A few weeks ago we had a free preview weekend of HBO and Cinemax from our cable company, and while I was flipping around to see what was on (probably Saturday afternoon), I caught the end of Star Trek: Generations. (Actually, probably the last quarter of the movie or so.) And of course, being the Star Trek nerd that I am, I watched the rest of it.

And, well, I had to write about it too. Feel free to completely skip this post if you have no interest in Star Trek whatsoever. Yeah, it's like that.

Now, Generations is problematic, there's no doubt. While I was watching, I was mentally tallying up the various problems and hence, this post.

Their intentions were in the right place: it was the first Star Trek movie featuring the cast from The Next Generation, whose series had just wrapped, so they wanted to go big. How big? Well let's see... they gave Data emotions, explained the origin of Guinan, destroyed the Enterprise, and oh yeah, had Captain Picard meet Captain Kirk. And killed Kirk.

In order to do this latter bit, the writers contrived a thin plot around a supposed "Nexus" in Time that looked like a big sparkling ribbon flying through space. People can enter this Nexus where Time stands still and they are granted whatever they wish (while inside of it). Kind of like the ultimate virtual reality where you never age and you can have anything you want.

The token villain (played by Malcolm McDowell) was in the Nexus once before and wants to go back. So he's blowing up stars to change the gravitational influence on the Nexus as it travels through space, just so he can direct it to a planet that he'll be standing on at a pre-arranged time—all so the Nexus will suck him back into it when it gets to the planet.

While the movie had some good bits, there are so many things wrong with this plot, it's embarrassing. And then, they went and got the science behind it utterly wrong.

Point: Soran (the villain) didn't need to blow up stars or anything remotely cosmic to re-enter the Nexus. He could have just flown a shuttlecraft into it. Or barring that, open the airlock and launch himself physically into it from the back of said shuttlecraft—he could survive the vacuum of space for the three seconds it would take to accomplish this. Kirk did, after all.

In other words, shitty plotting and unimaginative writing.

Point: During the battle between the Enterprise and the Klingon ship that results in the Enterprise's destruction, we see that the Klingons are spying on the ship's shield frequency modulation via LaForge's visor—thus enabling them to shoot photon torpedoes that pass through the shields as if they weren't there.

However, the Enterprise crew makes no effort to alter the shield modulation—something they did repeatedly during the TV series (especially versus the Borg)! How could something so fundamental get by them?

It would have been an easy fix, too: just show the Klingons (who were spying on them, remember) getting the new shield frequency every time it was changed. Would it really have cost that much more to film?

Point: When the Enterprise finally is able to fire back, Riker tells Worf to have a "full spread" of torpedoes ready to fire. When they get their moment, only one torpedo launches.

What the hell?

Point: In what is probably the worst production/science gaffe they could possibly make, Soran launches his missile from the planet towards the sun (to blow it up, remember) just as the Nexus is nearing. Immediately the sun darkens and explodes. Do you see what's wrong with this picture?

The sun should not have appeared to change for at least 8 full minutes. Not even counting the time it would take for the missile to reach the sun—let's suppose it has warp capabilities, to get around that issue—the light (and gravity) from the sun can only travel at the speed of light. And since they were on an Earth-looking planet, which is 8 light-minutes away from the sun, then that means there's no possible way the sun would appear to darken immediately—and the gravitational effect on the Nexus would be similarly delayed.

Huge, huge blunder. Somebody (preferably the writers) should have been fired for that one.

Point: Picard is now in the Nexus. The planet (and the remains of the Enterprise and its crew) all blew up. Picard (with the help of Kirk) escapes the Nexus, jumps back in time to just before the missile is launched (the Nexus can let you go to any place and time, apparently), and saves the day, altering the events that already transpired. Time travel.

Thus, an alternate timeline was created, in which Soran succeeds and the Enterprise is lost with all hands.

(For that matter, why didn't Picard return hours earlier and destroy Soran's base and missile before any of that happened? Or any other convenient time to stop Soran?)

Point: Picard is now in the Nexus. He has been told (as have we, the viewers) that the Nexus grants your fondest desire; it gives you whatever you want. The ultimate virtual reality, remember. Well, once Picard figured out what was going on, his fondest desire was to leave the Nexus. But wouldn't the Nexus grant that desire and give Picard a (virtual) reality where he left the Nexus and stopped Soran?

In other words, Picard never left the Nexus—he just thinks he did, the Nexus granted that wish inside its virtual reality. If he never left, then that alternate timeline I mentioned is in fact the "correct" and current timeline—and all the subsequent Next Generation movies never "happened." (Maybe a bunch of the subsequent TV series, either.)

Actually this last point isn't really so much of a problem, more of an observation. But it makes for an interesting plot device... once that actually forms the basis for the on-again, off-again dabbling I've been doing in Star Trek fan fiction over the years.

(My fan fiction "series" is set in the future—yet another generation—and in the "alternate" timeline in which Picard is still in the Nexus.)

Overall, Generations wasn't a bad movie, just flawed (severely flawed in some cases) and the weakest of the Next Generation movies.

But then again, I only caught the last half or third of it, after having not seen it for a long time... maybe I'd find a lot more to rant about if I saw it from the beginning...

This is the first part in a series of articles about the economic impact of brewing your own beer at home. This first article is an introduction and sets up our assumptions and base numbers to work with; later articles are going to look at the relative costs of brewing different styles of beer, extract versus all-grain, and exploring if it’s possible to brew quality beer for $20 or less.

It’s no secret that beer prices have been rising in recent years: unless you’re drinking macrobrewed lager or have a local, large-ish microbrewery, you’re likely paying in the neighborhood of $7 to $12 for a six-pack of beer, maybe more if the beer is harder to get or exclusive somehow. (Dogfish Head, for instance, sells four-packs for $11 to $12.)

Enter homebrewing. The prospect of brewing your own quality beer for far less than what you’ve been paying retail has huge appeal, particularly these days. But is it true? There’s been some debate lately over whether brewing your own beer is truly cheaper (in the long run).

Personally, I think homebrewing is the cheaper alternative—but I’ve never taken the time to fully explore that assertion. I want to definitively answer the question, “Is homebrewing really a more economical way of keeping you supplied with beer?”

Let’s look at some numbers to get a baseline for how much you can expect to pay for good beer:

• I find on average that a five gallon batch of homebrew yields approximately 48 12-ounce bottles, or two cases of beer.
• Here in Oregon, craft beer prices average $7-10 per six-pack. At that price, that’s approximately $56 to $80 for two cases.
• However, buying by the case at, say, Costco, you’ll average $23 per case for the same or similar beer, or about $46 for two cases.
• For truly cheap macrobrewed beer, say Pabst Blue Ribbon, I think you can buy it for about $14 per case, or $28 for two.

Looking at this breakdown, it becomes immediately clear that buying beer by the six-pack is a ridiculously expensive way to go if you’re looking to cut back and save money. To do that, you need to look at buying in bulk—in other words, by the case.

(Of course, not every craft brew is easily available by the case, nor is it available at Costco—i.e., warehouse—prices. But for simplicity’s sake I’m going with these figures; naturally, if beer costs more in your area, then you have more leeway to work with.)

Based on these numbers, my back-of-the-napkin calculations seem to indicate that the “magic” price to beat for microbrewed-quality beer (two cases worth, which is what a typical homebrew batch will approximately yield) is right around $46.

So we have our “economical price point.”

Let’s figure out some base prices for beer ingredients. First, some assumptions:

• I’m completely overlooking the start-up costs associated with homebrewing (that may be a future article), and assuming that we’re working with the cost of ingredients for a five gallon batch only.
• I’m only examining extract-based brewing (for now). When you get into bulk grain prices, the numbers change (that will be a future article).
• Prices I quote for homebrewing ingredients are generally based on what I’ve seen at my local homebrew shop, but certainly may not apply everywhere. I’ll also try to compare prices against online sources if applicable.

With those in mind, here is a basic table of prices:

As we can see, the prices are generally comparable, so I’ll use my local price references most of the time.

As a quick exercise, let’s figure out the cost of a five-gallon batch of Pale Ale, using liquid yeast and two ounces of hops. I’ll throw in some grains as well to make it interesting.

• 7 lbs. light malt extract syrup: $18
• 0.5 lbs. 10°L Crystal malt: $0.95
• 0.5 lbs. 40°L Crystal malt: $0.95
• 0.1 lbs. Roasted barley: $0.25
• 2 ounces Cascade hops: $5
• Yeast: $6.50
• Corn sugar (for priming at bottling time): $1.25

Total: $32.90. Yield: approximately two cases of moderately-hopped Pale Ale, roughly 5 to 6% alcohol by volume.

Remember our economical price point for two cases of microbrew? $46. So already, brewing a fairly basic beer, we’re ahead $13.10.

(Naturally, there is time involved too—four to six weeks, say—and I’m not accounting for the cost of bottles and bottle caps. Bottles can, of course, be recycled from the beer you’re already drinking; and caps will probably cost $3-4 for 144 or so.)

Seems pretty straightforward, right? At first glance, it appears brewing your own beer is cheaper than buying it. But remember, this is for a pretty basic style of beer, without a lot of bells and whistles.

So a question to keep in mind which I’ll address in the next installment: about how much can you expect to spend on various styles of beer?

And, a bonus question for later on: how much cheaper can we go?

we are super duper excited to announce this years’ “Hullaballoo session winner”!!! 

drum roll please… 

if you are Gracen Radaford or if you know her, please email us asap to confirm your prize, or we will draw another name in a week!

We wanted to say thank you to all of our visitors at our booth this year!  As with last year; this year proved to be a fun, busy success and we enjoyed seeing all our past clients and loved meeting with all of our new/ soon to be ones as well!  We are extending 10% off all orders to any hullaballoo event attendees until September 1, 2009!

Congrats Gracen… email soon!

by Brad Hills

I get this question a lot.  What makes Innovation Theatre Works a professional theatre and the other theatres in our region community theatres?  There are a lot of theories about this term and a number of permutations and rationalizations that could come in to play.  But, in fact, there is only one question to answer in order to determine whether a theatre is professional or not. 

Brad Hills, Executive Artistic Director, Innovation Theatre Works, Bend, Oregon

The term “professional” is defined as “of, pertaining to, typical of, or practicing a profession, engaged in a specified activity as a career for pay.”  In the theatrical world the term “professional actor” has been codified to mean an actor is a member of Actor’s Equity Association, the union governing professional stage actors.  So, in order to truly be a professional actor, you must also be a member of Actor’s Equity. 

The term “professional theatre” has come to mean one that employs professional actors and therefore one that has contracted with Actor’s Equity to provide a number of roles that will be filled by union members.  Now, is this a law?  Absolutely not.  Heck, it’s not even a rule.

However, this definition of professional theatre is the universally agreed upon and accepted standard that indicates what kind of theatrical experience one can expect.  It is also true that simply being paid for working in a theatre does not make one a professional.  And having other professionals involved also does not raise a production to that level.  For example, I’ve been a professional director for some 30 years.  Does that mean that when I directed Urinetown for Cascades Theatrical Company last year, that show became a professional production?  Again, absolutely not.  And why?  Because none of the actors were members of Actor’s Equity.  Urinetown was still a community theatre production, despite my involvement. 

Innovation Theatre Works is proud to have provided Central Oregon with its first homegrown professional theatrical productions in Driving Miss Daisy and My Way. We feel these shows demonstrate the different level of production we are bringing to the Central Oregon region.  But we have also seen many fine productions at our community theatres that have reached a level of professionalism that is to be admired.  The fact that they are community theatres with amateur actors does not prevent them from striving to put on the best productions possible.

ITW supports all levels of theatre and is happy to be adding to the rich theatrical tradition of our region.  But we all need your support.  This summer, when you are looking for something to do, don’t forget how truly wonderful an evening in the theatre can be.

Brad Hills is the Executive Artistic Director for Innovation Theatre Works

1. Conflict often leads to clarity (that makes conflict a potentially good thing, who knew?)
2. Restless Wrestling (a term Matt Smith gave to his spiritual musings... I like it!)
3. Marriage riddle #86 - What do you do when one spouse wants to lounge around and the other is full of focused energy?
4. The interns went white water rafting (I wish I was an intern...)
5. Americans are ranked #26 in the world in health by the World Health Organization (I feel average, which means I'd be healthier if I lived in any of 25 different countries.)
6. I don't like Twitter (please don't hate me.)
7. I do like the Old Testament... Just in the mood these days for raw and authentic.

Our Paid team teaches us exactly what it means to run a local Pay Per Click Campaign. One rhyme at a time…

Ever!!! I just discovered an Etsy shop, Fantastic Toys, that sells the most adorable kawaii inspired paper toys you can print! I printed and assembled the happy home boxes to put in Lucy's room on Wednesday. I love them! They were so easy and fun. And they look super cute on Lucy's dresser with her vintage toys!

carrrrrlos posted a photo:

“Mommy, can I cut the lizard open?” JJ questioned very matter-of-factly. She had just come in from checking on her latest lizard, a big fat one she was sure was pregnant with dozens of eggs. She had felt little bumps inside the bulging belly of the western fence lizard, and this eight-year-old child with a bent for biology made the expectant diagnosis.

Sadly, she discovered this morning that her lizard was dead. She was curious. And maybe she could save the eggs. Frankly, I know nothing about lizard anatomy and may not know a lizard egg if I saw one. But I’m sure this girl would know. She has an instinctive nature when it comes to the study of living things. She loves animals, and her desire to cut open the lizard is inquisitive in nature.

“That’s a-skusting!” cried the little brother. “Not while we’re making muffins!” asserted the little sister.

JJ brought me a paring knife. She’s a persistent girl, a trait that alternately drives us crazy and makes us proud. Am I ready for a dissection? Do I let her explore?

Technorati Tags: Central Oregon, children’s biology, creation, lizards, nature study

A new Pew Research report on American attitudes toward science finds that 55% of scientists identify as Democrats, while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.

The second of the “artisanal collaboration” between New Belgium Brewing (Fort Collins, CO producers of Fat Tire amongst many others) and Elysian Brewing (Seattle, WA producers of the delicious Immortal IPA and The Wise ESB), Trip II is only available on draft in the Northwest and is proudly being featured here at the Blacksmith. The talents of these two fine breweries is evident from the first sip. Fermented with a Belgian yeast strain, which adds some light fruity character in the form of grapefruit and lemongrass, this light golden ale also features Magnum and Citra hops. Well balanced and highly quaffable at 6.5% ABV and 55 IBU. Come give it try!

Related posts:

1. Cloudy Skies Bring Delicious Cloudy Beer!
2. Wednesday Tastings: Local Brews

New to the draught lineup this week is a hard apple cider from Wandering Aengus Ciderworks based in Salem, OR. This is their Semi-Dry Cider, featuring a fabulous balance of tartness, acidity, fruit and residual sugar, which really showcases the skill and passion of the makers. Wandering Aengus is committed to sustainable agriculture, local support and developing relationships with the farmers they buy their fruit from. This is artisanal cidermaking at its best. Great for sipping or paired with fish or pork. Don’t miss this summer delight!

No related posts.

When it finally rains on the high desert, everything feels refreshed. Including me. The air smells of sagebrush and all I want to do is stand outside and breathe it all in.

But I don't have the time. I am taking condensed college courses this summer. Every single day is equivalent to a week of classes so it is not difficult to imagine the amount of information jam packed into each session. Thankfully, my first class is full of interest for me: health & wellness. What I learn each day in this class underlines my commitment to providing a healthy and nutritious lifestyle for myself and my family.

I will include more of my experimentations with healthy and sometimes vegan cooking here, as well as introduce a couple new helpful gadgets for review and possible recommendation. 

Meanwhile, I have been really enjoying the healthy cooking show series on Youtube entitled 'Everyday Dish.' For example, the following program illustrates what is called 'raw vegan sour cream' and though I realize fully this won't replace sourcream anytime soon, the program is very helpful in demonstrating how to open a coconut, scoop out the flesh, and process up a coconut sour cream that I believe would be wonderful on curries!  Mmmmm.

carrrrrlos posted a photo:

Illustrated with drawings. Contains activities to help students learn about and gain appreciation for the manatee.

(more…)

The Mannahatta Project is turning back the pages of time.  Have you ever wondered what Manhattan Island looked like before the Dutch arrived in 1609? Hint: it was green– covered with forests, streams, wildlife and with a topography completely unrelated to today’s skyscrapers and concrete canyons.

After nearly a decade of research, Eric W. Sanderson and his colleagues at the Wildlife Conservation Society,  have created a veritable virtual time machine which  you can try out online via their amazing map. With a click of the mouse, you can see any address in Manhattan as it was in 1609 which is great fun for anyone who has lived in, or ever visited New York, NY.

But more than that, it gives anyone who is interested in the environment an idea of how profoundly man has  changed and shaped nature in just a few hundred years on one 26 mile long island in the middle of the Hudson River.

The island that the Lenape Indians called “Mannahatta” or “island of many hills” once contained more than 500 hills, 60 miles of streams and more than 300 springs. There were sandy beaches, oak-pine forests, and more than 1000 species of plants and animals.

The goal of the Mannahatta project has never been to decry the loss of a pristine natural habitat– but rather to look at how bio-diversity has been replaced by social and cultural diversity.  The project makes no judgments. It simply chronicles the changes resulting from New York City, and that is what makes it so fascinating.  You can read all about it online here.

If you are going to be in New York, the Mannahatta project is the subject of a wonderful new exhibit that opened last week and The Museum of the City of New York. It will be on view till October 12th. Try to get to it if you can.

If you want to read more, be sure to check out Manhatta: A Natural History of New York City.

Mark Muro, Fellow and Policy Director, Metropolitan Policy Program
Jonathan Rothwell, Senior Research Analyst, Metropolitan Policy Program

Better Lightbulbs and Beyond (image courtesy of James Rowe, Flickr)

Not everyone likes the Obama administration’s newly announced lightbulb standards. Republicans in Congress have accused the president of focusing on trivial measures and intruding excessively into the private economy. The latter complaint is misguided: The Energy Department is only speeding up rulemaking on standards that were already required by the 2007 energy bill, which President Bush signed into law. But that aside, such standards are far from trivial. Improving the efficiency of our built environment is actually a crucial component of solving the nation’s energy quandary.

The rationale for having the government, rather than the market, set efficiency standards for lighting and other appliances is fairly straightforward. Building and real-estate markets are highly fragmented, and none of the many players—banks, mortgage companies, architects, landlords, contractors, decorators, renters, utilities—have a clear and consistent incentive to demand or install energy-saving innovations. Having the DOE speed up the adoption of bulbs that will be up to 80 percent more efficient than current models will help consumers save $4 billion per year on energy bills between 2012 and 2042, and will eliminate the need for two to seven gigawatts of electricity generation—as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.

Yet bulbs are just the beginning. As a recent Brookings Institution report on the carbon footprint of U.S. metropolitan areas shows, lighting is just one sliver of the massively inefficient energy system that is the nation’s built environment. The energy used by buildings accounts for 39 percent of U.S. carbon emissions. Transportation between those buildings, meanwhile, generates another third of the nation’s carbon output. In fact, we calculate that transportation accounts for 50 percent of the growth in U.S. carbon emissions since 1991, thanks, in part, to the super-suburbanization of America’s metro areas encouraged by federal policies, from disproportionate highway funding to lending and tax provisions that encourage single-family homeownership in low-density neighborhoods. No wonder vehicle miles traveled per household increased 50 percent between 1970 and 2005.

All of which underscores why the government should be going much further with “little stuff” like lightbulb rules. Plenty of good ideas are already floating around. To promote building efficiency, for instance, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has proposed a $100 million energy-innovation fund to “catalyze a residential energy retrofit and new construction market in the United States,” which will support local initiatives and utility efforts, and expand the Federal Housing Administration’s Energy Efficient Mortgages program, which currently supports a mere 1,000 mortgages each year.At the same time, federal agencies are moving to reform the fragmented and sprawl-promoting policies on transportation, energy, and buildings. The Department of Transportation, HUD, and the EPA recently announced “livability principles” that would boost energy efficiency by supporting walkable communities, mixed-use and transit-oriented development, and favor existing communities over new sprawling developments. HUD also wants to use $150 million in Community Block Grant Development money for a Sustainable Communities Initiative that will “integrate transportation and housing planning decisions in a way that maximizes choices for residents and businesses, lowers transportation costs and drives more sustainable development patterns.” Additional grants would be available for reforming local zoning codes and overhauling state building codes.

Other initiatives are in the works, too. Reform ideas are circulating around the massive transportation reauthorization bill, which typically invests disproportionately in highways (as opposed to rail and mass transit), and so drives up energy use in metro areas. And congressional committees have also heard testimony proposing the creation of new “sustainability challenge contracts” that would reward the localities and states that devised the boldest new development patterns that reduced carbon emissions.

If all of that comes to pass, the overall effect will be far from trivial.

No related posts.