A few years ago, one of my favourite beer companies made a brew to complement Culleys Carolina Reaper sauce.
I tried it at a beer festival and they had some reapers on the counter.
"Can I try one?"
"They're really just for show, but if you really want to, knock yourself out..."

Tried it, seconds later downed an entire pint of 9% beer before I realised what I'd done. I don't remember anything else about that day...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Greetings. I'm not sure what is brewing here, but please don't fake people's quotes in comment replies - it's bad etiquette, and now, it's also against our guidelines. http://videosift.com/faq#comments

Congrats on getting a rule in the book I guess ...

i've had a few really expensive wines. By and large, pretty f----ing awesome. 'Course, it's all subjective, and sometimes you're paying for a label, but on the other hand, you generally get what you pay for.

bud light don't taste like a hand crafted brew. nor does franzia taste like a french cab.

Neat. I never knew. Now I have something new to try. I've never even had plain Turkish coffee, much less sand brewed. Thanks for the info.

You almost never hear of an NHL player being upset (in a litigation sort of way) about injuries they got that resulted from fighting (drop the gloves and throw punches).

In general, the one major incident I am aware of that resulted in legal action being taken against a player was when Todd Bertuzzi checked Steve Moore down the the ice from behind and then drove his head/neck into the ice with his stick in some heavy followup hits. This is mentioned in the wikipedia article @eric3579 posted, and hinted at in the article @RedSky posted from the Economist.

In that incident, Steve Moore (a lower-level player on the Colorado Avalanche) had hit Marcus Naslund (a star level player of the Vancouver Canucks) in a previous game. That hit was a fairly normal hockey hit -- Naslund had the puck, Moore intentionally hit him to try to separate him from the puck, but arguably led with his elbow to Naslund's head. It was a dangerous play, that should have be penalized (it wasn't) -- although I don't think Moore intended to cause injury. It is a fast game, sometimes you can't react quick enough to avoid a dangerous collision like that. Still, I think that kind of play should be penalized to make it clear to players that they need to avoid dangerous plays if possible. Steve Moore didn't have a history of dirty or dangerous play, but still.

Anyway, all of that dovetails in pretty nicely with my previous post, specifically about what leads to a "spontaneous fight". Moore, a 3-4th line guy (lower ranks of skill/ability on the team) hit star player Naslund. In almost ANY hockey game where that kind of thing happens, you can expect that somebody from the star's team is going to go over to the offending player and push them around, probably with the intent to fight them. Usually it happens right at the time of the incident, but here it was delayed to a following game between the two teams.

In the next game between Colorado and Vancouver, Moore got challenged by a Vancouver player early in the first period and fought him. But I guess that the lag time and injury to Naslund (he ended up missing 3 games) had brewed up more bad blood than that so many Vancouver players hadn't gotten it fully out of their systems. Later in the game, Todd Bertuzzi skated up behind Moore when he didn't have the puck, grabbed him and tailed him for several seconds trying to get him into a second fight, and when he didn't respond just hauled back and punched him in the back of the head.

Moore fell to the ice, where Bertuzzi piled on him and drove his head into the ice. A big scrum/dogpile ensued, with Moore on the bottom. As a result of that, Moore fractured 3 vertebrae in his neck, stretched or tore some neck ligaments, got his face pretty cut up, etc. Pretty severe injuries.

So, in comparison:
Moore (lesser skill) hit Naslund (high skill) resulting in a minor(ish) injury, that could have ended up being much worse. But, it was a legitimate hockey play that just happened to occur at a time when Naslund was vulnerable -- arguably no intent to harm/injure.
Bertuzzi hit Moore in a following game, after he had already "answered" for his hit on Naslund by fighting a Vancouver player. Bertuzzi punched him from behind and followed up with further violence, driving his head into the ice and piling on him, initiating a dogpile. Not even close to a legitimate hockey play, well away from the puck, and with pretty clear intent to harm (maybe not to injure, but to harm).


Moore sued Bertuzzi, his team (the Canucks), and the NHL. Bertuzzi claimed that his coach had put a "bounty" on Moore, and that he hadn't intended to injure him -- just to get back at him for his hit on Naslund. Bertuzzi was suspended for a fairly long span of time, and his team was fined $250,000. The lawsuit was kind of on pause for a long time to gauge the long-term effects on Moore, but was eventually settled out of court (confidential terms).

All of this stuff is or course related to violence in hockey, but only loosely tied to fighting in hockey. Some would argue (with some merit in my opinion) that if the refs had called a penalty on Moore's hit on Naslund, and allowed a Vancouver player to challenge him to a fight at that time instead of the following game, it probably wouldn't have escalated to the level it did.

So, at least in my opinion, the league (NHL) needs to be careful, consistent, and fairly harsh in handing out penalties/suspensions to players who commit dangerous plays that can or do result in injuries -- especially repeat offenders. BUT, I think that allowing fighting can actually help mitigate that kind of stuff also -- as long as the league keeps it from getting out of hand and the enforcer type players continue to follow their "code".

Warren is a smart woman who was HATED by the bankers she tried telling for 10 years that trouble was brewing; then she was right.
They hated her more.

Behind all this is a serious question: how does any institution that takes short term deposits (a bank) handle its long term obligations (loans) when the deposits (your money) has the right to leave at any time?

No one has really solved that one yet, as far as I can tell...Maybe she has a smart answer. Smarter than letting the banks trade meaningless swaps, which is what she opposes in this speech...

Your video, Kim Kardashian's Ass Brews Coffee, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@lantern53
oh come on man...
now your just trying to get peoples goat and garner a reaction.you cant seriously be THAT ignorant to history.
no way..
uh uh..
unless you dropped out of school in the 8th grade.
so i aint buying your schtick,go to another corner and peddle your wares somewhere else.

@RedSky
i hear ya and the situation did not just pop out of nowhere.this has been brewing for decades all the way back to world war one.
for anybody interested *cough* lantern *cough* look into:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
and a most excellent book by chalmers johnson:
http://www.thenation.com/article/blowback

Shit mon..I was talkin' about the bottle. Sam Adams is an o-k brew-rather have crabs though, they hard to find nowadays-

I laugh . . . only because this has happened. The ordering Bud Lite at a craft brew pub. The barista's reaction was just blank shock and the guy sitting next to me looked at the would be beer drinker and said: "You're in the wrong place for that." The guy then asked if they served pitchers . . . at which point everyone at the bar was staring at him. The barista, with a completely flat expression: "No." I think she ended up giving him the cheapest light lager they had.

I am guessing that I was one of the first pastors, if not the first, in my community not in opposition to gay marriage. I don't say this with any sense of accomplishment of having wrestled through some sort of epic moral struggle, because I never have opposed gay marriage as sanctioned by the State. I don't believe there is any Constitutional basis for opposing it. . I also see no issue with a business serving the gay community. By default, our family business has happily done so for decades. One of my favorite mottoes is, 'live and let live.' I am confident that people around me, including those gays that call me 'friend' know this about me already. Although I am a part of the Christian community where I live, not one of my gay friends has exited our relationship due to that, nor have I ever been considered a homophobe. My views on marriage are exactly that: conclusions I have come to with the resources at my command. And whether or not I disagree with you, I believe that I have no right whatsoever to impose my view of marriage on anyone. In the same breath, after considering my own failings, I have no right to judge how someone else chooses to live their life. I have concluded that whatever path they choose was never between me and them, but between them and God anyway.

The solutions to this common struggle today (the question of religious conscience living side by side with gender liberty) cannot be solved by enacting more law. Americans are, as always, legislating the soupe du jour. The trouble is, in a society where that kind of 'might makes right,' the pendulum can and does swing the other way to deleterious effect. I think that our common issue can be solved by a simple but powerful idea: a stronger community. Like it or not, we are in this together and only together can overcome the vitriol on either side.

I remember an incident many years ago when my Muslim ex-Uncle showed up at my grandparent's house for dinner. On the menu: pork. In one of the most despicable acts of imposition that I can remember happening in our family, my Grandfather decided that serving pork that day would give him some kind of twisted self satisfaction; a victory, of sorts. He decided that he would attempt to get our Uncle to violate his religious conscience and, if that not be possible, at the very least, offend my Uncle as much as possible within his power. I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't within my Grandfather's rights to serve whatever meal he wanted in his own home. But was it morally right? If he had loved my Uncle, he would have put aside his own rights and made a way to foster community. That is what living together is about.

In the same vein, I don't believe any one of my gay friends would ever ask me to perform their wedding. Even given that right legally, they wouldn't ask because they love me and they would not attempt to get me to violate both my conscience and my own understanding of marriage. While we agree to disagree, we remain friends out of love. Love is what binds. The law divides. The law is a foreigner to community, the enemy of community, when it says, 'we can live together only when you do as I want you to do in order to satisfy me or my sense of offense for another." While laws are necessary in society, they are superfluous when love will do. But we don't want to work that hard. So we make rules. We call people names. We stereotype. We divide, condescend, and foment bitterness toward our neighbors, gay and straight alike.

I had a friend confess to me once, "My whole family is racist. I was racist. But I'm not racist any more." That didn't happen because of legislation. It happened because he got to know some black people and found out that he had some love in his heart for them. Wouldn't you have liked to have been there when he shook a black man's hand for the first time in his life? Yeah, me too.

Just once, I'd like to see someone brew some iced tea, walk across the street to that gay neighbor or that Christian neighbor and sit down and find some commonality. I read above (can't remember who wrote it) that the Bible's morality is trumped by today's morality. I say that the epitome of morality exists in the words of Jesus when he says, "Love your enemies." That, to me, is the fulfillment of what it means to be human.

In related thoughts, I think the Church needs to tell the State, 'Goodbye. We are not going to act as your agent any longer in arena of legal marriage. We will not sign your documents. You have the legal authority over marriage in our society but the Church has the spiritual authority as the Church sees fit." That leaves room for some congregations to perform gay weddings and others to not as they see fit. It leaves room for live and let live. It leaves room for love.

My statement has nothing to do with his stand on the TSA. It has to do with the fact that he feels that the government (or he himself) should decide what is good or bad for us. Kids die, gun involved = guns bad = we need government regulation. It is a stupidly narrow rationalization and one that leads to things like everyone getting a "potentially deadly weapon check" with a rubber glove each morning. We do dumb stuff like that here, we make stupid jumps in logic like that on a national scale. Ask the people that brew beer.
And it is because of things like that and stupid governmental abuses of authority, that I have the right to carry a gun. It is why it is protected in the Constitution, and it doesn't matter if it has a 9 or 20 round clip. It doesn't matter if I need it to kill a dear or to defend myself. I have the RIGHT to own a weapon. So when the day comes that, God forbid, if this country should fall - I will have the ability to protect myself and my loved ones and perhaps be able to help put it all back together again.
But instead lets focus on the fact that a gun was used, and ignore the facts that the major crimes he refers to involved people with serious mental issues. Ignore the fact that the mental health system in this country is a sham. Let's just keep thinking we're really talking about the TSA.

I know this is a running world joke due to the popular mass production American beers.

But a lot of people dismiss America as a whole because of this joke and I feel it's important to point out that America actually has a thriving and amazing microbrewery culture that produces beers equal to any in the world.

The problem is when microbreweries get to a certain size, they almost always sell out to a larger company and the product deteriorates in to the "perfect always same taste" precision of the mass production beer, losing any charm or personality the beer used to have. As it now needs to be consistently marketable.

The other factor is once these beers do get sold off, you often lose the original brew anyway, you just end up buying a locally made brew with "expert consultants ensuring the same taste", except it never is the same taste because they use local ingredients which inherently have a different flavour, missing the whole point of world beer in the fucking first place.

Basically a few giant beer corps rule the world and wreck everything, turning a beverage that should be on par with wine in to something very misunderstood and generally accepted as a low classing alcoholic drink.

If you want good beer in any country, not just America, the situation is the same, you need to go the micros who still employ the passion and respect the skill takes. Hence I declare the joke no longer relevant.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

In some ways it kind of humanises creationists - makes you understand their perspective at least.

But at the same time - it's a massive troll by HBO aimed at secularists - designed to enrage and make them spit their organically grown, aeropress brewed frappadingdong at the TV screen.