[Note: Since I tend to drink most of my beers from local breweries (unless travelling) the list is somewhat San Diego-centric. (This is not a disadvantage at all for me given the large number and variety of breweries in the area and the fact that the number seems to be growing by a few every year. But unfortunately, you may not find many of these beers at your local grocery or liquor store. All the more reason to visit or better yet, move to America’s Finest City.)]

Lager/Pilsner: Not my favorite style and hence I tend not to drink a great variety of these. Among those I have tried, Lightning Brewery’s Elemental Pilsner easily wins top spot for its full-bodied malty, yet crisp and abundantly hoppy taste. Without doubt the best beer for the San Diego fall season (when it actually *does* gets hot here).

For lagers, I have to immodestly declare that my home-brewed Oktoberfest Lager beat out many of the commercial beers out there in this category. A hint of diacetyl taste – which I have to admit, was accidental – really put it over the top.

(don’t worry, that’s the only one of my home-brews I’ll praise myself)

Saison: 2011 seems to have been the breakout year for this usually spicy, but refreshing style of beer with origins in the Belgian farmhouse (these beers were brewed in spring for readiness to drink in fall after the harvest). Almost all local breweries produced a version (most of which I tried), and I brewed a few of my own in summer. However the Saison I most enjoyed was the New York-based Ommegang Brewery’s Hennepin Saison. It is also possibly the best beer I’ve had all year.  The only downside is that it packs a whopping 7% ABV,  so not quite a session beer.

Pale Ale: Found Bell’s Two Hearted Ale late this year – actually just this month on tap at a very nice pub in DC – and loved the intense hop aromas combined with the resinous characteristics of the Centennial hops used in the brew.

Also, though not new for this year, but Alesmith’s X (an Extra Pale Ale) continues to be a regular favorite.  Karl Strauss’ Pintail Pale Ale is great as well, especially when it is fresh on the tap during spring – love the strong citrusy aroma of this one.

IPA: Finally had a chance to enjoy Pliny the Elder this year and have to agree with the general assessments of it being the best (American-style) IPA in all of the country. Malt sweetness is brilliantly balanced with hop bitterness and lingering aromas.

A very, very close second would be Swan’s (a brewery based in Vancouver) Dry-hopped Casked IPA, which I had at the Alibi Room (see below). Yet another runner-up, again by just a thin margin, is Alpine Brewery’s Nelson, an IPA made with Nelson Sauvigon hops and small amounts of rye. The Nelson hops, which grow only in New Zealand and are hence pretty rare on this side of the Pacific, possess characteristics of the Sauvigon grapes that add a distinctive characteristic to the beer.

Apart from these, Ballast Point’s Sculping IPA remains a local favorite.

Stouts/Porters: Lightning Brewery’s Bourbon Barrel Black Lightning Porter – loved the vanilla flavor (extracted from the barrels) in this one. Flying Dog’s Gonzo Imperial Porter, served on nitrogen, was another favorite.

Cask Ale: 2011 was also the breakthrough year for cask ales, i.e. beer aged and carbonated naturally in a cask. Just like Saisons, almost every brewery was jumping on the bandwagon and producing special versions of their ales in casks (some going to interesting extents such as adding sumac to the beer while casking). Apart from the Swan cask-IPA mentioned, the casked version of Alesmith’s Anvil  ESB was quite good.

Barley Wine: Actually this was the only Barley Wine I had all year, but Alesmith’s barrel-aged Old Numbskull is a brilliantly complex beer and deserves a mention.

Honorable Mentions: Unibroue’s (a Quebc-based brewery) Blanche de Chambly – a Belgian White with subtle spice and citrusy freshness. Also, a red ale made with Thai rice that I had at a brewery in Singapore called Brewerkz (run by an American). Can’t remember the name of that beer though.

Green, healthy beer.

Most Absurd Beer: A Green Lager at the Red Dot Brewery in Singapore. It was made green by the addition of spirulina, a dietary supplement made from cyanobacteria. The description of the beer claimed it had health benefits, noting that spirulina is supposed to help in ‘regression & elimination of AIDS virus’! Taste was only a small step above the locally available Tiger lager.

Best Beer Name: The Polygamy Porter from the Wasatch Brew Pub in – where else? – Utah.

Ashamed to Admit I Drank it Beer of the Year: Kingfisher Lager. Choices in India were limited.

Pub: The Abili Room in Vancouver. I would have loved this place just for its location right next to a railway yard, allowing you views of the locomotives shunting as you sip a cold one. The fact that they have over 30 beers, many local, and served some awesome food made it even better. Tucked in at the edge of Vancouver’s downtown, I also loved the quaint indoor décor – often designed with a sense of humor (a stacked bunch of non-working antique TVs in one corner instead of the usual big LCDs showing sports).

Close second: Tiger Tiger – the newly opened pub in San Diego. Love the big open space inside and their selection, and their wide range of choice for lower-alcoholic session beers.

A special mention to St Augustine’sin Vancouver for their innovative use of the space in front the urinals in men’s restroom: LCD screens displaying live status of remaining beer in all the kegs served.

St Augustine's in Vancouver. Keeping you informed of beer supplies while you pee.

Beer Epiphany of the Year: That I do enjoy sour beers, especially the low-alcoholic, highly carbonated Berliner Weisse, called the ‘champagne of the north’ by the Napoleonic army invading Germany. The Lightning Brewery version of this beer, Sauerstrom Ale, was the best, and I did not even require the traditional syrup which is often mixed in to counter the sourness, to enjoy this.

Serendipitous Beer Discovery of the Year: The Central Coast Brewing Company at San Luis Obispo, CA. We were walking towards downtown SLO for dinner and found this brewery just a few blocks from our hotel. Enjoyed their Topless Blonde Ale – a mild pale ale, but was really blown away by the Catch-23 Rye IPA. These guys are generous with their rye addition, which provides an additional malty spiciness to the beer.

Beer Disappointment of the Year: Dog Fish Head 90min IPA. Supposedly one of the best IPAs made in the USA, I just could not enjoy its overtly fruity, and sweet taste. Perhaps it tastes better on tap, so my judgement could change.

As is usual with such discussions, there are the extreme viewpoints. Some people are absolutely dead set against electronic formats for reading, considering the whole practice as sacrilegious, while enthusiastic adopters of the technology accuse the former of Luddism.

Then there is the boring middle of the spectrum people like me (though perhaps I am closer to being an e-book convert). I have used a Kindle for close to a year now, have read quite a few books and regularly read the New Yorker on the device. But I have also enjoyed reading paper books during this time.

So, here goes a rather subjective look at both formats.  Fair warning – there is little new ground broken here on the debate. There are ample blogs or articles that have made similar points. I just wanted to jot out my own thoughts, and also – I have nothing better to do right now[1].

Love or hate it, e-books are here to stay – this summer Amazon passed the milestone of selling more books in electronic formats compared to hardcopies. The practical advantages of e-books are difficult to argue with. The devices are (usually) light and small, hence portable and their massive capacity enables you to carry range of reading materials.  On a recent trip to India that involved over 48 hours of travel time, I took my Kindle (the latest non-touch version) loaded with about ten different novels of varying genres from serious literature to sci-fi, fantasy, mystery etc as well as couple of the latest New Yorker editions. And these were just the unread stuff. I also had a collection of old Wodehouse, Agatha Christie and classic short-story compilations – stuff I love re-reading occasionally and are available for free or cheap on Amazon. All this in the convenience of a sleek device that holds like a paperback in my hands, but much lighter. Having the Kindle allowed me to jump easily between various books or magazine articles depending on my mood (I like reading a few different books simultaneously, especially when I am travelling). In the pre-electronic book days I would have been limited by perhaps one or two. Given that I travel somewhat regularly and enjoy catching up on my reading during flights, this easing of burden on the shoulders is quite a boon.

At this juncture, I should mention that I strongly favor the Kindle as my reading device. I have tried the Kindle app and iBook on iPad as well, but the iPad is not built for reading books[2]. It is too heavy and the screen glare is too harsh for any kind of extended reading. Then there is the distraction of a device that is usually connected to the internet tempting you away from reading. The iPad is however excellent for reading magazines, news articles or scientific/technical papers where colored graphics are important. I also think that it could be a great substitute for academic text books.

Amazon has recently introduced couple of new lending features that makes the Kindle even more attractive. Firstly, you can now lend e-books from the local library. Second, Amazon will allow you to lend certain books indefinitely from their own collection. There are some caveats though. The local library, at least in my city, ‘stocks’ only few copies of an e-book, usually just one or two licenses for the entire library system as opposed to a few hardcopies of the same book per branch. Thus there is typically a very long waiting list for the popular books (but I did manage to borrow couple of books that were best sellers only a few years ago). The Amazon lending feature is also somewhat limited – only members of its Prime program can borrow, and borrowing is restricted to only one book at a time and also one per month. Additionally, they do not have any system by which you can list books you want be borrowing next e.g like a Netflix queue. But the collection of lendable books is pretty good, and I have a feeling that the program will be extended as e-books gain more popularity.

Also, as a side-effect, and if you are into that kind of thinking – reduction of traditional books should help the environment by reducing paper usage. Saving trees and the rain-forests is probably not a bad idea (Used electronics is a source of environmental pollution too – not sure if they balance out).

On the flip side of all these wonderful advantages that technology provides, the reasons for coveting regular books are usually sentimental and romantic – the touch and smell of paper, the physical act of turning of the pages, the memories associated with the dog-eared copy of that one favorite novel and so on. I have to agree that there is some intangible feeling provided by a paper book that does not convey as well on e-formats.

On a more mundane, practical level, paper books are still the best when you want to lend or borrow. This is important especially if you have friends who share similar reading habits. Sharing books makes it so much easier on your pockets. Finally, if you extensively read any Indian vernacular language books, e-book options are practically non-existent.

In the end, the Kindle/e-book versus paper debate obviously comes down to a personal choice. I would however, encourage skeptics of e-book format who haven’t tried reading on proper reading devices (e.g Kindle or Nook) to give the format a shot. Personally, I see myself moving gradually over to e-books  just for the convenience, while continuing to buy some paper books, especially those I would love to display on my bookshelf.

****************************************************************************************

1. And somehow kick re-start the moribund blog.

2. Never tried the Nook.

He had a vast oeuvre, but Satyajit Ray is often remembered, quite justly, for that iconic scene in Pather Panchali where Apu and Durga see a train for the first time in their lives. The majestic steam train billowing black smoke in the backdrop of of the white kaash fields juxtaposed with the innocence of the kids makes it a memorable scene.

Thinking of this scene last night, it occurred to me that Ray had an eye for shooting in and around the railway tracks: from Apu looking out of the window as the train leaves Kashi in Aparajito, or a grown up Apu living next to a railway yard in Apur Sansar, the famous Feluda and company chasing a train on a camel in Sonar Kella, to Nayak, made completely within the cramped confines of a train over the course of half-a-day’s journey. Whatever was his motivation for shooting such amazing sequences, those of us who love anything to do with trains are richer for it.

There are others, but here are my three favorite scenes from Ray movies involving trains.

First, the Pather Panchali sequence as already mentioned:

This following scene from Abhijaan is rather under-rated. As such, Abhijaan wasn’t among Ray’s best works (Ray wasn’t even supposed to direct originally and took over at the last minute) – Soumitra as a hard-boiled, cynical Jat did not really cut it. But Rabi Ghosh, playing Soumitra’s side-kick really stole the show, especially here as Soumitra is trying to overtake a train on his car. Keep an eye for the tensed expression on his face:

And of course, the other iconic scene – camels chasing a train in the deserts of Rajasthan:

(unfortunately, this is not the complete scene but could not find the full sequence on youtube)

I have not come across any article talking about this particular aspect of Ray’s film-making, and not aware if he had any particular fascination for trains. But it is obvious from Ray’s own writings and others that the scenes from both Pather Panchali and Sonar Kella were shot meticulously (but then, meticulous attention to detail was his hallmark anyway). It is also amazing how some of these incredible scenes were shot on minimum budget, personnel and equipment. The story of how he was financially-strapped during Pather Panchali and how the movie still got made against all odds is that of legends. But even the relatively complicated scene involving camels and trains in Sonar Kella was shot with a single camera mounted on a jeep and finished in three takes! As Ray describes in Ekei Bole Shooting (This is What Shooting is About), three takes were required only because in the first one, the engine driver stopped the train when he saw Feluda’s signal! In the second instance, the engine driver’s assistant was busy watching the shoot and forgot to feed coal resulting in no smoke coming from the steam engine, which would have totally ruined the effect!

But, it’s not just the TV now, find yourself online tonite and you will have a barrage of live coverage, including live-blogs and of course the inescapable, live-tweeting. Why, even I had unleashed a live-blogging of the event many years ago on an unsuspecting public. And what did help me through that evening was several ice-cold martinis (Sapphire, stirred not shaken).

So here is a helpful list of alcohol that you could help you get through watching/tweeting/ignoring the Oscars ceremony later tonite. On a whim, I have tried to link them approximately to the theme of the movie nominated for Best Pictures. Since I haven’t actually watched all the films, feel free to share your own interpretive drink.

So here goes:

(Note: I am not liable for alcohol poisoning.)

Toy Story 3: Not that adults do not enjoy this movie (I didn’t, I still have fondness for the first in the series), let’s get the kid’s stuff out the way first. Drink some OJ; actually plenty of it, you need to stay hydrated for the real drinking, right.

The Social Network: The movie starts in a college dorm, so tequila shots and beer chasers might be appropriate. But unless you are in an actual dorm room, do try something other than Jose Cuervo Gold, and Budlight.

Take a shot at Patron or Don Julio blanco with a craft brew lager from your area. East coast people should try Yeungling or Boston Lager (though neither are strictly craft brew). East coast

And stop reading further if you think Corona Extra with a lemon slice is the epitome of classy beer drinking. And no, neither is Heineken. Or Stella. No matter how suave their ads are.

The Fighter: Continuing on the beer theme, but upping the ante: drink some hard-core, in your face hoppy IPA or Imperial IPAs. Dogfish Head’s 90min or Avery’s Maharaja is recommended.

True Grit: Shots of bourbon or rye whisky, preferably with names such as Tanglefoot, Forty-Rod, Tarantula Juice, Taos Lightning, Red Eye, and Coffin Varnish. Drink neat.

127 Hours: Pause now, and drink some water. Gotta keep that hydration thing going.

Inception: This one is too easy – a shot consisting of several layers. B52 – with Kahlua, Irish cream and Cointreau – is recommended. Unfortunately bars nowadays prepare B52 mostly as a mixed shot and not in layers. But try the layer, and even better, flame it before drinking.

The Kids Are All Right: One of the four nominated movies that I did watch .  Kept scratching my head about how it got nominated. But then, we are talking about a category that felicitated Shakespear in Love and Titanic.

Eithery way, drink-wise the movie shows a lot of fine reds. So you could go with that.

Or any of the more sophisticated cocktails – such as a well-made ice-cold Martini (prepared the right way), or perhaps a Side-car is ideal. But for heaven’s sake, don’t have a Cosmo!

Winter’s Bone: Probably the movie that should win the best picture category, but probably won’t since very few people have seen it, and it was released ages ago. Was really moved while watching. Given the themes of drug abuse, can’t think of any drink. Perhaps down a lot of cheap scotch and brood.

Black Swan: Hmmm……ballet, lust, jealousy. For some reason, I see absinthe in the picture. Make a drink with equal parts of gin and dry vermouth, half parts absinthe (Green Chartreuse if you can’t get hold of the green fairy), shaken with ice and strained into a martini glass. Add a splash of dry white wine.  Careful with this.

The King’s Speech: Hopefully, they will introduce this movie at the end and you can start sipping some port. Or a single-malt scotch.

Happy imbibing. Don’t drink and drive, tweet instead.

However, the manner in which the article is written is very disappointing. The author does a good job bringing up many of the issues and challenges facing PhD students everywhere: the low (or in some cases, no) pay, the slave-like status, the lack of proper mentoring for and opportunities in the ‘real’ world outside of academia etc. Unfortunately, she does so in a shallow, rambling manner that is short on cohesive arguments, and long on regurgitating clichés and anecdotes about the life of PhDs. It’s almost as if the author eavesdropped on a bunch of ranting graduate students sitting around beer and chicken wings (after-midnight happy hour half-price special, of course) and fashioned the conversation into a story. There is nothing new here that you haven’t already read in a PhDcomics.

What I was rather hoping for when I read the headline, and generally from a magazine like The Economist [1], was more in-depth analysis such as discussing the opportunity costs of a PhD degree – either in terms of economics (lost wages), social status (delayed marriage/starting family), gender issues (much more difficult for women PhDs to balance family/career) etc. But statistical figures in the story are few, and when provided, are often meaningless without context. For example, it says the number of PhDs have risen all over the world, but doesn’t mention if this has happened in the backdrop of rising number of bachelor-level college graduates, increase in population, changing economies or other factors. The author seems to contend that this rise is directly correlated to the fact that PhDs are cheap sources of labor in research and teaching. While that is certainly a factor, it cannot be the only one.

One of the few other places where numbers are provided, they seem to suggest that having a PhD could be useful:

The earnings premium for a PhD is 26%. But the premium for a master’s degree, which can be accomplished in as little as one year, is almost as high, at 23%. In some subjects the premium for a PhD vanishes entirely. PhDs in maths and computing, social sciences and languages earn no more than those with master’s degrees. The premium for a PhD is actually smaller than for a master’s degree in engineering and technology, architecture and education. Only in medicine, other sciences, and business and financial studies is it high enough to be worthwhile. Over all subjects, a PhD commands only a 3% premium over a master’s degree.

Firstly, I am sure no one goes into a PhD program in comparative literature expecting a huge return of investment. In fields like engineering or computation, it is a given that a Master’s degree is enough for good job prospects and only a handful motivated people go into a PhD program. Additionally, if the percentages indicated above include MBAs as ‘master’s degree’ (which, IMHO is nothing but a professional accreditation for BS-ing your way to higher salaries [2]) then it highly inflates the numbers for the latter. Therefore it is difficult to put a real value on the premium provided by PhD – at least by the numbers stated here. As such, it would be foolish to define PhDs by the monetary benefit alone, considering how many people take it up as a labor of love.

Another problem with the article is that it lumps a vast swathe of diverse people under one group. The author mentions briefly, but never goes on to expand on the fact that a PhD in Literature is different from one in Economics (even though both come under ‘Humanities & Social Scienses’) and is very different from those in Chemistry or Biology. This is not even taking into consideration the flux of relevant PhD subject matters within disciplines (e.g Bioinformatics, not that popular couple of decades ago, is a hot topic now) or the variety in different countries. Such geographic, economic and disciplinary diversity needs to be taken into account to define what is worthless or not.

There are many more issues and fisking the full article might be a good sized thesis by itself! So here are only some of the comments I found most glaringly strange.

This statement, supposedly about the drawback of a PhD, is actually an universal issue:

The post-Sputnik era drove the rapid growth in PhD physicists that came to an abrupt halt as the Vietnam war drained the science budget

Changes in fashion, technology or local economy could affect any profession (just ask the car-factory workers in Detroit with little transferable skills).

Other statements are just confusing:

Monica Harris, a professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky, is a rare exception. She believes that too many PhDs are being produced, and has stopped admitting them.

So is it that just one professor has stopped mentoring PhD students (which has as much affect as peeing into the Niagara Falls) or has the whole department stopped their PhD program, which arguably sends a stronger message? The author does not clarify.

Then there is some confusion about correlation-causation:

The rise of the postdoc has created another obstacle on the way to an academic post. In some areas five years as a postdoc is now a prerequisite for landing a secure full-time job.

I think most people will agree that lack of academic jobs (a very real concern highlighted here) is the reason that post-docs are going on for so long, not the other way around.

But this bit towards the end is the biggest head-scratcher:

The organisations that pay for research have realized that many PhDs find it tough to transfer their skills into the job market. Writing lab reports, giving academic presentations and conducting six-month literature reviews can be surprisingly unhelpful in a world where technical knowledge has to be assimilated quickly and presented simply to a wide audience.

Actually, learning how to research a topic and presenting them to a broader audience is one of the most valuable lessons that one learns during a PhD. At the same time, there are law-firms, consulting companies (e.g McKinsey) etc that highly value the analytical skills and disciplined approach towards problem solving that PhDs bring to the table.

And of course there is the rather tired argument about ‘foreigner’s driving down PhD incomes’:

In some countries, such as Britain and America, poor pay and job prospects are reflected in the number of foreign-born PhD students. Dr Freeman estimates that in 1966 only 23% of science and engineering PhDs in America were awarded to students born outside the country. By 2006 that proportion had increased to 48%. Foreign students tend to tolerate poorer working conditions, and the supply of cheap, brilliant, foreign labour also keeps wages down.

I somewhat agree about the foreign students perhaps tolerating poor working conditions, but (and I have argued this in details before) pay-scales for both post-docs and PhDs have been low even when the foreign talent pool was small. Also, not sure how this argument reconciles with the flatlining of foreign enrollments in US universities.

In addition to some of the issues mentioned here, Madhusudan has done an excellent job on his blog, in proposing that the answer to the PhD ‘problems’ stated in the article are staring in the face of the author.

Let me get this straight: we have MORE students enrolling in college, competing to get into overfull classes taught by FEWER faculty every year, and TOO MANY PhDs who would love to have those faculty jobs that are clearly needed to teach all the new students! Does that sound about right? How does this make any kind of economic sense even with a supply-and-demand analysis? Seems to me that the demand is there, as is the supply, yet they aren’t exactly meeting up!

(do read in full)

I guess the point of this post is not to vehemently defend the PhD process, or to to say that doing a PhD is not “a waste of time”. As with almost everything in life, if you do a PhD, your mileage may vary. I have gone through 10 years of semi-wilderness earning a PhD followed by a post-doc. There have been stressful times, times of self-doubt; but overall, when I look back at it, I don’t really regret the decision (one decision I do regret is not moving directly to the industry after graduation, but there were other factors beyond my control in that respect). The trick is to be aware of what is coming to you and not just drift into graduate school because it is the easiest available option and then carp about it later. You wouldn’t buy a car without doing a bit of research on what you’re getting into – same principle applies to your life.

However, to dismiss without any nuance, an entire complicated and varied system such as obtaining a PhD as a waste of time simply based on a bunch of personal stories, is rather unfair.

[1]: Perhaps I was too optimistic, considering how badly Economist handled an earlier story about rise of Asian science.

[2]: Without any malice and heart-felt apologies to my MBA friends   Scientists always need to rib MBAs till they get one themselves!

(Cross-posted here)

(Update: now with answers)

Just did a quiz based on alcohol on Twitter, through the handle @kweezzz.

Here are the questions. Have a go if you didn’t participate on Twitter. Will provide answers later, but you are very welcome to take guesses in the comments section:

1. George Hodgson developed this beer with higher than usual (for that time) alcohol and hops so it could survive long sea voyages. It underwent a slight style transformation in the US. What is it?

Ans: India Pale Ale (IPA).

2. Sitter. Identify the movie and the drink. Very specific answer.

Person 1: Bring me ……….. (Describes a cocktail) .

Bartender: Yes, sir.

(Two other people ask for the same drink)

Person 2: My friend, bring me one as well, but keep the fruit.

Bonus for the full recipe.

Ans: Casino Royale. Bond asking for a drink to be later named, Vesper Martini.

Q3. Kipling wrote: “You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts”.

What’s Kipling talking about here, later to be popularized into a famous phrase by two other people?

Ans: The practice, in parts of US, of offering free food with drinks back in the days. Phrase is of course, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Q4. Easy, advertisement for what?

Ans: Loch Lomond.

Q5. In the episode of The Simpsons, Bart the Murderer, what cocktail does Bart make that saves him from getting killed by the mafia ?

Ans: Manhattans.

Q6. “Creamy Bavarian wheat beer with pronounced clove, vanilla, banana, apple, bubblegum, and sometimes nutmeg flavors. Dark color from roasted/caramelized malt.” What are talking about here?

Ans: Dunkelweizen – a dark wheat beer (not Hefeweizen since dark is mentioned)

Q7: Connect (to a drink of course)

Ans: Apple Martini.

Q8. Kate Hester, owner of a saloon near Pittsburgh, used to hush her patrons when they got too rowdy by whispering “______, boys! _____” (for good reasons). Fill in the blanks and the funda will come.

Ans: Speak Easy

Q9. A version of this classic drink was lent its name by a famous author since he liked it with grapefruit and maraschino liquor in addition to the traditional ingredients. What’s the drink and who’s the author?

Ans: The Hemmingway Martini

Q10. What’s the connection. Looking for a very specific answer.

Ans: Dry Martini. Haweye in MASH was looking for the driest Martini, Churchill and Bunuel are also  famous for liking their Martini dry.

Q11. What would be Ricky Ponting’s favorite beer, if he was partial to his hometown brewery?

Ans: Boags.

Q12.  Identify the event depicted here. Bonus for name of the film.

Ans: The Judgment of Paris. California wines were judged to be superior than French wines in a blind taste challenge. The movie is Bottle Shock – a barely sufferable romantic comedy that depicts incidents leading up to this event.

(Yes, as a self-proclaimed cocktail snob I should be ashamed, but what can I say: I was hit on the head today, and this could be the internal hemorrhage talking.)

The basic idea is to mashup two alcoholic beverages that are very refreshing on their own for a uber-refreshing drink.

Before you start, a word of caution: there are quite a few recipes out there if you google ‘beer margarita‘; but please, please and please, do not follow them. Most of the recipes ask you to use limeade (ugh!), and give you wrong advices like avoid micro-brews to prevent overpowering your margaritas, calling instead for (gasp) Corona!

For those who use limeade (or any of those ready-made margarita mixes), to paraphrase the immortal Mr T , ‘we pity the fools’!

As for micro-brews, yes avoid  the over-hopped Stone/Doghead etc, but there are many micro-brewers and homebrewers (such as moi) who make lagers and light ales that actually taste something other than lightly diluted water. So don’t be shy of using some craft/home-brewed or imported lager/ale that is on the sweeter, but less malty and certainly not hoppy side (however, for the sake of experimentation, a well-hopped ale could be tried). However, German lager, which are heavy on the malt, may not work very well.

I used my home-made California Cream Ale, which is light (~4.5% ABV) and has a very light  sweetness to it and is neither very malty or hoppy.

Also, in my opinion, to really balance the beer and the tequila, I would recommend a Reposado tequila (tequila aged 2 months to a year in oak barrels). Reposados are mellower than the ‘gold’ (the lowest end of tequilas that have caramel etc added to give color, and IMO should never be used expect for college kids  and poor grad students to get drunk quickly) or ‘blanco’ (un-aged tequila, that is 100% agave and quite strong consequently). They are also less expensive than the aged tequilas that are a waste in cocktails anyway. Plus, with this drink, it’s not worthwhile wasting your high-end tequilas like Patron.

This was my recipe:

• 2 parts Tequila (I used Hornitos)
• 1 part Triple-sec (again, not worth using Cointreau or anything expensive, the regular stuff will do)
• 1 part freshly squeezed juice of lime
• Home-brewed California Cream Ale to top off.

Pour everything into a shaker with lots of ice and shake. Pour into a glass that has been rimmed with margarita salt. It is better to put some fresh ice in the glass and strain the shaken mix over the ice. Carefully top off with beer.

A word of caution: this will get you drunk very fast. I assume no liabilities.

Bit of the background: India needed one to win with plenty of overs to go, Sehwag was on 99, threshold of a well-deserved century. Randiv bowls a no-ball that galli-cricket players would be ashamed of, India has won and Sehwag doesn’t get the century even though he hit the ball for a six!

Sehwag being Sehwag, dispenses with any diplomatic niceties in the post-match questioning and asserts that Randiv did this on purpose. As you can imagine, this  incident unleashes a stupid shit-storm in the Indian media which completely over-reacts (wait! where have I heard that one before?). Even more surprisingly, though Randiv admitted his lack of sportsmanship and apologized personally to Sehwag, he was banned for a match by the Sri Lankan board!

Well, that was pretty much the gist of Sambit Bal’s (someone I often do not agree with) article in Cricinfo concerning the incident, with the perfect summation of the situation:

The bowler apologised, the batsman accepted; where do the rest of us come in?

Good stuff.

OTOH, Anand Vasu, former Cricinfo editor, tries to make the same point in Hindustan Times but with far less conviction. Firstly, he tries to make some  bizarre  analogy with breaking law in real life (speeding, drunk driving etc) and breaking law in cricket! This doesn’t really hold, since Randiv did not break any laws  (a better comparison may have been holding the lift door open for someone and not being an ass and pressing ‘Close Door’, yes you know who you are).

He also appeals with an anecdote from Chandu Borde showing gamesmanship has always existed:

Chandu Borde, who played at a time when cricket happened at a much gentler pace, recounted his experience. “When Gary Sobers was batting against us on 199, we ran him out by bringing in the field. We could have allowed him to make a double ton but we did not,” said Borde. “The lines between fair and unfair play have blurred.”

Really? Since when is running out, or dismissing a batsman unfair play? Don’t all teams like to put pressure on batsmen when they’re at 99/199/299 etc ? This wasn’t a question of trying to dismiss Sehwag, there wasn’t even a whiff for SL to win the match. The action, without doubt, was classless (but again, not worthy of so much controversy). A similar Indian action would have been to deny Murali his 800th wicket in the test match earlier this year (or if Pakistan had denied Kumble the 10-fer during that famous match).

But the ultimate zinger is this:

Closer home and specific to the latest controversy, Ajay Jadeja has a practical view. “Sehwag would have done the same thing if he was bowling,” says Jadeja. “This is very common in cricket.”

Oh yes, Jadeja – the guy who took money to lose for his team. Good to know he’s a mind-reader too. In the same vein, let me declare that even Ricky-the-ball-touched-the-ground-but-I-will-still-claim-a-catch-Ponting wouldn’t have resorted to this type of gamesmanship in a similar situation. Makes as much of logical sense.

Even more amusing is how Vasu tries to claim a badge of honor for upsetting Indian cricket fans. Newsflash: just tweet ‘Bradman was much better than Tendulkar could or will ever be’. Watch the fun. Doesn’t take much to upset Indian cricket fans (I know, I’ve been guilty too).

Firstly, take this blog, part of the Indian National Interest community, which is apparently an attempt to refute my earlier post. I usually strongly endorse the opinions expressed in the INI domain, but I have to politely (not really, but I try to be nice) disagree with the viewpoints in the blog.

Before that, I must applaud the blogger for raising concerns about Indian health-care. I am in total agreement with the author about the need for India to employ stringent medical procedures to control the spread of this particular resistance and prevent future outbreaks.

What I disagree with and do not understand is the rest of his rather absurd arguments.

Especially, lines like:

…the exaggeration, the dramatization of the threat, the hyphenation with Pakistan, etc. (emphasis mine)

do not make sense. I hate as much as the next person, the collectivization of the subcontinental people under a single name. But I doubt bacterial organisms care much for geopolitical boundaries.

Anyway, the author goes on to say:

Scores of revelations (this blog has tried to document as many of them as it could) about the pharma industry in the last two decades literally implores us to treat any thing that they are behind, with scepticism first and acceptance later.

We need to adopt a two-pronged strategy going forward as these kinds of ‘attacks’ are bound to emerge. They are thinly-disguised protectionism from the economically beleaguered West, whether or not they are orchestrated at the sovereign level.

….

That does not mean I should accept this report with all its shades and hues.

The whole thrust of the blog’s argument – if one may accord that respect to the writings – is that pharmaceutical companies are not to be trusted. Ergo we shouldn’t trust this study and protest our heads off.

Firstly, the study was not a pharmaceutical company study. Yes, I am aware of the partial sponsorship by Wellcome and this ‘conflict of interest’ issue has already been explained in many places. [However, I do also ask how Wellcome gains anything from a paper that talks about superbugs in India when they (or any other pharmas really) do not have a drug to kill these organisms? But that is a separate matter]

Further, if we do extend this logic of the one bad apple, then, given the lack of stellar record of Indian scientists and doctors in the honesty department (let’s not even go into the politicians and the media), we should not really believe anything they say about the results in this particular journal paper!

What particularly bothers me about the post is that there’s hardly any attempt to directly engage the scientific merits of the article (other than use of quotes around the word ‘research’, which hardly justifies as a critique). Rather, the blog simply puts forward the nebulous idea of some Western extra-governmental entity insidiously planning to bring down the Indian health-care tourism industry one scientific journal publication at a time (why the same entities have not attacked other places such as Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Costa Rica etc which also has a thriving medical tourism industry, I do not know).

It is sad that a blog hosted by a portal that frames serious policy matters relating to India, deems fit to advance conspiracy theories on shaky grounds with zero evidence.

Note: I am not saying that India should sit back and not react at all to the publication. But doing so in the framework of ‘the west is out to get us’ media show is wrong.

———————-

On the other end of the spectrum, Charakan, an MD from India, has written a very insightful post on this issue, which explains a lot of the science behind the bacterial resistance and tries to separate the facts from myths. I highly recommend reading the article in full.

I do however have a comment to make about this section:

The article in Lancet says
‘It is disturbing, in context, to read calls in the popular press for UK patients to opt for corrective surgery in India with the aim of saving the NHS money. As our data show, such a proposal might ultimately cost the NHS substantially more than the short-term saving and we would strongly advise against such proposals’.
This is an unscientific comment not based on any data.The authors have not proved that NDM 1 enzyme producing bacteria in UK was imported from India. More than 50% of patients in UK detected to have NDM 1 has never traveled to South Asia.Also the comment is not taking into consideration other groups and sub groups of Carbapenemase enzyme producing bacteria which are more prevalent in UK than in India.

The author of the article in Lancet seems to show undue haste in blaming medical tourism for antibiotic resistance in UK.

It is a valid argument weather the authors have overreached in ascribing all the bacterial infection in UK cases to South Asia. It is an unfortunate tendency on the part of scientific authors to sometimes over-interpret their data, usually in the Discussions section of the paper. Reviewers often let this slide as well.

However, in this particular case, I don’t think it is a huge stretch. The authors are commenting within the framework of a particular question: does NHS’ plan to reduce cost by outsourcing surgeries to India make sense? They conclude that this may not be cost-effective in the long run due to the dangers of superbug infections. Given the data showing incidences of such bugs showing up in India, it is perhaps not a wholly unreasonable point to make.

Still, the authors of the paper could have phrased it differently.