of the future. As I’m learning about her, my mind is playing out a relationship all the way out to marriage and death. I’m analyzing the idea of a relationship based on personality characteristics in a person’s speech, mannerisms and history. I ask questions like “Can I see this last?” “Will she disappear half way through?” “Does she seem like the kind of girl that would want to take everything I have if we got together and divorced?” “Does her personality lead me to think what she wants out of the relationship would put me at legal risk?”
So, rather than getting caught up in the moment and just having a good time with women I’m caught up in the next step and am too busy with critical analysis. These critical analyses mean I’m not even paying attention to enjoying my time with people anymore, because I’m constantly watching my back.
And I’m not kidding with some of those questions I just mentioned. So, a lot of it is just thinking too much about “what’s she thinking? Is this going somewhere?” I’m also wickedly dense, and given that I grew up without a female figure in the house, there are a lot of subtle queues that most women would expect a guy like me to get when…. I don’t.
But all that is something I could easily get over. The dilemma is really a bit more analytical than it is just “I’m dense and not thinking about having fun.” It’s about values and value judgments and decision – “Is it really worth it?”
So far, as you all know the answer has been a resounding “No.” Though I suppose I should explain what I mean by value judgments and decision. Part of that explanation of my own mind involves explaining how I think and the values I hold – I’m just going to touch on a few here to hopefully explain my perspective.
This is mostly an explanation for my family if they want to read it, and in part for anyone who cares to know why I wrote that old blog post about being frustrated and pissed off at the female gender…
To start this, I need to explain a few personality characteristics and mental aspects of myself.
I think too far down the road. – As I’m talking to a girl I’m even remotely interested in, flashing through my mind are abstractions and ideas of the future. As I’m learning about her, my mind is playing out a relationship all the way out to marriage and death. I’m analyzing the idea of a relationship based on personality characteristics in a person’s speech, mannerisms and history. I ask questions like “Can I see this last?” “Will she disappear half way through?” “Does she seem like the kind of girl that would want to take everything I have if we got together and divorced?” “Does her personality lead me to think what she wants out of the relationship would put me at legal risk?”
So, rather than getting caught up in the moment and just having a good time with women I’m caught up in the next step and am too busy with critical analysis. These critical analyses mean I’m not even paying attention to enjoying my time with people anymore, because I’m constantly watching my back.
And I’m not kidding with some of those questions I just mentioned. So, a lot of it is just thinking too much about “what’s she thinking? Is this going somewhere?” I’m also wickedly dense, and given that I grew up without a female figure in the house, there are a lot of subtle queues that most women would expect a guy like me to get when…. I don’t.
But all that is something I could easily get over. The dilemma is really a bit more analytical than it is just “I’m dense and not thinking about having fun.” It’s about values and value judgments and decision – “Is it really worth it?”
So far, as you all know the answer has been a resounding “No.” Though I suppose I should explain what I mean by value judgments and decision. Part of that explanation of my own mind involves explaining how I think and the values I hold – I’m just going to touch on a few here to hopefully explain my perspective.
1. Everything begins at the self. Love, to me, is one of the most supremely selfish emotions in existence. If you love someone, it’s because what you see in them is a reflection of your own values – We look up to those we love as a physical representation of everything we believe to be good. Without those values, without the definition of WHAT or WHO to love, one person does not love anything, strictly speaking. (As an aside, we brand those who physically love without discrimination with the word “Whore” while we carry a benevolent view of those who proclaim to love everyone emotionally, without discrimination.)
2. A relationship that revolves around sacrifice and compromise isn’t a relationship. Every good relationship in my eyes, revolves around desire and want, not sacrifice and compromise. People always talk about any relationship as involving effort and sacrifices, and I simply do not understand why sacrifice and compromise would be valuable in a relationship.
Now, when I say sacrifice and compromise, I likely mean something other than what you may be thinking. Giving something of yourself, because you DESIRE to isn’t really a sacrifice.
For example: Selling your Pearl Black ’69 Camaro SS because you know your wife hates it and it’s not something important enough for you to keep is one thing. If you love that Camaro and would be loathe to sell it, but your wife pressures you to do it – That’s sacrifice. And that’s the point at which I grab my keys and drive off into the sunset, never to return again outside a courtroom.
But that’s the point of distinction that I look for….
Now, when I say sacrifice and compromise, I likely mean something other than what you may be thinking. Giving something of yourself, because you DESIRE to isn’t really a sacrifice.
For example: Selling your Pearl Black ’69 Camaro SS because you know your wife hates it and it’s not something important enough for you to keep is one thing. If you love that Camaro and would be loathe to sell it, but your wife pressures you to do it – That’s sacrifice. And that’s the point at which I grab my keys and drive off into the sunset, never to return again outside a courtroom.
But that’s the point of distinction that I look for….
3. I look for someone who happens to be going the same way, and is looking to ride along side me. The previous example would be a change in directions and time to leave. My life comes first to me, and I look for someone who can take the same perspective. I don't want a dependent. I don't want another driver. Maybe Rally Racing is a good analogy - There's a driver and a navigator. I like to drive and happen to know where I'm going most of the time. I'd like to find someone that does the same, and doesn't mind being navigator sometimes, and driving sometimes.
Now those are some basic things I think most people could understand and probably agree with, but those are the platitudes and the emotional associations. Next is the hard logic.
1. The Law. The legal risk in any relationship requires entirely too much vulnerability on my part. If I had any faith in our legal system, that would give me cause to think “Yeah, My rights would be protected and represented in court,” then I’d probably think twice about my perspective on relationships. I mean this in any context, whether it’s in a divorce court or in the face of other charges. I’m not violent, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t get falsely accused of violence by some whack-job woman who held a grudge against me for something. (That whole thinking too far ahead part.) – Even if that kind of thing is rare or so rare it’s silly, I still have to leave myself vulnerable to it in this day and age. (There’s back story there, that involved a friend being wrongfully accused of beating up his girlfriend. Cost him a scholarship, cost his parents their house to legal fees, and he was acquitted after his accuser admitted she lied. He spent the whole time in jail, and killed himself shortly after he was released.)
2. Statistics. The relationship will almost undoubtedly fail. Statistically speaking, I’d have a better chance at winning the lotto if I bought a ticket every week, than I would at finding a relationship that would last as long as the lotto annuity payments, if I talked to a different girl every week. To reiterate: Lotto annuity - 30 years. Likely hood of finding a relationship that would last 30 years is smaller than actually winning the lotto.
3. It’s more expensive than the lotto, too! (Money) I like going out, but I intensely dislike paying for dinner, gas, etc for a girl who may say thank you, but can’t actually show appreciation. I’m not asking for a lay (maybe that’s the problem?), or even physical attention of any kind. I’m asking for actions that show genuine appreciation, and it’s pretty easy to see a false sense of gratitude, no matter your gender. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again… “in my experience, women have a limitless capacity to consume without any sense of guilt or appreciation.” (Please take note of the implications behind the words “In my experience.”)
I also have no desire to hitch myself to a woman that has the capacity to take everything I own and have worked for through the duration of a marriage. That doesn’t mean I desire to take the house, furniture, cars and everything I could. It just means that I wouldn’t want my earnings and what I worked for to be taken from me by force, via divorce court. To me the word “Alimony” reads as “Alley-Money” and the court is the back alley where the mugging occurs.
I also have no desire to hitch myself to a woman that has the capacity to take everything I own and have worked for through the duration of a marriage. That doesn’t mean I desire to take the house, furniture, cars and everything I could. It just means that I wouldn’t want my earnings and what I worked for to be taken from me by force, via divorce court. To me the word “Alimony” reads as “Alley-Money” and the court is the back alley where the mugging occurs.
4. Commitment. I laugh to myself when I see shows that talk about how unwilling to commit Men are. Most of what I’ve discovered as of late is the trend toward non-committed relationships, particularly in women. I posted something on Facebook a while back about the Gay community having to fight for marriage while straight folks are fighting to get out of it… The subtext was how common it is to find people in relationships where marriage is out of the question and even then, how many aren’t willing to label themselves as a “Couple.” I’m actually kind of envious at the desire so many gay couples have for such commitment. I wish I could find women my age that are so eager for the same thing.
But commitment has to mean something, and when divorce has become the legalized trivial ceremony it is today, it’s meaningless.
Yet still, I want and expect a commitment. Not a commitment to sacrifice for the relationship, but a vow that says “Should my heart travel down another road, you’ll be the first to know.” One that says I’m the object of the wants and desires of the woman making such a commitment.
I hope most of you know me well enough to realize that the traditional religious institution of marriage is not relevant here.
But commitment has to mean something, and when divorce has become the legalized trivial ceremony it is today, it’s meaningless.
Yet still, I want and expect a commitment. Not a commitment to sacrifice for the relationship, but a vow that says “Should my heart travel down another road, you’ll be the first to know.” One that says I’m the object of the wants and desires of the woman making such a commitment.
I hope most of you know me well enough to realize that the traditional religious institution of marriage is not relevant here.
5. The Cost-Benefit Analysis – To the right eye, I’ve just run the prospect of a relationship through a SWOT analysis. I suppose its just how I think. I’d love to have a girlfriend for the obvious reasons and for the less-than obvious reasons. My cat keeps me company in some ways, but will never be the same as an awesome girl. No one will ever give me the objective feedback a woman would. No one could drive me to excel, smack me when I step out of line or take care of me as well as a woman could.
I’d love to find a girlfriend, but right now the potential risks outweigh the possible benefits. I know what you’re thinking; “Dude, it’s not a matter of analysis man, this is just nuts! I think you missed the point somewhere!” No, no I didn’t. The opposing argument says that all this analysis is meaningless, than I should just follow my heart, fall in love and none of this analytical crap will matter – I get it, except… I grew beyond letting my heart make decisions about my life. Now a days, my mind leads and my heart follows. I put my heart on point once about 2 years ago and was let down as expected.
I’d love to find a girlfriend, but right now the potential risks outweigh the possible benefits. I know what you’re thinking; “Dude, it’s not a matter of analysis man, this is just nuts! I think you missed the point somewhere!” No, no I didn’t. The opposing argument says that all this analysis is meaningless, than I should just follow my heart, fall in love and none of this analytical crap will matter – I get it, except… I grew beyond letting my heart make decisions about my life. Now a days, my mind leads and my heart follows. I put my heart on point once about 2 years ago and was let down as expected.
To my family: I’m not gay. But I’m not impressed with the current selection, either.
To those that read the blog post: It’s just a matter of finding someone that makes all this bullshit worth it. I haven’t found one yet, and after years of looking, one gets frustrated. But then again… some of those that read the previous blog post might still get offended by this post.
To those that read the blog post: It’s just a matter of finding someone that makes all this bullshit worth it. I haven’t found one yet, and after years of looking, one gets frustrated. But then again… some of those that read the previous blog post might still get offended by this post.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Occupy Nothing. The 99% Statistic and Why It's BS
For at least the last 12 years or more, I've heard this statistic thrown around that "99% of this country's wealth is held by 1% of the population." Originally, I was shocked and appalled. I thought to myself, "WOW That is SERIOUSLY messed up! Something should be done to fix this problem!" As I looked into the statistic and why our distribution of wealth was so skewed, I discovered a number of things that changed my perspective, initiated my current academic interest in economics and made me take a political U-Turn from 21st century Liberalism to a more Libertarian, 18th century Liberalism (a.k.a. Non-religious "Conservatism.")
At the beginning I sought to find out what this statistic was all about and where it came from. Honestly, I thought to myself - "There's no way less than 1 million people hold almost all the money in the US!" In looking for the source of the statistic and trying to find other data that supported it, I ran into my first dilemma; "How do I define wealth? How does the statistic define wealth? Is that 99% statistic based on GDP, or the total money held by people in bank accounts?" In asking this question, I realized that most people call "Wealth" the money in their pocket at the end of the day. It's what's in their savings account, what they can save or how quickly they can save it.
For a household of 4 after a mortgage, food, paying for extracurricular activities for the kids, taxes, transportation etc, that may not be much, considering median household income in the US is $46k. (I'm using 2009 data here) Yet, for a single person with no kids, $46k is a different story entirely. With modest living expenses, a person making $46k a year could save a lot of money. So, "wealth" in that regard becomes largely relative to one's circumstances and choices - Having kids costs money, so does buying a house. Assuming a 46k income, "Wealth" is relative to how much you spend/save. Or more correctly "Wealth" is defined by what's coming in vs. what's going out.
(To add some perspective on why I used that $46k figure here. I based this on US Census data (which can be found here) which shows that the median income in the US is $46k. Now, for the sake of comparison, the US Census also defines poverty based on household size. For a family of 4, that's any household below $22k. Only 14.7% of the people in the country make below that figure based on household size. My point here was to contrast the idea of income vs. expense. I realize many who read this blog don't make $46k, but understand that everyone who reads this blog is well above poverty level.)
Let's run with that for the time being. The concept of wealth in the context of "99% of the wealth is held by 1% of the population" is relative to incomes - Who makes the most money? This should mean then, that 99% of the gross income in the country went to only 1% of the population (which would be approximately 3 million people, for reference.) Bring in the IRS statistics of income (which can be found here.) According to this neat publication, the adjusted gross income across all tax returns filed in 2009 is...
$7,648,676,270,000 - Seven Trillion, Six hundred and forty eight billion, six hundred and seventy six million, two hundred and seventy thousand dollars. Approximately.
99% of which, is $7,572,189,507,300.
So, if the 99% statistic is accurate, that means that 3 million tax returns should show somewhere around that 7.5 trillion dollar mark, right? Well... this is where I got angry.
The number of tax returns that reported more than $250,000 in income for 2009, was 2,498,021. About 500,000 short of our 3 million people marker. The total gross income they reported was $1,621,416,514,000. Just about 20% of the total income in the country, and no where near 7.5 trillion.
Now, as I read through these statistics I found something else interesting... the vast majority of the income reported in 2009, came from tax returns that reported between $50k and $100k (about 2.1 trillion). - We call that the middle class, and they take about 24% of the total income in the country, making it impossible for 1% of the population to possess 99% of the income in the country.
The short version of all that number crunching is this - The majority of the income and purchasing power held by the country, is held by the people who make between $50k and 100k, even as recent as 2009, after the start of our economic dip.
The media, my peers, even the education that I was receiving all denied the numbers and data I was able to see with my own eyes. I couldn't see this 1% / 99% thing.
I looked harder. I thought it could be a GDP thing. The US GDP is about 14,526,550,000,000. Here again, the 99% statistic is impossible considering the purchasing power of the middle class at 2.1 trillion. Also consider that tangible assets held by business entities (not directly held by people) many of which are held and controlled by shareholders and business owners, much of which is part of that middle class group.
So... after spending a great deal of time researching these statistics, digging through numbers, trying to understand them, I've only been able to come to one conclusion - This 99% of wealth concept is completely and entirely wrong. Worse yet, it's not simply a lie, it has zero foundation in truth, what-so-ever. Most of those who would cite this figure are doing so to preach for some kind of economic change, and they're preaching goals that we have already reached. So, it's not even a willful or intentional misrepresentation of the truth, it's just ignorance of it.
I said before I started looking for this information over 12 years ago, and it's true. I'm using current numbers because they're easier to cite, but every year the IRS and US Census release their data, I check the numbers again to see if we're seeing a progression toward wealth accumulation in that small super-rich percentage of our population.... We're not.
This kind of statistical separation in Academia and the news is why I have a hard time taking either seriously.
The other funny part of this, is how much of the US GDP is wrapped up in tangible assets held by businesses, and how many people in this country hold stock in and work for those same companies. - Most of your IRA is corporate business investment.
In the end, Occupy Wall Street is...
An emotionally driven and largely unaware group of people upset about the current economic recession and disappointed by the fact that others are still living decently while they're either struggling or empathizing with those who are struggling. It is not, however, based on fact.
Now I ask for anyone to tell me... What did I miss?
At the beginning I sought to find out what this statistic was all about and where it came from. Honestly, I thought to myself - "There's no way less than 1 million people hold almost all the money in the US!" In looking for the source of the statistic and trying to find other data that supported it, I ran into my first dilemma; "How do I define wealth? How does the statistic define wealth? Is that 99% statistic based on GDP, or the total money held by people in bank accounts?" In asking this question, I realized that most people call "Wealth" the money in their pocket at the end of the day. It's what's in their savings account, what they can save or how quickly they can save it.
For a household of 4 after a mortgage, food, paying for extracurricular activities for the kids, taxes, transportation etc, that may not be much, considering median household income in the US is $46k. (I'm using 2009 data here) Yet, for a single person with no kids, $46k is a different story entirely. With modest living expenses, a person making $46k a year could save a lot of money. So, "wealth" in that regard becomes largely relative to one's circumstances and choices - Having kids costs money, so does buying a house. Assuming a 46k income, "Wealth" is relative to how much you spend/save. Or more correctly "Wealth" is defined by what's coming in vs. what's going out.
(To add some perspective on why I used that $46k figure here. I based this on US Census data (which can be found here) which shows that the median income in the US is $46k. Now, for the sake of comparison, the US Census also defines poverty based on household size. For a family of 4, that's any household below $22k. Only 14.7% of the people in the country make below that figure based on household size. My point here was to contrast the idea of income vs. expense. I realize many who read this blog don't make $46k, but understand that everyone who reads this blog is well above poverty level.)
Let's run with that for the time being. The concept of wealth in the context of "99% of the wealth is held by 1% of the population" is relative to incomes - Who makes the most money? This should mean then, that 99% of the gross income in the country went to only 1% of the population (which would be approximately 3 million people, for reference.) Bring in the IRS statistics of income (which can be found here.) According to this neat publication, the adjusted gross income across all tax returns filed in 2009 is...
$7,648,676,270,000 - Seven Trillion, Six hundred and forty eight billion, six hundred and seventy six million, two hundred and seventy thousand dollars. Approximately.
99% of which, is $7,572,189,507,300.
So, if the 99% statistic is accurate, that means that 3 million tax returns should show somewhere around that 7.5 trillion dollar mark, right? Well... this is where I got angry.
The number of tax returns that reported more than $250,000 in income for 2009, was 2,498,021. About 500,000 short of our 3 million people marker. The total gross income they reported was $1,621,416,514,000. Just about 20% of the total income in the country, and no where near 7.5 trillion.
Now, as I read through these statistics I found something else interesting... the vast majority of the income reported in 2009, came from tax returns that reported between $50k and $100k (about 2.1 trillion). - We call that the middle class, and they take about 24% of the total income in the country, making it impossible for 1% of the population to possess 99% of the income in the country.
The short version of all that number crunching is this - The majority of the income and purchasing power held by the country, is held by the people who make between $50k and 100k, even as recent as 2009, after the start of our economic dip.
The media, my peers, even the education that I was receiving all denied the numbers and data I was able to see with my own eyes. I couldn't see this 1% / 99% thing.
I looked harder. I thought it could be a GDP thing. The US GDP is about 14,526,550,000,000. Here again, the 99% statistic is impossible considering the purchasing power of the middle class at 2.1 trillion. Also consider that tangible assets held by business entities (not directly held by people) many of which are held and controlled by shareholders and business owners, much of which is part of that middle class group.
So... after spending a great deal of time researching these statistics, digging through numbers, trying to understand them, I've only been able to come to one conclusion - This 99% of wealth concept is completely and entirely wrong. Worse yet, it's not simply a lie, it has zero foundation in truth, what-so-ever. Most of those who would cite this figure are doing so to preach for some kind of economic change, and they're preaching goals that we have already reached. So, it's not even a willful or intentional misrepresentation of the truth, it's just ignorance of it.
I said before I started looking for this information over 12 years ago, and it's true. I'm using current numbers because they're easier to cite, but every year the IRS and US Census release their data, I check the numbers again to see if we're seeing a progression toward wealth accumulation in that small super-rich percentage of our population.... We're not.
This kind of statistical separation in Academia and the news is why I have a hard time taking either seriously.
The other funny part of this, is how much of the US GDP is wrapped up in tangible assets held by businesses, and how many people in this country hold stock in and work for those same companies. - Most of your IRA is corporate business investment.
In the end, Occupy Wall Street is...
An emotionally driven and largely unaware group of people upset about the current economic recession and disappointed by the fact that others are still living decently while they're either struggling or empathizing with those who are struggling. It is not, however, based on fact.
Now I ask for anyone to tell me... What did I miss?
Sunday, October 2, 2011
A Priori and the Limitation of Human Knowledge
The beginning of this blog post requires prefacing a few things, as I often do. My goal here is to get to the origin of certain aspects of knowledge, and much of this is based on a statement made to me in the past that “Mathematics is an example of a priori knowledge.” I’m here to state, for the record, that such notion is BS. The first order of business is to define these terms “A Priori” and “A Posteriori.” “A Priori” is used in this context to refer to knowledge we possess independent of experience. “A Posteriori” is used to refer to knowledge that requires justification through empirical evidence. So, my point here is to say, all knowledge is A Posteriori, outside raw perceptual data provided by our senses. All human knowledge begins at sensory perception. The senses take in data in the form of light, sound, texture, taste, smell. Once the data is received by the brain, we can consciously interpret what that data means. For example, the reading process equates to perceiving light as it reflects off of a page then interpreting the data. This raw data is the simplest form of knowledge we can obtain. In the absence of input through our senses, our brains create false signals. With only 15 minutes of sensory deprivation, people will begin to experience hallucinations as real as those seen by someone on LSD. (Source: Wikipedia - Sensory Deprivation If you want more reliable data, you can search for the huge Kenyon study on Sensory Deprivation in PDF format, it’s hundreds of pages of technical data.) Once we possess that raw data provided by our senses, we can begin to analyze and extrapolate on our perceptions. We see a wood object that has a flat top, and four legs extending down, one from each corner. Is it a Chair? Is it a table? Abstraction is a process of separating the idea from the object. What separates the terms “Chair” and “Table” is the idea of their individual applications. The separation there is not implicit based on the raw data we have perceived. It is an abstraction we have developed based on the knowledge we already possess. So, this brings me to Math. Mathematics, strictly speaking is a PROCESS of defining things like space, quantity, change and structure. It is by definition, a process of abstraction based on experience (Read: A Posteriori.) Simple numbers that relate to quantity have nothing to do with mathematical process. “1+1 = 2” defines the process of adding one and one. It does not specifically define the perception of two of the same object. My general proof that mathematics is not A Priori is this: “2 – 3 = -1” A simple equation that demonstrates a core concept which is dependent upon data that is wholly abstract in nature. Subtracting three from two is, in reality, impossible. We cannot even lose three objects if all we possess is two, nor can we even fathom the concept outside theoretical boundaries. Proving that 2 – 3 = -1 can ONLY be done with what we educate as mathematics (which is actually called “pure mathematics”) wherein we teach math for the sake of math – As an abstraction; An idea separated from the object, and not A Priori. Perhaps my bigger purpose in writing about all of this is to convey an important point about the limitations of our knowledge. All knowledge begins at perception and the only knowledge that we possess that is A Priori is that sense data. (The A Priori / A Posteriori question is an epistemological one, not a metaphysical question.) “The sky is blue” is A Priori because we can determine such exclusively from sensory data alone. “All entomologists study bugs” is not A Priori. Even though “entomologist” specifically is defined as a person who studies insects, this distinction is literary, not epistemological. Ergo, statements such as “we don’t know” indicating that we do not know if there is another world beyond this, or that there is some order of existence we lack the faculty to perceive, are moot. Even information that isn’t directly provided by our senses (such as a frequency too high or low for the human ear to detect) can be measured through tools which still require sensory perception. We’re simply augmenting the means through which we perceive such data. Since our knowledge is ultimately limited to perceptual data in every context, theories about things we cannot perceive are not relevant to human existence. – If they affected our lives, we would be able to perceive them.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Animals have more integrity than Humans.
Henceforth known as a bus blog. Short, to the point, I’m on the bus when I think of these things.
I once had someone (who is on my FB page) say “Joe, the thing that separates humans from animals is that we stop to care for our injured and sick.” What he failed to mention was that we’re also the only animals the commit homicide and enslave others as a matter of perceived social status. I sit and think on my ride home today, what exactly motivates things like homicide, and slavery. Currently in my job, I work for a manager who is seriously power-hungry. I try to understand what motivates her hunger, what emotions she feels or what inspires her to feel powerful in some situations. I can see moments, based on her facial expression and little body language that tells me she feels good when she feels like she accomplished a sense dominance over me. It’s sad, but also makes me realize the fundamental nature of what people need to accomplish things like homicide, slavery and the like.
The perceived imbalances created by a free market, or by natural ability – The haves vs. the have-nots. We seek to take from one to give to another under the banner of social justice, or “right and wrong.” My manager feels as though she’s accomplished some greater good by oppressing me and my attempts to rise in my job, because she and others feel intimidated by my ability. I’m not saying I’m an amazing employee, just that I’m generally more adept at my job than most. She feels like she’s exacted her notion of right and wrong and brought about her perception of “justice.” As a matter of etymology, this leads us to the notion of “being justified” in such an action. She likely felt “justified” in keeping me from promotion opportunities because of her idea that I need to spend more time in my job before I DESERVE any promotion.
What I’m saying is that without the notion of injustice, or inequity, we have nothing to inspire us to kill or hate. Some of the most proclaimed “open-minded” people I’ve ever spoken with were the most bigoted. They proclaimed their desire for social justice and equity by demoralizing those who make a large amount of money because of their perception of inequity.
“Violence” is defined as “rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: The violence of his hatred.” And as I think of things like the supposed “non-violent” sit-in strikes I think to myself… Wait, someone should look up this word for once, because they were very explicitly VIOLENT. Okay so no one got shot, but they still sought to destroy what was created by another as a matter of “We believe this is unjust, we hate you and seek to force your hand.”
Historically, people have committed genocide and murder all over a desire to impose their sense of justice on another group of people… The details and goal is always the same. The normal reaction of people who are starving, is to hate the person who has food if they aren’t sharing, and they feel as though it is unjust for one person to have food while they starve.
I guess this is what separates us from Animals – The depth of our society. It drives us to want to save, love and care for others and in the same emotion it also drives us to kill, hate, tax, enslave, and destroy others for the same reason.
My point and solution in all of this is to say – “Let go.” I don’t want your ideology imposed on me in as much as I imagine you don’t want mine imposed on you. So perhaps this is where we should separate. You think something different than I do. Live it, so long as doing so doesn’t mean forcing me to live your ideology too. I’ll do the same.
Think it can’t be done? Animals do it every day. That might be a bit simplified, but in truth, the Animal Kingdom has a great advantage on us. They don’t pine over simple aspects of survival like we do. In that, I might proffer the argument that animals are in fact, more noble than humans. But perhaps I’m just a bit of an idealist. IDK, my BFF Jill.
I once had someone (who is on my FB page) say “Joe, the thing that separates humans from animals is that we stop to care for our injured and sick.” What he failed to mention was that we’re also the only animals the commit homicide and enslave others as a matter of perceived social status. I sit and think on my ride home today, what exactly motivates things like homicide, and slavery. Currently in my job, I work for a manager who is seriously power-hungry. I try to understand what motivates her hunger, what emotions she feels or what inspires her to feel powerful in some situations. I can see moments, based on her facial expression and little body language that tells me she feels good when she feels like she accomplished a sense dominance over me. It’s sad, but also makes me realize the fundamental nature of what people need to accomplish things like homicide, slavery and the like.
The perceived imbalances created by a free market, or by natural ability – The haves vs. the have-nots. We seek to take from one to give to another under the banner of social justice, or “right and wrong.” My manager feels as though she’s accomplished some greater good by oppressing me and my attempts to rise in my job, because she and others feel intimidated by my ability. I’m not saying I’m an amazing employee, just that I’m generally more adept at my job than most. She feels like she’s exacted her notion of right and wrong and brought about her perception of “justice.” As a matter of etymology, this leads us to the notion of “being justified” in such an action. She likely felt “justified” in keeping me from promotion opportunities because of her idea that I need to spend more time in my job before I DESERVE any promotion.
What I’m saying is that without the notion of injustice, or inequity, we have nothing to inspire us to kill or hate. Some of the most proclaimed “open-minded” people I’ve ever spoken with were the most bigoted. They proclaimed their desire for social justice and equity by demoralizing those who make a large amount of money because of their perception of inequity.
“Violence” is defined as “rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: The violence of his hatred.” And as I think of things like the supposed “non-violent” sit-in strikes I think to myself… Wait, someone should look up this word for once, because they were very explicitly VIOLENT. Okay so no one got shot, but they still sought to destroy what was created by another as a matter of “We believe this is unjust, we hate you and seek to force your hand.”
Historically, people have committed genocide and murder all over a desire to impose their sense of justice on another group of people… The details and goal is always the same. The normal reaction of people who are starving, is to hate the person who has food if they aren’t sharing, and they feel as though it is unjust for one person to have food while they starve.
I guess this is what separates us from Animals – The depth of our society. It drives us to want to save, love and care for others and in the same emotion it also drives us to kill, hate, tax, enslave, and destroy others for the same reason.
My point and solution in all of this is to say – “Let go.” I don’t want your ideology imposed on me in as much as I imagine you don’t want mine imposed on you. So perhaps this is where we should separate. You think something different than I do. Live it, so long as doing so doesn’t mean forcing me to live your ideology too. I’ll do the same.
Think it can’t be done? Animals do it every day. That might be a bit simplified, but in truth, the Animal Kingdom has a great advantage on us. They don’t pine over simple aspects of survival like we do. In that, I might proffer the argument that animals are in fact, more noble than humans. But perhaps I’m just a bit of an idealist. IDK, my BFF Jill.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Freedom and the 4th, being buried under the law.
I meant to make this post quite some time ago, but never really had the motive to sit down and type until now.
I've realized of late that my ability to inject emotionally compelling prose into writing has become diminished, largely because I frown on it anymore. "Just the facts, ma'am" has become a thing of the past, and every statement, news story, conversation or tweet must now be written with the intent of getting the viewer to feel SOMETHING. Be it hatred, pity, compassion, guilt. Some things are written with this in mind - Fiction, political debates; And those things I understand. At this point however, we now inject it into EVERYTHING. Your dealings with co-workers, friends, even family. We create our facebook pages, not with the true statements of our lives, but with the beautiful facade of what we want everyone to think, as though the perception of our own lives by others should be our ultimate value.
And that's supposed to be normal. I make concerted efforts to avoid it.
I suppose it is normal though. The one thing I've taken from Christianity is the notion that most people are sinners. - When I was younger I don't think I really understood that. I thought most people were good folks, but now as I look at the world with a few more years, I realize most really aren't. As far as the numbers go, yes the amoral out number the moral. (By whatever measure of morality you want to use, religious or otherwise.)
I wouldn't call them sinners, however. Even with the disdain for falsifying ones life as often happens, I still can't wish an eternity of torture on anyone. I guess that's what people call compassion. Nonetheless, I avoid people like them as much as I can.
Where am I going with this? How many understand what freedom really was about, other than some buzz word that gets plugged into our facebook pages on the 4th every year, or spouted as some brainless platitude when feeling patriotic?
We plug a bullet in some terrorists head and say "YAY WE WON! GO AMERICA." - Not realizing that being "Proud to be an American" is a terrible misnomer. Then again, maybe the Chileans were as happy about it as we were. I guess "Go United States!" doesn't have quite the ring to it. It's all about putting on the facade... or maybe just an excuse to drink in excess and shoot fire... wait, fireworks are illegal now (in CO anyway.) Isn't that kind of a drag? We shout about how great our freedoms are, all the while we're told "sorry, you can't do that."
So, land of the free, home of the brave, but here's about 100,000 pages (on bible paper in 6pt font) worth of regulations and shit you can't do. "Joe, freedom in that context is absurd dude..." well right, and I'm not advocating for a completely lawless society, but I really do think we missed the point somewhere along the way.
Let's look at the history and subtext behind the 4th as a holiday. Simply, this was the day we seceded from England and told an oppressive government to "bugger off." I'll restate that: On the 4th of July, 1776, we told our government we weren't following their rules anymore. We overthrew the government, and now we celebrate having shrugged off the weight of the government (used with purpose!)
I hope my point is clear here - What we now celebrate is some text on a calendar that means we can get an extra day off. It has nothing to do with any elements of the document signed on the 4th of July, 1776.
Read: YOUR GOVERNMENT SUCKS. SETTING UP NEW RULES. PS: THE KING SUCKS TOO.
So, the whole point being, we celebrated not just succession, but the fact of having overthrown the government, and the fact that we as people are independent.
Guess things changed. Now it's just another day to drink a little too much.
Some say freedom is different now than what it was then. That "Freedom" means an inconsequential outcome... that your choices should be mitigated to ensure you have the same out come the rest of us do. That's the socialist answer.
Some say that the government and law expanded out of necessity. Changes in the human condition necessitated revision upon revision of law. That's the worst answer.
The freedom and independence of this country was defined (not just on a documentary basis) by the context of the time. Freedom, meant the ability to make choices and be the only bearer of the consequences. Not that there would be no consequences. The ability to make choices without fear of oppression or legal repercussion from the government, so long as your choices affected only your life, and not another.
I had someone tell me recently, that the law expanded due to necessity, and that the notion of personal sovereignty was "welcome to nuzzle his coin purse." It took me the better part of a day to stop reeling from that statement.
To set the backdrop - Law in the US is a beast that spawned a set of professions, from tax accountants, to attorneys and government employees. Title 26 (the tax code) is so immense it spans over 9,500 pages... IN ONE TITLE.
My thought of late, given that I may lose my job soon, on account of this same type of situation...
Look at the implications of expanding law. This country was founded on a principle of personal representation. Our entire court system was devised with that in mind. Now, due to massively expanded state and federal law (and the ability to set precedent with court cases) a lawyer is practically necessary in order to properly represent a case or defend yourself, much less win.
Can't afford a lawyer? TOO BAD, you lose. You may have legal rights, but unless you can afford to pay someone to untangle the code sections that apply, you can't exercise them. Simply put - Our legal system has become Jim Crow on an economic basis as opposed to race, and a professional monopoly.
Why don't we have a flat tax? Because removal of the current tax code would destroy the entire tax preparation industry and create a huge amount of unemployment. - The entire Green initiative is in the same boat. Right or wrong, these laws create jobs. Destroying them would be political suicide.
Anywho, that's my tirade for the night. Independence day my ass. Now it's better represented by Will Smith punching aliens than it is by any virtue, moral or philosophy.
I blame the Sophists, Michael Moore, and the Smurfs.
I've realized of late that my ability to inject emotionally compelling prose into writing has become diminished, largely because I frown on it anymore. "Just the facts, ma'am" has become a thing of the past, and every statement, news story, conversation or tweet must now be written with the intent of getting the viewer to feel SOMETHING. Be it hatred, pity, compassion, guilt. Some things are written with this in mind - Fiction, political debates; And those things I understand. At this point however, we now inject it into EVERYTHING. Your dealings with co-workers, friends, even family. We create our facebook pages, not with the true statements of our lives, but with the beautiful facade of what we want everyone to think, as though the perception of our own lives by others should be our ultimate value.
And that's supposed to be normal. I make concerted efforts to avoid it.
I suppose it is normal though. The one thing I've taken from Christianity is the notion that most people are sinners. - When I was younger I don't think I really understood that. I thought most people were good folks, but now as I look at the world with a few more years, I realize most really aren't. As far as the numbers go, yes the amoral out number the moral. (By whatever measure of morality you want to use, religious or otherwise.)
I wouldn't call them sinners, however. Even with the disdain for falsifying ones life as often happens, I still can't wish an eternity of torture on anyone. I guess that's what people call compassion. Nonetheless, I avoid people like them as much as I can.
Where am I going with this? How many understand what freedom really was about, other than some buzz word that gets plugged into our facebook pages on the 4th every year, or spouted as some brainless platitude when feeling patriotic?
We plug a bullet in some terrorists head and say "YAY WE WON! GO AMERICA." - Not realizing that being "Proud to be an American" is a terrible misnomer. Then again, maybe the Chileans were as happy about it as we were. I guess "Go United States!" doesn't have quite the ring to it. It's all about putting on the facade... or maybe just an excuse to drink in excess and shoot fire... wait, fireworks are illegal now (in CO anyway.) Isn't that kind of a drag? We shout about how great our freedoms are, all the while we're told "sorry, you can't do that."
So, land of the free, home of the brave, but here's about 100,000 pages (on bible paper in 6pt font) worth of regulations and shit you can't do. "Joe, freedom in that context is absurd dude..." well right, and I'm not advocating for a completely lawless society, but I really do think we missed the point somewhere along the way.
Let's look at the history and subtext behind the 4th as a holiday. Simply, this was the day we seceded from England and told an oppressive government to "bugger off." I'll restate that: On the 4th of July, 1776, we told our government we weren't following their rules anymore. We overthrew the government, and now we celebrate having shrugged off the weight of the government (used with purpose!)
I hope my point is clear here - What we now celebrate is some text on a calendar that means we can get an extra day off. It has nothing to do with any elements of the document signed on the 4th of July, 1776.
...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Read: YOUR GOVERNMENT SUCKS. SETTING UP NEW RULES. PS: THE KING SUCKS TOO.
So, the whole point being, we celebrated not just succession, but the fact of having overthrown the government, and the fact that we as people are independent.
Guess things changed. Now it's just another day to drink a little too much.
Some say freedom is different now than what it was then. That "Freedom" means an inconsequential outcome... that your choices should be mitigated to ensure you have the same out come the rest of us do. That's the socialist answer.
Some say that the government and law expanded out of necessity. Changes in the human condition necessitated revision upon revision of law. That's the worst answer.
The freedom and independence of this country was defined (not just on a documentary basis) by the context of the time. Freedom, meant the ability to make choices and be the only bearer of the consequences. Not that there would be no consequences. The ability to make choices without fear of oppression or legal repercussion from the government, so long as your choices affected only your life, and not another.
I had someone tell me recently, that the law expanded due to necessity, and that the notion of personal sovereignty was "welcome to nuzzle his coin purse." It took me the better part of a day to stop reeling from that statement.
To set the backdrop - Law in the US is a beast that spawned a set of professions, from tax accountants, to attorneys and government employees. Title 26 (the tax code) is so immense it spans over 9,500 pages... IN ONE TITLE.
My thought of late, given that I may lose my job soon, on account of this same type of situation...
Look at the implications of expanding law. This country was founded on a principle of personal representation. Our entire court system was devised with that in mind. Now, due to massively expanded state and federal law (and the ability to set precedent with court cases) a lawyer is practically necessary in order to properly represent a case or defend yourself, much less win.
Can't afford a lawyer? TOO BAD, you lose. You may have legal rights, but unless you can afford to pay someone to untangle the code sections that apply, you can't exercise them. Simply put - Our legal system has become Jim Crow on an economic basis as opposed to race, and a professional monopoly.
Why don't we have a flat tax? Because removal of the current tax code would destroy the entire tax preparation industry and create a huge amount of unemployment. - The entire Green initiative is in the same boat. Right or wrong, these laws create jobs. Destroying them would be political suicide.
Anywho, that's my tirade for the night. Independence day my ass. Now it's better represented by Will Smith punching aliens than it is by any virtue, moral or philosophy.
I blame the Sophists, Michael Moore, and the Smurfs.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)