Sorry I haven't posted in a while, been busy with work and also with FTH stuff. Luckily we're seeing some progress with FTH.

For those who don't know, Free the Hops is a grassroots organization in Alabama that is working to bring world-class craft and gourmet beers to Alabama. Currently beer is capped at 6% alcohol by volume, shutting out many of the great beers out there. When compared to he limits for wine (14.9% for table wine, higher for fortified) and liquor (what limit?) this is seen to be a patently ludicrous law.

That's close to becoming less ludicrous.

FTH introduced HB196 this year to raise the allowable ABV of beer to 13.9% and it passed the Alabama House by a narrow margin almost two months ago. Since then the Senate has been tied up with infighting, but as we near the end of the session they've gotten back to work. With politics nothing is guaranteed, but it looks very likely that HB196 will be going up for a vote in the Senate this Thursday. This is the farthest that this bill has gotten in the course of the three years that FTH has been pushing it, and we are optimistic that we can get it passed, but we need your help.

Whether you appreciate good beer and want to see it brought to Alabama, or are just a big fan of consumer choice, I'd like to ask you to contact your senator. The more people they hear from, the more likely they are to vote in favor of this bill. At the very least, if they know there is good support for it in their district they won't vehemently oppose it. You can go to this site and enter your zip code to find out who your senator is. The best bet to reach them is their phone number in Montgomery. It only takes a minute or two, needing nothing more complex than:

via Wikipedia:

Socialism: refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

Fascism: is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.

The two are very closely linked.

And what a lot of people might classify themselves, though unknowingly, as followers of Classical Liberalism (aka, what we now call "real" Conservatives):

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2], or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom.

You either think government can solve our problems, or you think government should get out of our way so we can solve our own problems. Take your pick, you can't have both.

Socialism is the philosophy that we can enforce "fairness" on the people through government, and in effect controlling the economy and wealth. Well intentioned, but wrong. This is no different than what I am hearing from Obama and Hillary. Call it what you want, "Progressive", "Liberal", "Free Thinking", but it still doesn't change the fact that this mirrors socialistic tendencies. Carl Marx was probably well intentioned, but misguided in the fact power corrupts absolutely.

The global warming debate had me thinking the other day. Global warming means different things to different people, and it depends on which filter you are looking through as to how your opinion falls. To a lot of people, the science is already done, there's no doubt about it, global warming exists, it's being caused by our vehicles, and there's no stopping it without government intervention. To others, the planet might be warming, but the cause and the implications are still considered in the realm of theory and speculation.

Personally, I'm in the crowd that thinks that global warming due to greenhouse gases and it's implications are still theory. I don't deny that it's possible, however I still think that it's entirely possible to be de-bunked in the future. I'm not writing this to talk about the science of the matter because there are a lot of conflicting theories out there. I'm mainly interested in exposing some of the political implications of the concept of global warming. Don't misunderstand me as ignoring the scientific data, as I believe that science, done properly, will inevitably find the truth in this whole matter.