Saturday, July 27, 2019

Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--Moonshine

     Many years ago I may have participated in a crime.  But don't be too impressed with how much of a badass I was--it consisted of me drinking a bit of a illegal, home-made liquor.  I hope the statute of limitations has passed, since I don't want to have to do future posts from prison.
     Folks making their own liquor at home is nearly ubiquitous around the globe, since you can ferment basically any fruit or grain.  (I've heard that in prisons, to return to that, people even make some using ketchup packets as a base.)  Since I'm American, I'll be focusing on my homeland's version of it.  American moonshine is typically corn-based whiskey.  Although it's presumably made all over the country, it's particularly popular in, and associated with, the Appalachian Mountain region of the country.  It's believed to have been introduced by Scots-Irish immigrants by at least the 1700's.  This product goes by many names:  white lightning (after its usual clear color), mountain dew, hooch, and choop.  The word "moonshine" has a couple of linguistic theories behind it.  One is it comes from "moonrakers," from Wiltshire, England, which was a place where alcohol manufacturing and smuggling was very common.  The legend goes that one night some smugglers were caught by government revenue agents while attempting to retrieve some liquor barrels that they'd hidden in a lake.  The smugglers pretended to be dumb hicks, saying they were trying to rake the large round "cheese" in the sky.  The agents then stupidly assumed that the smugglers were that stupid, and left.  Another, more realistic explanation is that people who made illegal liquor were busiest at night, under the illumination of the moon.
     One of the major reasons people made moonshine was financial, of course.  Customers are usually willing to pay more for an intoxicating liquor than for regular corn.  It's also easier, and a lighter burden, to transport barrels of liquor made from corn than the whole corn ears themselves, clearly.  But there was a catch.  For much of the country's history, making moonshine was legal, as long as the proper, sometimes high fees and taxes were paid.  So, many folks took the risk of transporting it, and selling it, outside the law.  And even more so during Prohibition, obviously.  As this became an industry in the 20th century, enterprising men modified their cars to better store moonshine, and to better outrun the vehicles of police officers or government agents.  To keep their driving skills sharp when they weren't transporting liquor, these same drivers would compete against each other in races.  Thus, the now incredibly popular car racing sport of NASCAR was born.
     Making homemade liquor is not without other dangers, too.  One of the most common tools for making moonshine is a re-fitted car radiator, for use as a condenser.  Any residual antifreeze can add dangerous glycol to the mix.  Or, any lead in it can also cause serious health problems, since lead is so dangerous if consumed.  Blindness, or even death, can occur.  Some toxins were added by sleazy manufacturers themselves, such as methanol, in order to hike up the liquor's alcohol content.  A folk tradition holds that one can tell the safety of the liquor by putting a flame to it and then observing the color produced.  A blue flame means it's safe.  A yellow, or especially red flame means it's dangerous.  There's even an expression--"Lead burns red and makes you dead."  I don't know if this test is entirely accurate, so don't hold me to it.
     I was interested to learn about the current laws concerning making your own liquor.  Since 1978 Americans can make their own beer or wine at home.  There are some limitations, obviously--you can only make a small amount, for personal use.  If you want to make a lot, or sell it, there are various fees, and permits, etc.  But liquor is a different story.  Under federal law a person is allowed to possess a still, and use it for decoration, or to distill water, or essential oils.  But it is illegal to distill liquor without a permit, even if it's for personal use, and you're not selling it.  There is a common misconception that it's okay as long as the still has only a gallon capacity, but that's not true.  The permit, called a Federal Distilled Spirits Permit, is difficult to obtain, and is very expensive, meaning only large companies go through this.  There is, however, a major loophole.  People can get a Federal Fuel Alcohol Permit, which is reportedly easy to get, and free.  As the name suggests, this permit allows you to distill fuel alcohol, such as for your lawn mower.  But, since the permit is almost never denied, and there is usually no checking up to see if the person is only making fuel alcohol, a lot of people circumvent the intent of the law, and make their own drinking liquor.  (Presumably, though, if they're caught, there must be stiff fines, or maybe jail time.)  And, of course this whole situation is further complicated by individual state laws, which sometimes differ drastically.  Some states, for example, don't allow even fuel alcohol distilling, or even possession of the distilling equipment.
   Anyway, enough background.  I had moonshine during two periods in my life.  The first was in 2006 or 2007, in Tennessee.  The archaeology project I was on needed a backhoe for part of it, so we hired a local operator, whose name I can't recall.  He was a pleasant fellow, and socialized with my crew after hours at our hotel.  One night he brought us some of his moonshine.  It was the classic, clear, corn-based whiskey kind.  I don't remember the manufacturing details of it, except that he did mention the "blue flame good, yellow or red flame bad" folk tale.  I recall the moonshine being very strong, and harsh tasting.  Sufficient to do the job of getting you drunk, but not especially palatable.  (To be fair, I should mention that I'm not a big fan of straight hard liquor in general, and  straight whiskey in particular, so bear that in mind.)  The second time was in Philadelphia, in 2009-10.  My friend, who I'll call Matt, since that is his name, was the maker.  He made several batches over the months, but I tried two basic kinds.  The first was similar to the Tennessee sort--clear, harsh, and strong.  The second one, though, was much better.  It didn't taste as strong, and had a nice sweetish flavor.  This was because it was made using apples as the base.  I was going to provide some detail on the manufacturing process, but maybe that's not such a good idea from a legal standpoint.  So I'll just say the aging process was surprisingly brief, only a few days up to a week or so.
     In conclusion, then, while I can't officially condone it, some American-style moonshine is not without its charms.  And if you like whiskey, you might really enjoy it, even the harsher corn-based kind.  Since many other countries' versions often use different herbs and fruit flavorings, I suspect I'd probably like theirs even more.  If I get the chance, as usual, I'll update this post.  I have noticed in the past decade or two that legal versions of moonshine are being sold more.  Often they have the traditional trappings, such as being sold in jars, with amateurish-looking labels and such.  So I guess this is a compromise for consumers to want to feel like they're drinking the traditional, "naughty" liquor, while actually not breaking the law, or risking blindness, etc. 

















































































Saturday, July 20, 2019

Underrated Horror Gems--"Ginger Snaps"

     This entry is much later than most of the underrated horror films that I write about, since it's not even 20 years old yet, having come out in 2000.  Although it got good reviews, it suffered from a lack of a wide, or even a medium release, both in its native Canada and elsewhere.  Therefore, it only became even a cult film from being shown on HBO, and on video/DVD.  Although it did get 2 more movies in the series (one a sequel, the other a prequel), I still don't think it has received the acclaim it deserves.  So here we are.  As usual, I'll start with a brief, spoiler-free synopsis, then a long, spoiler-rich recap, followed by a discussion of some of the movie's themes and strong points, and conclude with some cast and crew information.
     Something's amiss in the Ontario suburb of Bailey Downs.  Pet dogs are being killed in grisly fashion, by an unknown assassin.  Meanwhile, the Fitzgerald sisters, Ginger and Brigitte, are going about their lives as teen outcasts, obsessed with death.  One night Ginger is attacked by some strange creature.  She begins to change, in physical, emotional, and behavioral ways.  Brigitte desperately searches for an answer to the growing problem, aided by the local pot dealer, Sam.  More carnage ensues, with no end in sight.  Who or what is Ginger becoming, and can she be stopped?
     (SPOILERS AHEAD UNTIL MARKED)  "Ginger Snaps" opens in Bailey Downs, a Canadian suburb.  A kid playing in a sandbox finds a severed, bloody dog's paw.  His mother then discovers the rest of the gory remains of their pet dog.  The audience then meets the Fitzgerald sisters.  Both Brigitte and Ginger are 15, although Ginger is 10-11 months older than Brigitte.  The girls are very close, weird, and outcasts from their peers and community.  They're obsessed with death and suicide, and have a pact to either leave home, or kill themselves, by age 16.  Their class project is spectacularly morbid and inappropriate, as it consists of pictures of each girl in a number of faked death poses.  Some of these include one of them run over by a car, impaled on a fence, or dead by hanging.  Later we see Trina, a popular girl, and a fellow student in their gym class.  She knocks Brigitte down, and into a dog's corpse, which earns her a warning from Ginger.  The local pot dealer, Sam, drops by in his van, much to the student's delight, especially a crush-stricken Trina.
     Back at the Fitzgerald home, the family is eating dinner.  The girls are sullen and quiet, and their father is similarly silent and apparently disconnected.  Their mother, Pam, is struck by Ginger's reported lower back pain.  She speculates that Ginger might be getting her first period, for which both girls are very late in starting.  The girls go to Trina's house that night, looking to get her back with a prank.  However, before they can Ginger is brutally attacked by a weird, dog-like creature.  Both Brigitte and Ginger narrowly escape when the monster is run over by Sam's van.  Back at home Brigitte wants to call for medical help, but Ginger convinces her not to, saying that she's already feeling better.  Indeed the wounds on her body are already healing.  As it turns out, Pam was right--Ginger has started her period.  Uncharacteristically Ginger agrees to smoke pot with Jason and his friends.  Trina's dog also reacts violently upon encountering Ginger.  Ginger calls her sister's attention to weird whitish hairs which have recently sprouted from the healed up claw marks on her shoulder.
     Brigitte is by now alarmed, and begins reading up on menstruation and werewolves.  Ginger dismisses Brigitte's fears, pointing out that the creature was killed by a van, and not a traditional werewolf bane like a silver bullet.  Ginger starts to become popular, and noticed by boys, which she seems to like.  This also leads to an estrangement from her sister, formerly her only friend.  Ginger even goes so far as to start dating Jason.  At this point Sam approaches Brigitte.  He found her picture of the attacking creature, and is similarly puzzled and worried about what it was.  After discovering that Ginger is growing a tail Brigitte goes to visit Sam at his greenhouse, and comes clean about all she knows, although she lies and pretends that she was the one bitten.  They discuss the situation as a biological disease, and Sam suggests a silver ring piercing might help, as it supposedly purifies the blood.
     Ginger has violent sex with Jason, during which she also bites him.  On the same night she attacks and partially consumes a neighbor's dog.  She finally admits to Brigitte that something is very wrong, and consents to the silver ring as a belly button piercing.  Her teeth and tail continue to grow.  Jason is also looking ragged, and exhibiting symptoms.  Ginger then beats up Trina when Trina once again plays rough with Brigitte during field hockey.  During another meeting Sam suggests that monk's hood might help treat Ginger, but unfortunately the plant is out of season.  Trina goes to the Fitzgerald house to confront Brigitte, as she's jealous of Brigitte hanging out with Sam.  Ginger is also vocally suspicious of Sam.  But Ginger drags Trina into their house, and threatens her.  Trina slips on some split milk and hits her head on a counter, hard enough to kill her.  The girls narrowly avoid their parents finding out about Trina's death by pretending the blood is another faked death scene, and then they bury Trina's body underneath their play house/shed.  They make plans to flee soon.
     Jason confronts Brigitte, as his symptoms are getting worse.  The girl's mother is suspicious as well.  Ginger continues to decline, suffering from intense desires to kill and rip apart living things.  Brigitte traps Ginger in their bathroom, to prevent her from getting out and hurting anyone.  She goes to visit Sam again, bringing some dried monk's hood plants she's stolen from her mother.  They fill up a hypodermic needle with a solution to give to Ginger.  Alas, before Brigitte reaches home she comes upon Jason accosting a child.  She is barely able to stop him by injecting him with the monk's hood solution.  It seems to have a dramatically positive effect.  Ginger by this time has escaped the bathroom, and heads for school.  During a confrontation she kills the guidance counselor, and then, later, the janitor.  Simultaneously, Trina's accidentally dropped severed fingers lead Pam to discover the girl's buried body.  Brigitte reaches the school, and is appalled by Ginger's murders.  She rejects her sister, and so Ginger leaves in a rage, more wolf-like than ever by now.  However, no one's the wiser, as she goes to the Halloween party at Sam's greenhouse.  Pam picks up Brigitte on the road, and reveals that she knows about Trina.  She suggests that they burn the family house down, and all flee together, without their father.
     At the greenhouse Ginger confronts Sam, and roughly tries to seduce him.  Brigitte bursts in, and to placate Ginger she deliberately infects herself by sharing blood with Ginger via cuts on their hands.  Sam drives Brigitte and Ginger to their house, after knocking out Ginger with a shovel.  At their house Ginger is conscious, and fully a wolf.  She runs amok in the house.  Sam and Brigitte prepare another monk's hood injection while hiding in the pantry.  Before he can give it to her Ginger drags him out, and wounds him.  Brigitte attempts to join her sister in feeding on Sam's blood, but she vomits, and can't.  Ginger then kills Sam, and attacks her sister.  Brigitte manages to fatally stab Ginger with a knife.  As she dies Brigitte holds her, and sobs.
     One of the major points about "Ginger Snaps" is how feminist, and female-centric the movie is.  It starts with the two main characters, Brigitte and Ginger.  Teenage girls aren't rare in horror movies, of course (there's a common trope in slasher movies, especially, of the "final girl," who's the ultimate survivor of the killer), but it is rare for male characters to be so absent, or at least largely unseen and inconsequential.  The movie is unquestionably Brigitte and Ginger's, as it focuses most on their lives, points of view, and opinions.  There's a test called the Bechdel Test for movies, to determine if female characters are fully realized and developed.  Three important qualifiers are that there are at least 2 female characters in the movie (with names), there are conversations between female characters, and that these conversations don't only revolve around male characters.  "Ginger Snaps" certainly passes this test.  The female-centric idea can also be seen in the Fitzgerald family dynamic.  Their mother Pam completely dominates the household.  Their father, Henry, is nearly mute, and seemingly disconnected and disinterested.  Similarly, the other male characters are mostly underwritten, rarely seen, and not that important to the plot.  The male teachers and administrators at school seem well meaning, but blundering.  Jason is dumb, and is mainly a sex object.  Only Sam is rendered as being smart and competent, but even he ultimately is not able to help much.  These points are not a criticism of the movie, at all.  I find this to be a refreshing change.  It was neat to view a movie from a different point of view than I'm used to, in which female characters are the overwhelming focus, and who, for better and worse, drive the action of the story.
     The relationship between Brigitte and Ginger is an interesting one, too.  Throughout most of the movie the girls are separated from their peers, their parents, and the entire community.  Each only has a real relationship with the other, with two brief exceptions (Ginger's fling with Jason, and Brigitte's short problem-solving partnership with Sam).  The movie can even be interpreted as a doomed love story of sorts--the sisters have a platonic, but still incredibly intimate relationship with each other, and only each other.  "Together forever" as their pact goes.  So when Ginger first rejects Brigitte, and then, later, when Brigitte rejects Ginger in her werewolf state, it's a weird, but tragic breakup.  Brigitte's grief when Ginger dies is deeply sad--she's lost the only person that she truly cares about.  It's doubly poignant because she did the killing, albeit in self-defense.  But there's something else, too.  Their relationship is decidedly one-sided at first--Ginger is clearly in charge, and Brigitte is in the subservient role.  As the film progresses, though, this changes.  Brigitte steps up.  She researches about werewolves, consults with Sam to find treatments/cures, helps to hide Ginger's physical changes, efficiently manipulates her mother and the school, and attempts to reign in Ginger from hurting and killing people.  So, in some ways, the tragic events of the movie were good for Brigitte, as she matured, and stepped out of her sister's shadow.
     Another major theme was the linking of the symptoms of being a werewolf with those of puberty, and especially the menstrual cycle.  There's a funny scene when the girls discuss Ginger's lycanthropy symptoms with a school nurse, and she confirms that they conform to those caused by menstruation--pain, feelings of aggression and anger, increased senses, hair growth, blood, etc.  Initially Brigitte thinks that the common lore of werewolves transforming during a full moon is true, but later she realizes that it's really connected to Ginger's menstrual cycle instead.  The fact that her cycle and the lunar cycle are in tandem is just a coincidence.  Some of Ginger's changes are related to overall puberty as well.  Puberty, after all, is a profound, and sometimes scary time for us all, as our bodies, emotions, and personality change drastically, in ways that are often confusing.  Comparing these natural changes to turning into a monster might seem obvious, but in doing so it's very relatable, effective, and entertaining.
     Ginger's sexuality is also explained in a interesting way.  Before she's bitten, she appears to have little to no interest in sex, or at least, no interest in the potential partners available in Bailey Downs.  But after going through both the changes of menstruation and becoming a werewolf, this changes dramatically.  She abandons her sister, and accepts the advances of Jason, someone she regarded with complete disdain previously.  And when she has sex, the gender roles are subverted from the usual teen sex cinematic event.  Ginger is the initiator, and is quite aggressive and rough, even to the point of literally biting him during it.  Later she roughly grabs a kiss from one of Jason's friends, randomly, and then basically attempts to rape Sam.  She goes from "owning" her own sexuality to the extreme of becoming a sexual predator (as well as a literal predator!)  Once again, a creative subversion of the usual teen, and horror movie.  The screenwriter, Karen Walton, took the common trope of fear of female sexuality and exaggerated it in a darkly humorous way.  Jason's genital bleeding was a further twist on the "norm."  He was forced into the stereotypical female role during copulation, and then Ginger's bite turned him in a "menstruating" man to boot!
     Ginger's lycanthropy has another benefit, too.  As Ginger changes, it's not only her appearance, and attractiveness that improve.  She becomes more noticed, more popular.  Becoming a beast means her reputation with her peers is better.  And although at the start of the film Ginger would have claimed not to care about such things, she obviously was lying, or at least changed her mind, since at the end she yells about refusing to go back to being a nobody.  Becoming a werewolf had some short term benefits, including a gain in confidence, which resulted in a bump in her social status.  But, of course, there was a terrible price to pay for these improvements--namely, several bloody murders.
    Another thing I liked about "Ginger Snaps" was the lack of a love interest for Brigitte.  Most movies would have had Brigitte and Sam start a romance.  Trina and Ginger themselves suspected Sam's intentions, much to their downfalls.  But that didn't appear to be true.  Instead, the relationship between the two seemed platonic and respectful.  It was just two people trying to solve a bizarre problem.  A friendship born out of practicality, not of burgeoning hormones.
     Lycanthropy, like most monsters of fiction, is of course a ridiculous concept, when you break it down.  What I appreciated about "Ginger Snaps" were its efforts to make this idea somewhat plausible and realistic, by making it a biological disease.  I liked how Walton came up with a quasi-scientific explanation for why silver and monk's hood (a relative of wolf's bane) would treat/cure a werewolf.  The traditional werewolf, with its gothic trappings, is fun too, but a bit overdone.  By setting the movie in a modern suburb, with "real" scientific reasons for the werewolves' existences, it made it more realistic, and atypically interesting.  The more gradual transformation of Ginger (until the very end, obviously) was a cool difference as well.  Seeing her grow a little bit of hair, slightly longer teeth, and a tail, accompanied by an increase in aggression, seemed more plausible, in a way.  And, most importantly, this was new, and not something seen in dozens of werewolf movies over the decades.  (Another noticeable change from most werewolf stories was that when werewolves died they didn't revert to human form.)
     Something which also stood out to me in my most recent viewing was the character of Pam, the girl's mother.  She's overbearing, dorky, oblivious, and kind of annoying, it's true.  However, with all these admitted faults, she's still a much better parent than her husband Henry.  Unlike him, she clearly loves her daughters, and cares deeply about their well being.  Her main fault seems to be that she cares too much, in that at the end of the movie she's willing to tolerate her daughter's (apparent) murder of a classmate.  Mimi Rogers' portrayal of Pam was winning to me.  I find Pam very sympathetic.  She's like a typical mom--misunderstood and unappreciated by her teenage children, who has her shortcomings, but is ultimately trying her best.
     On a more practical level, I thought the movie had significantly better acting than in a typical low budget horror movie.  I already mentioned Mimi Rogers, but Emily Perkins (Brigitte) and Katharine Isabelle (Ginger) were also very good.  And since they have by far the most screen time, that was very key to the film's success.  Furthermore, the special effects were done well, overall.  There were many scenes with torn and eviscerated bodies, and these were suitably disgusting and convincing.  Ginger's gradual physical changes were similarly effective, and realistic-looking.  Some of the scenes of the fully transformed Ginger at the end were admittedly a little hokey.  But it's a minor complaint--the filmmakers wisely kept the beast hidden much of the time, seen only in quick glimpses, and partially hidden by objects or shadows, etc.  The effects are all especially laudable given the crew's relative lack of experience, and working with such a low budget.
     (END OF SPOILERS--SAFE FOR EVERYONE)  Most of the folks involved with "Ginger Snaps" haven't become major Hollywood stars or anything.  Director John Fawcett did "The Boys Club" (1997), "The Dark" (2005), and has worked fairly steadily in Canadian television.  Similarly, screenwriter Karen Walter also has been busy writing and producing mostly Canadian television work.  Emily Perkins (Brigitte) is probably best known for appearing in the television series "It" (1990), as well as "Prozac Nation" (2001), "Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed" (2004), "Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning" (2004), and "Juno" (2007).  Katharine Isabelle was in such films as "Insomnia" (2002), "Freddy vs. Jason" (2003), both "Ginger Snaps" sequels, "American Mary" (2012), and "Bad Times at El Royale" (2018).  Sam portrayer Kris Lemche was in such movies as "eXistenZ" (1999), "My Little Eye" (2002), "Final Destination 3" (2006), and "In Time" (2011).  Aside from having been married to Tom Cruise, Mimi Rogers (Pam) is probably best known for "Gung Ho" (1986), "The Doors" (1991), "Lost in Space" (1998), and television's "The X Files" (1998-99).   Probably the most famous person in the cast didn't even appear on screen (she was the voice for the PA system at the school).  Lucy Lawless was this voice, and she's known for roles (some starring) in several television series, including "Xena: Warrior Princess" (1995-2001), "Battlestar Galactica" (2005-09), "Parks and Recreation" (2012-15), and "Ash vs. Evil Dead" (2015-18).  And if you're a fan of Hong Kong and Taiwan cinema you might recognize the man who played the janitor, Pak-Kwong Ho.  His IMDB page lists over 300 credits.
     Therefore, I heartily recommend "Ginger Snaps."  Its' a creative, different, interesting take on the werewolf legend, with compelling characters, a well-written script, good direction, solid special effects, and good production values across the board.  I put it right up there with the best of the werewolf movies ever, which includes "The Howling" (1981), "An American Werewolf in London" (1981), and "Dog Soldiers" (2002).  (I also think that 1994's "Wolf," "The Wolf Man" (1941), "The Company of Wolves" (1984), and "Wolfen" (1981) are all well worth watching.  Moving on to the later movies, I did see "Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed" (2004) once long ago. I recall thinking that it was okay, but not nearly as great as the original.  I never watched the prequel, "Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning" (2004), so I can't comment on it.  When/if I locate these and check them out again, or for the first time, I'll add more information to this post. 












































































































































































Saturday, July 13, 2019

Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--Energy Chews

     Energy drinks, such as Red Bull, Monster, and 5-Hour Energy, have become very popular over the past couple of decades.  I can recall when I was a teenager/college student that Mountain Dew and especially Jolt Cola were early forerunners of this trend.  And, of course, the oldest energy drinks of all were, and still are, tea and coffee.  Anyway, long story short, energy drinks are here to stay, and some companies are even branching out into energy boosters which aren't liquids.  Like today's topic--energy chews, from EN-R-G Foods, LLC, out of Colorado in the U.S.
     En-R-G Foods dates back to 1954, when Ralph and Luella Gamber founded the company.  Their mission was to come up with "an alternative to sugary candy bars."  They were big on honey, as Ralph was a bee keeper.  They produced 2 ounce honey packet bars.  A friend who was the head wrestling coach at Franklin & Marshall College gave these to his athletes, with positive results.  Alas, as the company website notes, the market wasn't ready for energy foods at the time, despite their success with the college wrestlers.  By 2001, though, they tried again.  This time the folks involved were Bill Gamber, Senior, Bill Gamber, Junior, and their friends Bob Stahl and Jim Miller.  All of their products are heavily involved with honey.  Aside from the chews these include waffles, energy bars, energy gels, and even just plain honey itself.  (Also apparel and accessories, such as t-shirts, hats, etc., but these are mainly promotional, obviously.)  The company is positively obsessed with honey, as they note its gifts as a healthier carbohydrate, its low glycemic properties, and its delicious taste.    EN-R-G Foods is also incredibly into sports, specifically outdoor, mountain-based ones.  (Which makes sense, given in what state the company is located.)  They have a podcast, the Hive, which is mainly interviews with various athletes.  Alternate flavors of the of the chews include strawberry, grapefruit, caffeinated cherry cola, caffeinated limeade, orange blossom, cherry blossom, and pink lemonade.  True to form, their products are also organic, made from legally sourced honey, and free of GMOs when possible.  EN-R-G Foods is also reportedly the largest family owned honey company in the country.

1) EN-R-G Foods, Honey Stingers, organic energy chews, fruit smoothie flavor:  Came in a 50 gram (1.8 ounce) bag.  Chews were round, and about 2 cm. (about .75 inches) in diameter, and came in three sub-flavors--red (cherry), light red (strawberry), and orange (orange flavor, clearly).  They all tasted like the appropriate flavor, and all were good.  Typical of a gummy like candy.  I didn't really detect a honey flavor, though.  And I didn't really recognize an energy boost, really.  (See below for more on that.)

2) EN-R-G Foods, Honey Stingers, organic energy chews, pomegranate passionfruit flavor:  Bag size was the same as before, as was the size of the chews themselves.  All the chews were dark red.  Once again, the texture was similar to regular gummy candies.  The taste was alright--nice and fruity, although with no apparent honey flavor.  A bit different from the fruit smoothies, but still solid.  And once again I didn't notice a marked energy boost

 
     I believe I mentioned this in a previous post, but caffeine and other energy boosters don't really have much of an effect on me.  (I find the key to being ready to go in the morning is a good night's sleep of 7-8 hours or so.)  Because of this,  I'm not a big buyer of energy boosting foods and drinks.  Therefore, since these chews were harder to find, and a bit more expensive than normal gummy candy, I don't think I'll get these again, nor try any of the other flavors.  But, if you are a person who needs a kick to get going, they're probably not a bad choice, assuming you like gummy-style candies.  (Plus they're obviously healthier than normal candy, with less sugar and 100% of your daily amount of Vitamin C.)  I should also note that the Gamber family claims to have invented the very common honey container that's shaped like a bear.  And as a result of reading their official website I'm now aware that there's a sport called "ultra running."  (If you're curious, ultra runners are folks who run distances even longer than an official marathon.) Finally, forgive me if this is also a repeat, but honey is pretty amazing, in that it's one of the very few foods that NEVER goes bad, as long as it's kept in sealed containers, away from water.  Archaeologists in Egypt have even safely consumed honey found in tombs that was thousands of years old, and the like.



































Saturday, July 6, 2019

More Major League Baseball Trivia, Mostly About the All Star Game and Ages

      The All Star Game is coming up soon, so I thought it'd be appropriate to talk about it a little.  To give a little history, the game started back in 1933, as a contest between a team of excellent players from the American League playing a team of excellent players from the National League.  It's been played every year since, except for 1945, when there were travel restrictions due to World War II.  In fact, from 1959-62 they held two All Star games per year.  Until interleague play started in 1997, this was often the only chance fans had to see their favorite players compete against those in the other league, unless these players and teams was fortunate enough to play in the World Series.  (And not counting spring training, exhibition games, obviously.)  Like several other pro leagues, but unlike the NFL, the All Star Game in baseball is played about midway through the season, just past the halfway point.
     How players are chosen has changed quite a bit over the years.  It's ranged from managers picking players, to a combination of players and managers, and sometimes, a fan vote for the 8 positional player starters (all positions except the pitcher).  The last has gone back and forth, due to some corruption.  Specifically, in 1957, the fans of the Cincinnati Reds stuffed the ballot boxes, resulting in 7 of the 8 positional players being from their team, when maybe 2 or so arguably deserved it.  Therefore, from 1958-69 the fan vote was removed.  Since 1970, the vote for the positional starters was restored to the fans, and the League has tried to crack down on voting irregularities.  Like say, when a Nomar Garciaparra fan voted for his favorite player 39,000 times in 1999.  Or in 2015, due to online voting, Kansas City Royal supporters' ballot "stuffing" resulted in 8 Royals leading the positional team rankings until Major League Baseball stepped in and nullified 65,000,000 votes.
     The 2002 All Star Game also was influential, in a negative way in my opinion.  That game finished in a 7-7 tie, as all the pitchers were used up.  Major League Baseball reacted, or, to my thinking, overreacted by changing the rules--from 2003-16, the winning team in the All Star Game got home field advantage in the World Series.  (Before then, home field advantage just alternated leagues, so the National League got it every other year, as did the American League.)  Fortunately, in 2017 MLB changed it again, and now the team with the better won-loss record in the regular season gets home field advantage.  Which is like how other large pro sports leagues handle it, like the NBA and NHL, and makes much more sense, in my opinion.
     Moving on, every year there are arguments among fans about which players should or shouldn't have been named to the team.  Obviously this is somewhat subjective, but I've compiled a list of players that I think most folks would agree did not deserve an All Star nod.  It's worth noting that some of them surely made the cut because of the rule that every team has to have at least one All Star.  Clearly, there are some teams which are terrible, and may not have any players who are that special.  Alas, I also couldn't be as exact as I'd like about the players' statistics, since I couldn't find a complete record of players' stats at the time of the All Star break.  (There are exact records for how each did for the entire season, but to give them the benefit of the doubt, they could have had good first halves of the season, and then tailed off badly in the second.)  Anyway, here they are.  Let the discussions and arguments begin:

1) Luis Aparacio, shortstop, Boston Red Sox, 1971.  Aparacio was a Hall of Famer, known for his excellent fielding and speed on the basepaths.  But he was near the end of his long career in 1971, and was batting a pathetic .206, so that's why he's here.

2) Steve Rogers, starting pitcher, Montreal Expos, 1974.  Rogers had a decent career overall, and even some very good seasons.  But in 1974 at the All Star break his record was 10-11, with a bad 4.63 ERA, so he was a poor selection that year.

3) Reggie Jackson, outfielder/designated hitter, California Angels, 1983.  Like Aparacio, Jackson was great, a deserving Hall of Famer, who was also such a productive postseason player that he was nicknamed, "Mr. October."  But, by 1983 his best days were behind him, and he didn't deserve to be an All Star.  His power numbers were way down, and he was batting a miserable .214.

4) Jay Howell, relief pitcher, Oakland Athletics, 1987.  Howell had his moments, but his 1987 season was mediocre at best.  His ERA at the break in 1987 was 4.86.

5) Sandy Alomar, catcher, Cleveland Indians, 1991.  Yet again, we have a player who had a decent career, with many fine moments.  But Alomar was injured for much of 1991, and when he did play he did so poorly.  At the break he had a putrid .287 on base percentage, and a horrible .592 OPS (on base percentage plus slugging percentage).

6) Roger Pavlik, starting pitcher, Texas Rangers, 1996.  Apparently a pick of people who still thought that won-loss record was a good way to determine pitching performance. (Sadly, these folks still exist.)  His record was 11-2, but his ERA was 4.82. meaning he pitched badly, while benefiting from his team's good run support behind him.

7) Mike Williams, relief pitcher, Pittsburgh Pirates, 2003.  Apparently a pick of folks who believed that saves were a good indicator of measuring relief pitcher performance.  Williams had 25 saves at the break, but had an incredible ERA of 6.44!  Not surprisingly, this is a record for highest ERA by an All Star pitcher.

8) Mark Redman, starting pitcher, Kansas City Royals, 2006.  Redman's record at the time was 6-4, with an atrocious ERA of 5.27, and a strikeout/walk ratio of 1.

9) Cal Ripken, third baseman, Baltimore Orioles, 2001.  Another Hall of Famer coasting on his previous success and reputation.  At the break in 2001 Ripken had a .240 batting average, 4 home runs, and an adjusted OPS (on base percentage plus slugging percentage, adjusted for park conditions, era, etc.--100 is average) of 56!  Although, to his credit, he did homer in the game, and was named the MVP.

10) Jason Varitek, catcher, Boston Red Sox, 2008.  Not a Hall of Famer yet, or probably ever, but Varitek was certainly a very good player, and a deserved All Star on two other occasions.  But in 2008 he was only batting .218 at the time.

11) Clyde McCullough, catcher, Chicago Cubs, 1948.  Not only was McCullough a poor player in 1948, but he wasn't even a full time starter.  He was named an All Star even though he batted .182, with a .232 on base percentage, and a .202 slugging percentage.  Or really, really terrible, even if he was the best fielding catcher ever (which he wasn't)!

12) Eddie Yost, third baseman, Washington Senators, 1952.  Yost, called "The Walking Man" for his superior ability to draw bases on balls, was a player who had a long, and very solid career.  Alas, he wasn't deserving of his only All Star Game nod, as in 1952 at the break he was hitting .192, with a pedestrian-for-him .338 on base percentage.

13) Mike Fornieles, starting pitcher, Boston Red Sox, 1961.  Made the squad despite a 5.05 ERA.

14) Willie Mays, outfielder, New York Mets, 1973.  I'm not crazy--I realize that Mays was one of the best players ever, a 5 tool wonder, and a richly deserving Hall of Famer.  But his election to the All Star team in his final season, 1973, was clearly based on his reputation, and not his on field results.  Among other things, he was batting .172 at the break.

15) Alfredo Griffin, shortstop, Toronto Blue Jays, 1984.  Griffin was almost the ideal stereotype of a shortstop in his career, as he was a notoriously bad hitter, with almost no power, but was an excellent fielder at arguably the most important defensive position.  He was playing typically in the first half of 1984, with the addition of being even less willing to take a walk than usual.  However, at the last minute, it became known that the starting American League shortstop, Alan Trammell, was injured, and couldn't play.  A replacement was needed at very short notice.  However, All Star Blue Jay Damaso Garcia had brought his friend Alfredo Griffin with him to San Francisco as his guest.  Since Griffin was already there, and could play shortstop, manager Joe Altobelli evidently figured, "This is a convenient solution to our problem," and Griffin was in.

     As a fan, one thing I'm concerned about with exhibition games, like the All Star Game, is that a player will get injured in a contest that doesn't really count for anything.  Fortunately, this is evidently quite rare, at least for significant injuries.  Catcher Ray Fosse (then with the Cleveland Indians) was infamously bowled over by Pete Rose (then with the Cincinnati Reds) in the 1970 All Star Game, resulting in serious shoulder injuries.  Fosse continued playing for several more years, but by all accounts he wasn't the same player.  (Now, of course, there are new rules about catchers blocking the plate in all MLB games, to avoid such dangerous collisions.)  Otherwise, the only notable injury in an All Star Game I could discover was of Dizzy Dean in the 1937 contest.  While pitching for the St. Louis Cardinals Dean was hit on the toe by a shot by Cleveland Indian outfielder Earl Averill.  Dean rushed backed from the injury, and in doing so changed his pitching motion to avoid aggravating his broken toe.  Alas, this different motion caused Dean to injure his arm, permanently.  He managed to continue pitching for a few more seasons, but like Fosse, he wasn't nearly as effective.  (He was still named to the Hall of Fame, based on his exploits before the injury.)

     For one final tidbit about the Midsummer Classic, another feature of All Star Weekend, since 1985, is the Home Run Derby, a contest where a few pre-selected players from each league compete against each other.  Probably the most famous one was the 2008 Derby, when Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton hit a still record 28 homers in a single round.  What many people forget is that Hamilton, despite his great first round, didn't actually win the overall Derby, losing to Minnesota Twins first baseman Justin Morneau in the final round.

    Moving on, I'd like to discuss the youngest and oldest players to ever appear in Major League game.  Bear in mind that records, especially from the late 19th century and early 20th century, are a little spotty.  So if anyone spots any mistakes or omissions, I'll of course re-edit this article.   Let's start with the former.

1) 15 years, 316 days.  Joe Nuxhall, pitcher, Cincinnati Reds, 1944.  Nuxhall is the only (proven) player to compete while under the age of 16.  There's a slight asterisk attached to this record, as readers can see from the date that it was during World War II, when many of the regular baseball players were off fighting.  Although Nuxhall was horrendous in his debut, and promptly sent home after the one brief appearance, he did reach the majors again, mostly with the Reds once more, starting in 1952, and continuing through 1966.  He ended with a solid career, going 135-117, with a 3.90 ERA, 1.340 WHIP, and an adjusted ERA of 102 (100 is average).  (And he made 2 All Star teams, to continue that theme.)

2) 16 years, 57 days.  Frank "Piggy" Ward, second baseman/shortstop/outfielder, Philadelphia Quakers, 1883.  Ward actually played in several other seasons (1884, and 1891-94), mostly as a reserve, for several teams, including the Baltimore Orioles and Washington Senators.  He was a good hitter, putting up a "slash" of .286/.419/.360, for an adjusted OPS of 106.

3) 16 years, 67 days.  Jim Britt, pitcher, Brooklyn Atlantics of the National Association (an early pro league), 1872.  Britt pitched only 2 years, finishing with a record of 26-46, a 4.26 ERA, a 1.624 WHIP, and an adjusted ERA of 86.

4) 16 years, 162 days.  Joe Stanley, outfielder, Washington Senators, 1897.  Stanley went on to play from 1902-6, and 1909, with several teams, including the Boston Beaneaters and the Chicago Cubs.  He was mostly a reserve, and finished with a "slash" of .213/.275/.272, and an adjusted OPS of 67.  So hitting was not one of his skills.

5) 16 years, 188 days.  Frank Pearce, pitcher, Louisville Grays, 1876.  Pearce had the briefest of careers, playing in only one game.  For the record, he pitched 4 innings, and had an ERA of 4.50, a WHIP of 1.500, and an adjusted ERA of 67.

     Now let's switch to the oldest men to ever appear in a Major League game.  Most of these are contrived situations, frankly.  Many were retired, and coaching, and then allowed to appear in a game at an advanced age, almost as a goof.

1) 59 years.  Satchel Paige, pitcher, Kansas City Athletics, 1965.  Paige was a phenomenal pitcher, rightly elected into the Hall of Fame.  Alas, he had the bad luck to have played in the early 20th century, when MLB had its ban on non-white players.  Therefore, Paige didn't get a chance to play in the Majors until 1948, when he was 42.  He played from 1948-49, 1951-53, and then 1965, finishing with a lifetime mark of 28-31, a 3.29 ERA, a 1.279 WHIP, and an adjusted ERA of 124.  He played with the Cleveland Indians, St. Louis Browns, and the Kansas City Athletics.  Obviously his final appearance, at age 59, after having been retired for a long time, was a bit of a publicity stunt.

2) 58 years.  Charles O'Leary, shortstop/second baseman/third baseman, St. Louis Browns, 1934.  O'Leary played mostly in 1904-13, with the Detroit Tigers and St. Louis Cardinals, finishing with a lifetime mark of .226/.270/.272, and an adjusted OPS of 67.  After retiring as a player, and coaching with the Browns, he was allowed to pinch hit in a game in 1934, at an advanced age.

3) 57 years.  Nick Altrock, pitcher, Washington Senators, 1933.  Altrock pitched in 1898, 1902-09, 1912-15, 1918-1919, and 1924, with several teams, including the Louisville Colonels and Boston Americans.  He concluded his career with a record of 83-75, an ERA of 2.67, a WHIP of 1.141, and an adjusted ERA of 96.  Like O'Leary, after retiring, he coached, and was allowed to pinch hit in one game, with the Senators.

4) 54 years, 311 days.  Minnie Minoso, left fielder/third baseman, Chicago White Sox, 1980.  Minoso was a very good player, in a career which ranged from 1949, 1951-64, 1976, and 1980.  He finished with a mark of .298/.389/.459, and an adjusted OPS of 130.  He's been promoted as a potential Hall of Famer, understandably.  After he was retired, though, the White Sox brought him back twice, in 1976 and 1980, as a pinch hitter/designated hitter.  This was largely a stunt to enable him to have played in 5 different decades.

5) 54 years, 21 days.  Jim O'Rourke, outfielder/catcher/first baseman, New York Giants.  O'Rourke played from 1872-93, with many teams, including the Boston Red Stocking, the Providence Grays, and the Washington Senators.  He finished with career totals of .310/.352/.422, and an adjusted OPS of 134.  He was also a Hall of Famer.  While coaching for the Giants in 1904 he suited up for one game, as a catcher.

6) 50 years.  Jack Quinn, pitcher, Cincinnati Reds, 1933.  Quinn pitched from 1909-15, and 1918-33.  Unlike the others on this list, he was playing continuously, and wasn't brought back for a game or two after having been retired for years, or a decade.  Quinn had a solid career, going 247-218, with a 3.29 ERA, a 1.300 WHIP, and an adjusted ERA of 114.


     So that's all for now.  Enjoy All Star Weekend, and we'll see how the second half of the baseball season goes soon after.