Results are in...

The results from taste-test described in previous post are in.

Syrups A and B were very different in color. Syrup A was a lighter, more golden color, while syrup B was darker. I preferred syrup A, which I thought had a more woodsy, smoky flavor to it
than B, even though B was richer. Coley disagreed and thought B was smokier and better, but he has a cold, and also admitted that he didn't think there was much of a difference at all between the syrups.

Syrup A had the sticker on the bottom. :)

Taste Test

I sometimes worry about my advisor Mike. Like myself, he grew up in Massachusetts. But Mike's wife Anu is a native of Minnesota, and so Mike now claims Minnesota maple syrup is superior to New England maple syrup. I mean, just because my boyfriend is from Philadelphia, you don't see me wolfing down cheesesteaks.
Mike still roots for the Red Sox, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. The only way to determine the degree to which he has sold out is a blind taste-test. So this morning I am making pancakes, with two pitchers of syrup. The one with Vermont maple syrup has a little sticker on the bottom, but I've swapped them around a lot, so I forget which contains the Minnesota swill. I will report the verdict at the end of the pancake eating.

Vote for Obillara?

2008 marks the first year I will vote in a Democratic primary election.

I am going to vote for either Hillary or Obama. But which?On the one hand, I really like Obama's website better than Hillary's. He gives much more extensive explanations of where he stands on what issues, and what his plans are to address them. And I have to agree his is a more rousing speaker. Hillary got sort of defensive and petty in the New Hampshire debates. Blaaarg.

But I also agree with those who argue that there something to be said for Hillary's more extensive experience. I found this article by Gloria Steinem incredibly compelling, which opens by asking readers whether a female with Obama's social and racial profile, and his limited political experience, would ever really stand a chance getting elected as president. Hillary's preparedness in debate and list of accomplishments impress me. When people criticize her for lacking a human touch, it reminds me of how schoolkids hate the smartest, most prepared kid in the class. That kid was certainly annoying, but I also hope the person running my country was that kid. I am sure Hillary would be far more than competent as president.

Also in Hillary's favor, as far as I'm concerned: SHE IS A WOMAN. That's right, I said it. I would be truly moved by seeing a woman in the role of Commander in Chief of the leader of the free world. That would be a huge deal to me. I was surprised by this article, which suggests that feminist pride is a more relevant factor for women my mother's age than mine. Female friends and readers, what do you think? If I am being honest with myself, I have to admit that her gender is a huge push for me to vote her way.

So who will I vote for? I am still undecided. As an Arizona voter, I have until February 5th to hem and haw, watch more debates on YouTube, and come to a decision.

Brewing Update!

While I was visiting my family in Massachusetts for the holidays, and Coley was back at home in Tucson, he bottled our beer! Here it is the the closet, with our cleaning supplies and recycling.

Then last night, we popped on in the fridge. In preparation for the Patriots' game, we made fake BBQ chicken sandwiches and tried our first bit of our Alaskan amber.....

It was WICKED AWESOME!!!!!! Totally delicious and deserving of this pint glass. Even our playah-hatin' brewer friend Andy said, "yeah, this is good beer." Score! Only thing is it could use a little more fizz. But the beer gurus tell us that it will only get more delicious as it ages in the closet, and maybe a little fizzier too. Wahooo!

A Homebrewin' Xmas To Us!

Last year, Coley and I made an anti-consumerist pact to never buy unwanted, expensive crap for eachother for Xmas. Last year, we simply took eachother out to nice dinners. This year we really upped the ante. We gave ourselves the gift of homebrew!

We sampled a bunch of yummy darker brews last weekend to try to decide what to make for our first batch. My advanced brewing friend Andy recommended darker beers as "easier not to f*!$ up on your first try." We settled on an Alaskan Amber. Then yesterday, Andy accompanied Coley and I to Brew Your Own Brew to help us pick out our equipment. (More like, to dictate exactly what to put in our pile. When the employees saw us with Andy, a regular at the store, they totally backed off and went back to their internet porn searches.)

On this lazy-pajama Sunday, we started the actual brewing process. So far, so good. So far, so FUN! You start by just boiling a giant pot of water on your stove, with your chosen grains bobbling around in there in a net. It looks like you're steeping tea for a giant. After it's steeped enough, you add in the yummy, yummy malt powder (tastes just like the malt sugar in Whoppers). Then you bring it to a boil. Andy started to warn me on the phone about the pot boiling over when I added the hops. But then he just said, "well, you'll see," like it was just inevitable the first time anyway. Inevitable indeed. After cleaning off the stove-top and boiling some more, the next step is to pour it into a big fermenter (glorified plastic bucket) and add some water, and then wait for it to cool before adding yeast. We just did that, and put it in a dark closet now for a few days. I think all that's left is transferring it at some point to another bucket, and then waiting a few more weeks, and then bottling it, and then waiting some more. And then the drinking part!!! I can't wait to taste our home-made beer.

That Annoying Science vs. Religion Debate Rages On...

I found "Taking Science on Faith," a recent op-ed in the NY Times really annoying. Paul Davies, a cosmologist and astrobiologist at Arizona State University (U of A's rival!) argues in that column that science is ultimately faith-based just like religion. All of scientists' research endeavors, Davies says, are based on a faith that the universe is an ordered place, and is "governed by immutable... mathematical laws of unspecified origin." Without the belief that such order exists to be discovered, he argues, one could not be a scientist.

I strongly disagree with Davies' implicit characterization of the mathematical laws of physics, on which he bases much of his argument. Perhaps the problem is with the literal way he seems to understand the word "law." In a social context, social activity unfolds according to some pre-existing set of laws, with the result of social order. For example, I drive my car on the right side of the road in the U.S.A. because it is the law to do so, and I stop at red lights, because of the law, and as a result, I've never been in any messy, disordered car crashes. Thank goodness for the law. But in physics, the mathematical relationships we call laws are simply descriptions of the order we observe existing in nature all around us. The heavenly bodies form and gravitate the way that they do, and mathematics is just a convenient shorthand to describe their motions in a concise and general fashion. Davies takes an essentialist viewpoint of science, in which mathematical laws somehow precede the invention of the universe and at which point they are "plugged in" to the universal machine to make it run.

Believing in order does not require a leap of faith on the part of the scientist. Order is an observational fact, which rigorous science describes in a unified framework we colloquially call "laws". Perhaps most importantly, it certainly doesn't require any leaps of faith to appreciate the majesty and beauty of nature around us, and to be amazed by existence.

Settling for Starbucks?

Whether over lunch, the phone or just g-chat, catching up with old friends these days inevitably turns into a discussion of how the hell to carve out a meaningful and satisfying professional life. We're all just a few stints into the career game that we'll keep playing until we're 65 (or much older, considering how social security doesn't look likely to pan out for us these days). But even with so little time elapsed since college graduation, it seems like my friends and I have all flip-flopped at least once between idealistic visions of healing the world and feeding ourselves solely on our passion for our work, versus the simpler, perhaps more jaded aim of making a good buck to maintain the Starbucks habit and live in trendy lofts.

I think that there are only very few freaks with an intense driving passion that directs their career path and makes choices along the way easy. And yet all of my overachiever friends and I feel like we should be one of these (lucky!) freaks on a straight fast track to exactly where we want to go. But it takes work to even bring the ultimate destination into view, let alone focus. And it's hard to remember to value the process of trying out multiple experiences and learning, especially about oneself, from each.

The only way to keep it fun along the way is to continue making time for friends and such excellent events as Sausagefest.