San Diego County beers by the numbers

*

From the 2010 World Beer Cup held in Chicago in which 642 breweries from 44 countries and 47 U.S. States entered 3,330 separate beers for 97 categories.

11 and 21... the number of County breweries winning medals and the number of medals those breweries won.

10%... the percentage of County breweries out of American breweries winning medals (204)

8 and 10... the number of medals won by County breweries over those of respected craft brew states, Oregon and Colorado, respectively.

5 and 14... the number of medals won by County breweries over the countries of Germany and Belgium, respectively.

Ballast Point Brewing Company which won 3 gold medals was named small brewing company of the year succeeding 2008 winner Port Brewing Company of Solano Beach.

It's settled. San Diego County is the craft/microbrew capital of the planet and it's not really even close.

Honorable Mentions: Our ancestral hometown of Placentia, California, picked up two gold medals. In the Experimental Beer category, the 100% Brett Autumn Maple and in the Belgian-Style Flanders/Oud Bruin or Oud Red Ale, the Oude Tart courtesy The Bruery.

Shocker: No medals for Stone Brewery of Escondido.

A full rundown of Cup winners, here.


* That's Jack White President and founder of Ballast Point Brewing Co. holding aloft a pint of his Big Eye India Pale Ale.

Tales from Bailout Nation Pt. XXIV... and quote of the day

"we encountered more difficulty and delay. Fannie's lobbyists were on the Hill spreading misinformation about my motives and asserting that the special exam was unnecessary."

That from Armando Falcon, a former regulator at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the GSE watchdog who was testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission regarding Fannie Mae. Falcon further testified that whenever faced with a report with negative connotations about the company, Fannie's supporters would launch an assault on OFHEO -- from a full investigation of the group to demanding Falcon's resignation.

Now, they wouldn't have done such a thing now would they? And why does that name, Armando Falcon, ring a bell? Why, yes. Why, yes, indeed. Falcon was made an absolute whipping boy back in 2004 during congressional testimony when he testified to Fannie Mae's illegal accounting practices.

From the interweb archives, one of our favorite videos of all-time: for your viewing and keeping-the-record-straight pleasure, it's Lacy Clay (D-MO) throwing out racially-charged grenades and Maxine Waters extolling the virtues of zero down loans and the total awesomeness of Franklin Raines.



Exit question: How is it that Franklin Raines is walking around a free man, right now?

No, really... guess what else ObamaCare doesn't do?

So, those of you who thought ObamaCare was a swell idea because it would bring down premiums may be in for a bit of a rude surprise.

Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama's healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.

And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.

Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.

Many state governments -- which traditionally had responsibility for regulating insurance companies -- also do not have such authority. And several that do are now being sued by insurance companies.

"It is a very big loophole in health reform," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.

A loophole? That's what you call one leg of the three-legged ObamaCare stool (universal coverage, coverage for pre-existing conditions, and bending down the cost curve) getting sawed in two? A loophole?

First, Congress forgot to cover children with pre-existing conditions (the health insurance companies were later shamed into providing coverage).

Then, they forgot to cover young adults under their parent's health insurance plans (later, fixed with the Reconciliation bill).

And just yesterday, news broke that they somehow forgot to exempt themselves from ObamaCare.

And now, they kind of forgot to shore up that whole rising premium thing. It's the big sombrero of legislative incompetence.

How much further proof does one need that no one, repeat, no one bothered reading this bill?

But as for actually giving the feds some regulatory teeth in which to clamp down on those greedy insurance companies, fear not, congressional help is on the way.

On Capitol Hill, Feinstein said she was looking at ways to move her premium regulation bill forward, perhaps by attaching it to other legislation with bipartisan support.

Linking it to something like troop spending is always a favorite of ours.

If you are scoring at home, then: We had the original ObamaCare bill signed into law back on March 20th. Then you had the Reconciliation bill that was supposed to fix everything that was screwed up and disagreeable about the original O-Care bill. Now, because they couldn't get the cost control thing right, there will be yet another healthcare-related bill.

ObamaCare: As Nancy Pelosi promised, it will be the gift we keep finding more and more about now that it has passed.

Got Mascot?

The Hedgehog concept compares two animals; a fox, which is very clever and knows many creative ways to get a meal, and the hedgehog, a somewhat dull animal that knows one, and only one, thing. To roll into a spiked ball for protection.

In this animal scenario the hedgehog always wins, because despite the fox's many clever tricks and high intelligence, there's no getting around a spiky ball.

B-Daddy is on a roll and his critique of the Big Difference between the Tea and Coffee Parties can be found here.

It's not what you think

The election-year jobs agenda promised by President Barack Obama and Democrats has stalled seven months before voters determine control of Congress.

Democrats have no money to pay for the program. That's because both Republicans and the Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee objected to taking money left over from the fund that bailed out banks, automakers and insurers and using it for the jobs bill.

Such a move, they insisted, would add tens of billions of dollars to the $12.8 trillion national debt.

An $80 billion-plus Senate plan promised an infusion of cash to build roads and schools, help local governments keep teachers on the payroll, and provide rebates for homeowners who make energy-saving investments. Two months after the plan was introduced, most of those main elements remain on the Senate's shelf.

Ummm... since when did not having any money to pay for legislation ever stop this particular Congress? Something's not printing out with respect to the no-money angle and it's precisely because much of the verbage contained in the paragraphs above are completely redundant, as in, we've seen this movie before.

It's not for a lack of money. Let's all bear in mind that this, ahem, jobs bill is not to be confused with $787 billion porkulus bill signed into law over a year ago and which promised via infrastructure work like road and bridge building/repair would not let unemployment get above 8% if passed. Nor is it to be confused the $15 billion son of porkulus jobs bill signed into law a couple of months back which was advertised as a providing a quick infusion of cash into the economy for... road and bridge projects and bailing out the states so they could keep teachers employed but in reality was a congressional photo-op to prove to the public that bipartisan legislation could indeed pass in Congress.

No, this isn't about money. This is about the red-face test that Congress, along with this piece of legislation, would be unable to pass with the American public.

Could it be that even this congressional body has discovered the limits of their shame in that they wouldn't dare ask for another couple of hundred billion dollars because even they know it wouldn't do the unemployment figures a damn bit of good and for the fact that it would only hasten their removal from office in November?

Waking up to economic common sense or poltical self-preservation, either way, we'll take it.

Ooops...

Dear Santa, we didn't ask for too much for Christmas last year and if this turns out to be true, we won't ask for jack-squat this December.



When one doesn't even bother to read the bill, can one be blamed for gooning up even the most self-serving aspects of that legislation? Turns out that Congress, which had every intention of exempting themselves from the Obamacare public health exchanges of the unwashed masses, may have shot themselves in the foot due to a "drafting error" in the crafting of the legislation.

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

Please try to contain your child-like giggling, there's more.

The law promises that people can keep coverage they like, largely unchanged. For members of Congress and their aides, the federal employees health program offers much to like. But, the report says, the men and women who wrote the law may find that the guarantee of stability does not apply to them.

“It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum.

Operational pause: If the people who allegedly wrote this bill cannot even game themselves out of Obamacare, what does that say about all the "unintended consequences" and general wretchedness of Obamacare for the rest of us?

Resume insane cackling.

The provision governing members of Congress can be traced to the Senate Finance Committee. When the panel was working on the legislation last September, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, proposed an amendment to require that elected federal officials and all federal employees buy coverage through an exchange, “rather than using the traditional Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”

A scaled-back version of the amendment, applying to members of Congress and their aides, was accepted in the committee without objection.

And then, in all the hoopla of git'er done and the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase and the pharmaceutical and union buy-offs, they just kind of forgot about that unfortunate provision from last
Fall. Seriously, who has time for any rear guard action when one is selling one's soul for a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation?

If we had to shut down this blog tomorrow, nothing would be more appropriate than a final post that demonstrated not only the rapaciousness but the complete incompetence of the jackals that fashioned Obamacare... for the benefit of us all, of course.

H/T: Hot Air

Can monkeys bring together the Tea and Coffee Parties?

B-Daddy has some more info on the Coffee Party, here and comes up with some pretty telling info as to their goals, motives and backings. Not that you would be able to tell what it is these people are all about by reading their "About Us" at their home page. Yes, they have a national homepage.

Coffee Party USA aims to reinvigorate the public sphere, drawing from diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives, with the goal of expanding the influence of the People in America's political arena. We do not require nor adhere to any preexisting ideology. We encourage deliberation guided by reason amongst the many viewpoints held by our members. We see our diversity as a strength, not a weakness, because we believe that faithful deliberation from multiple vantage points is the best way to achieve the common good. It is in the responsible and reasonable practice of deliberation that we hope to contribute to society.

We know what is going to be bookmarked on our insomnia reading list from here on out. Honestly, what the heck did that paragraph above really say?

We want to give these folks the benefit of the doubt, particularly if the tea party can find some common ground but as you will read at B-Daddy's piece, it's going to be awfully hard.

They are big on money in politics and in particular the concept of "corporatism", or the hand-in-glove partnership between government and private industry (picking winners and losers) decried by the (now extinct) class of good government liberals like Thom Hartmann, author of the book What Would Jefferson Do?

Hey, we're all for getting rid of "corporatism" or as we refer to it around here, crony capitalism or economic fascism but is the coffee party's corporatism merely code speak for bashing Wall St. to the exclusion of ignoring the federal government's complicity in the financial and mortgage meltdowns? When we hear phrases like "The government is not the enemy", which is big in the Coffee Party lexicon, that question is all but answered.




P.S. B-Daddy has garnered a comment from a Coffee Party participant who seems like a very reasonable fellow. He thinks there is common ground in money in politics (campaign finance reform) and gerry-mandered districts.

Since money in politics is directly proportional to power in politics/government that might be a tough nut to crack. To wit, we see as a Coffee Party goal, more of McCain/Feingold which did absolutely nothing to stem the flow of money and which only rerouted the flow on its way to the same destination.

Districting, however, is an abomination and is a spoil of whatever party is in power. We have previously said we would prefer a team of monkeys armed with crayons and letting them loose on a map of California rather than the way districts are now hacked up. Hey, we may be on to something. It's some progress.

How did I get stuck over here on the left side of this post

Got back in from the desert yesterday evening. We did have a chance to spin around the 'net just enough to realize there is a lot going on out there with respect to tax day and local politics and our posts over the next few days will most likely reflect that.

In the meantime, please enjoy this short Milton Friedman clip from 1978 at Stanford University.



"Government doesn't have any responsibility, people have the responsibility"

If there is anything we do know will result from ObamaCare, it will be a paradigm shift with respect to charitable givings and volunteerism. As one of the most charitable nations on Earth, we possessed a collective responsibility to care for the poor and those who had been victims of unforeseen circumstances, be it natural disasters or medical difficulties.

With government intervention into the health care decisions of our lives being thrown into overdrive with the advent of ObamaCare where the role of government as the provider of well-being becomes more and more increased, will that cause a paradigm shift in our national psyche that deadens the sense of urgency we have for charitable giving and volunteerism?

We're going to find out and we are by no means optimistic about the results.

Barring an extreme case of the munchies and/or forgetfulness, expect turnout at the polls in November to be very strong in certain demographics

In this region renowned for potent marijuana buds, many in Humboldt County long accepted that legalizing the weed was the right thing to do.

Now some folks aren't so sure.

A statewide initiative in November would allow cities to regulate pot possession and cultivation. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has proposed a broader legalization. Neither is certain to pass.

Yet as medical marijuana has spread and city and state budgets are being slashed, legalized marijuana is becoming more possible than ever. That has some people here thinking twice.

We encourage you to read linked article from the L.A. Times as it is a very nice account of some of the consequences of a legal marijuana economy and the apprehensions of those who have been participating in the underground marijuana economy for years now.

After years and years of counter-culture lifestyles and sticking it to the man, the old hippies of Humboldt County are suddenly discovering their inner Milton Friedman and awakening to economic self-interest with the specter of the legalization of marijuana.

We're still not sure how we are going to vote on these measures in November. We remain skeptical that pot legalization will have the deleterious effect on society as some say, however, we go into full reflex mode when we hear how this new revenue stream generated from a taxable product will help California's budget woes. That sort of pie-in-the-sky thinking is nearly grounds for automatic dismissal as California's budget problems aren't from a lack of incoming revenue. Besides, the last thing we want to do is give the state government more money. Oh, and sticking it to those NoCal hippies (hell, hippies everywhere) also weighs heavily in the "no" column.

Fears that the marijuana market will be overrun and diluted by mass-producing Central Valley farmers may well be unfounded because as the market matures and, much like the wine market, the branding of smaller Humboldt and Mendocino-grown herb will start holding sway over the buying public. Boutique weed, anyone?

Frankly, we're fascinated to see how government regulation and free market forces will shape the pot market. We never thought we would pen that last sentence.

Oh, to be having this conversation right now with our old hemp t-shirt-wearing and "Let It Grow" bumper sticker-sporting, Pacific Beach duplex mates, Devin, Big John and Gumby.


P.S. Anecdotally speaking and from a second hand source, some enterprising youngsters have gamed the system already by figuring out a way to obtain the "pot card" necessary to gain entrance to medical marijuana outlets via an online application without even having to get a doctor's signature.

If only the registrar of voters could hire as well

The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits rose last week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as the economy recovers.

The increase also may result from the difficulty the Labor Department has in seasonally adjusting the claims around the Easter holiday, which falls on different weeks each year.

Or simply because of the fact that the current economic policies in place aren't working.

"This is ... a volatile time when the numbers move around quite a bit," a department analyst said.

The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims increased by 18,000 in the week ended April 3, to a seasonally adjusted 460,000. That's worse than economists' estimates of a drop to 435,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

California also closed its state offices for a holiday on March 31, which likely held down the claims figures. On an unadjusted basis, claims rose by 6,500 to nearly 415,000.

(sigh)

We were promised unemployment wasn't going to go above 8% if we passed the $787 billion Porkulus bill. With unemployment at 9.7%, how's that working? And these numbers will start looking really good when the 1.2 million census workers that were hired are back out on the streets again in a few months and just in time for the November elections.

When is it time? When is it time to finally stick a fork in Keynesian economics?

Letting the mask slip Pt. VI

How can we learn to say no?

The federal government is now starting to build the institutions that will try to reduce the soaring growth of health care costs. There will be a group to compare the effectiveness of different treatments, a so-called Medicare innovation center and a Medicare oversight board that can set payment rates.

But all these groups will face the same basic problem. Deep down, Americans tend to believe that more care is better care. We recoil from efforts to restrict care.

The New York Times is beseeching each and every one of us to resist the natural human impulse of self-preservation for the good of ObamaCare. It's like your patriotic duty or something.

And we can't help but notice that the Times is suffering from the same truth-telling virus that are members of Congress now that the bill is the law of the land.

We have written extensively about the inherent rationed-care instincts of ObamaCare here and specifically about the alleged death panels, here and here.

As the truth-telling virus continues its scourge across the land over the next several months, you will again be hearing extensively about rationing and death panels but this time from the main stream press.


Exit question: Re: Medicare innovation center. What will be the most oxymoronic and/or Orwellian term to emerge from the pages of the main stream press? Let's start keeping track.

H/T: Hot Air