I’m a big fan. There was a time when I resisted coffee, figuring it for an addiction I didn’t need. I’d generally drink a lot of soda for my caffeine delivery needs. Boy was that a miscalculation. Coffee is tastier and most likely a lot healthier.
Probably the nature of the coffee bean ensures that Indiana can’t develop a decent coffee industry the way it seems to be developing some good local beers. Speaking of beer, a couple of recommendations: 1) The Hoosier Beer Geek. 2) Three Floyds Robert the Bruce Scottish Style Ale. 3) Oaken Barrel’s Indiana Amber. Three Floyds is a brewery out of Munster. Oaken Barrel is out of Greenwood.
Hey, look at that, my coffee post turned into a beer post. Sort of a metaphor for a good day.
How many coffee trees grow within a 50 mile radius of Seattle?
Somehow they’ve managed to develop a decent little coffee business nevertheless…
Good point. It’s not like the Indiana breweries grow native born barley and hops. On the other hand, my limited knowledge of both industries suggests that you can have an “Indiana beer” because of the processing involved. Coffee seems like mostly pulling it off the plant and sticking it in a bag. I’m sure there’s more to it, however.
Emma’s a big fan of Alto Grande, a “super premium” coffee from the mountains of Puerto Rico. Their tag line is “The Preferred of Popes and Kings”. In San Juan it’s about the same price as a can of Folger’s here.
I’ve found that I tend to like African coffees best followed by Pacific ones. I can sort of tell a difference by region, but beyond that my palate isn’t sensitive enough to care.
When the family visited the Galapagos Islands in February, we visited a family farm that grew coffee and bananas, plus other local fruits. One of those Seattle coffee companies is buying organic Galapagos coffee from family farmers there.
The farmers were delightful people. They walked us through their land, showing us the trees, and eventually making a pot of coffee for us, using beans picked from their trees, roasted that morning, and hand ground just minutes before. This is all wasted on me, of course, since I don’t drink the stuff. But, WOW, was it strong! They like it that way, and they grinned at my prune face in response to the first sip. More sugar!
I’ve been reading your blog every day for over a year and never commented, though I almost always agree with your take on things political. But now you’re posting about coffee. A passion with me, and so I’d like to add my two cents.
I too have a strong preference for African and Pacific region beans. I drink nothing but varietal coffees. None of those blends for me. I like the distinct and unique flavors and aromas of each variety. My favorites are Sumatra or Indonesian beans followed by Ethiopian and Yemeni.
I roast my own beans every evening and grind the beans in the morning for a fresh, strong brew that cleanses the pallette, awakens the senses, and gets me out the door with a swift kick of caffeine. You can get green coffee beans and roasting supplies at several websites, though I get my beans from a local commercial roaster who sells me quantities of the unroasted beans.
Every variety of bean requires a different time/temperature range to achieve the perfect roast and I have spent a lot time involved in trial and error to get it down right, but it really is worth it.
Excellent – an expert in our midst!
See the benefits we reap with trade!
Glad you enjoy HBG! Thanks for the mention!
Yeah, Mike! You show all those people who advocate cessation of all foreign trade who’s boss!
Yeah, Branden! Show me another tedious ad hominen attack!
Mike,
I was calling you out on your straw-man argument. (“See the benefits we reap with trade!”) Well, who doesn’t?
I guess I’ll have to spell the fallacy out for you in the future.
Furthermore, I invite you to demonstrate how my post #10 was, in any way, an assault on your character, and furthermore how I invited people to disregard your (fallacious) argument based on that characterization.
‘Cause, you know, that’s what argumentum ad hominem means, not “some remark that irritated me”.
Whoops–one extra “furthermore” in that post.
Quoth the raven!
Sigh. Ok, Branden…
From wikipedia:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
OK, Branden. So, for that to be a straw man argument, I had to be refuting someone in a post above me. Who was I refuting? Or, I had to be misrepresenting someone’s position. Who was I misrepresenting?
Or, maybe this really was just an ad hominem attack, and you just don’t know what a straw man argument is besides.
Again, from wikipedia:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It was more clever than this description, though, in using ridicule *and* sarcasm to subvert. Very cute.
btw- I’m done here. I ‘m tired of your trolling, BR.
Mike –
I don’t see the ad hominem.
Brandon –
I don’t see the straw man.
Round even!
Parker,
I’m willing to concede that I could have misinterpreted Mike Kole’s post in #8.
The problem for me is that the only alternative interpretation I have for it makes it mean nothing at all. And somehow that seems even less charitable to Mike than bad reasoning.
I don’t think Mike is incoherent; I simply find most of his political prescriptions doctrinaire.
After review of the play, the ruling on the field stands.
Play on!