UNBELIEVABLE!! I actually remembered my user name and password to log onto Blogger and post something to my site for the first time in a month (or more)! My absence is the product of multiple reasons and events. But I am very pleased to announce another new member to the blogosphere that more than (like double or triple) makes up for my absence. My good friend, Brian Mattson (previously featured on this site) has begun his own blog, The Captive Thought, and is articulately gracing the blogosphere with intelligent thoughts and retorts to my own posts!

Ah hem

Yes, still alive here at The Legal Bean. I've taken a self-imposed hiatus from working on the computer in the evening since the 8 hrs. a day at work + 3 or 4 more at home in the evening was a bit much. But I've roasted many coffees in the downtime and done some interesting experimentation with some blends. My most experimental was a 25% Yemen Mokha Ismaili, 25% Sulawesi Toraja (roasted together to a rolling 2nd crack [Tasting Terms]), 25% Brazil, and 25% Uganda Budadiri (also roasted together to a rolling 2nd). This was my attempt at a Mokha Java blend, which I am apparently still far from perfecting, as the Uganda and Yemen dominated the blend and there were no chocolate overtones whatsoever.

The term "Mokha" in a "Mokha Java" (also spelled Mocha and Moka), by the way, does not itself refer to any intended chocolate flavor. Rather, the term refers to coffee that is shipped from a port called "Mokha" on the Red Sea coast of the Yemeni Tihama where most Yemeni coffees ship from (or used to ship from). Somewhere in the pages of history, the term Mokha was attached to some Ethiopian coffees, probably as a signifier that a particular coffee shared some flavor profile with its Yemen cousins.

Thus, the Mokha portion of a Mokha Java blend can be a wide range of coffees that are grown in this and the surrounding region, including many Ethiopian coffees. I do believe, however, that Yemen Mokha was the original component in the original blend.

Likewise, the "Java" portion was originally from estate Java coffee from the Indonesian island of Java. But nowadays, Mokha Java blends include a number of Indonesians, including Sulawesi and Sumatra. I think it is much more of an art form now ~ with myself as an aspiring artist (although a trustworty one :)

In my experimental blend above, the Ugandan was supposed to add yet another chocolaty element to the blend, as other home-roaster have been raving about the chocolate flavors of the Ugandan when dark roasted. Somehow mine tasted more like musty earth than chocolate, and I'm about to send the rest of my Ugandan to unsuspecting friends who appreciate the novelty of any home-roasted coffee. For now I will chalk it up to some unknown mistake on my part and keep experimenting. Suggestions are welcome! (And if you'd like some home-roasted Ugandan, let me know . . .)

When not writing, a night might look like this:

Four friends, four dinners: spinach angel hair pasta with four cheeses, eggplant parmesan, unfolded spinach and veggie ravioli and shrimp Alfredo with angel hair -- the joy of Italian food, eating something off of everyone's plate, an $8 glass of cabernet (expensive for Montana) that was actually worth its price, and wondering how you possibly fit in those last 25 bites . . . . Then walking uphill three blocks on a 95 degree cloudless evening on concrete next to asphalt alongside of brick buildings with a stomach overloaded with cheese and semolina to see My Big Fat Greek Wedding which was sold out when we arrived. But that's fine. Our alternative in this fine town of Helena was taking a 20 minute drive to Houser Lake and going for a vigorous swim. And a fine alternative it was! How could I have ever possibly forgotten just how refreshing a swim in a clear, fresh water lake can be on a 95 degree day after a huge dinner, glass of wine, and after having sat all day long in front of a computer?! To make sure I don't forget again soon, I'm going again on Friday.

And so as to not too promptly extinguish the terrific restorative effects, I'm now setting down the computer and heading to the roaster . . .

The Two Towers

Not sure how or when I missed its arrival, but the new trailer for The Two Towers is now available. I downloaded the full screen version (32mb zipped) last night and had high hopes that it would be the same "Introduction" that was shown at the end of the Fellowship. Damn that was a good preview. But alas, it's not the Introduction but an altogether new trailer that doesn't compare. Dammit Peter Jackson! Don't give us such an elegant introduction and then release such a flimsy, anaemic, namby-pamby, spineless trailer!

Maybe I'm being too hard on it. I'll have to watch it another ten times and see if I change my mind . . .

Neutrality, Education, and More Pledge

There has been some interesting Pledge discussion while I've been gone. John Rosenberg discusses the possibility of a new standard to determine Establishment Clause violations based on intent of the legislation as well as unintended effects of "neutral intent" legislation. Garrett Moritz takes him to task for wanting it both ways - for overlooking the ostensible effects of the voucher ruling (religious schools getting a lot of money), while simultaneously arguing for a reversal of the 9th Circuit by focusing on the de minimis effects of the words "under God" in the Pledge. Rosenberg responds that he would happily sacrifice the "under God" phrase in the Pledge to maintain the principle of neutrality. The entire discussion is definitely worth reading.

Another person who stands by the principled concept of neutrality is Judge Fernandez in his dissent in Newdow (FindLaw)(PDF). Or at least one would think so based upon his introductory language:

We can run through the litany of tests and concepts which have floated to the surface from time to time. Were we to do so, the one that appeals most to me, the one I think to be correct, is the concept that what the religion clauses of the First Amendment require is neutrality; that those clauses are, in effect, an early kind of equal protection provision and assure that government will neither discriminate for nor discriminate against a religion or religions. [Emphasis supplied].

Lest I be misunderstood, I must emphasize that to decide this case it is not necessary to say, and I do not say, that there is such a thing as a de minimis constitutional violation. What I do say is that the de minimis tendency of the Pledge to establish a religion or to interfere with its free exercise is no constitutional violation at all.

Independence Day

Have a great 4th everyone. I'll be traveling from today through the 8th, visiting family and friends, and will probably have no computer access. My mother requested that I bring her fresh roasted coffee, so I'll be roasting some just before leaving town. What a great son I am! Or at least that's what she tells me . . .

So for now, I leave you with this: Close your eyes, imagine yourself living back on July 4, 1776. You are an American Colonist and have been actively engaged in rebellion against the British Crown for over a year. You have been greatly anticipating the writing and signing the Declaration of Independence, declaring a new country built upon democratic ideals - declaring that government is not divinely created, but created by and receives its power from the People, and that any rights granted by God, so much as they exist, are granted to Men alone, and that the government can never take those rights away.

When you pick up the morning paper, you are filled with joy to read this.

Have a great 4th!

Art Appreciation (or: Why I don't trust artists)

I went on an Artwalk a couple weeks ago and, when looking looking at what seemed to be aesthetically pleasing pottery, paintings and sculpture, I realized just how utterly ill-equipped I was to appreciate it. I stood in a small circumscribed area for an unnaturally long time, staring at the work of a local artist, work that impressed me for the skill it must have taken, but simultaneously made no impression on me as . . . . well, as ART.

I think it is because I have never taken the time to satisfactorily define in my own mind - what exactly is art? Should it mean something? Portray something? And if so, have I, somewhere in the past, taken a position on what art should be, what it should have as its goal, from which well should spring its inspiration? As I stood and looked at the artwork, the rudimentary umbrella question that I kept asking was: What exactly am I supposed to be seeing here?

I think my root fear (yes, fear is the right word) was that, once churning and turning the machinery of cognition toward any particular art piece, the artist would be wittingly taking advantage of me and my naivety, turning my brain to the artists own ends, ends which go no further than the artist's inner self and speak to nothing bigger than him or her, speak to nothing bigger than me - to nothing bigger than sophistry or bigger than today's fleeting post-modern thought that will find itself in tomorrow's deconstructionist trash bin (which apparently doesn't exist in the first place).

Yes, my fear was that the artist really didn't have anything to say at all. At least not beyond, the banal: "I don't have anything to say." And for that matter, if the artist did have something to say, but was too lazy to express it clearly, why should the burden of articulating that expression fall on me?

I was getting a little ticked and starting to feel used.

From thence forth - my Artwalk experience was ruined!

-----------------

So I came home and asked the question: "What is art?" to the greatest knower in history, the greatest seer of all time, to that which has a breadth and depth of knowledge heretofore unmatched, and to which all good Americans now pledge their allegiance ~~> Google

I asked; Google answered. Isn't that art?

Google was so loquacious and generous in responding that I was further encouraged to query "art appreciation" and "philosophy of art." The latter I found particular interesting.

I found this web page that provided an introduction to an apparently now defunct Internet study course on philosophy of art, containing part of an article by Arthur C. Danto, an author of numerous books on the philosophy of art.

Mr. Danto clearly identified with my angst. "[I]t cannot be forgotten," he notes, "that when philosophy first noticed art it was in connection with the possibility of deception." Bingo! Deception! I knew it! I was being taken by these artists and I didn't have the tools to fight it. Mr. Danto was going offer these to me!

He first told me what art isn't:

However this identity is to be articulated, it is clear that it cannot be based upon anything works of art have in common with their counterparts. One prominent theorist, for example, regards paintings as very complex perceptual objects. So they are, but since objects can be imagined perfectly congruent with those which are not art works, these must have equivalent complexity at the level of perception. After all, the problem arose in the first place because no perceptual difference could be imagined finally relevant. But neither can possession of so-called "aesthetic qualities' serve, since it would be strange if a work of art were beautiful but something exactly like it though not a work of art were not.

Where are the components for a theory of art to be found? I think a first step may be made in recognizing that works of art are representations, not necessarily in the old sense of resembling their subjects, but in the more extended sense that it is always legitimate to ask what they are about. Warhol's boxes were clearly about something, had a content and a meaning, made a statement, even were metaphors of a sort. In a curious way they made some kind of statement about art, and incorporated into their identity the question of what that identity is.

The Pledge and our Culture

I had a bit of time this weekend to continue reading some coverage of the Pledge case. All I can say is that I lament any story that shifts focus from what the 9th Circuit declared in its ruling and simply talks of the Pledge, as a whole, being declared unconstitutional. As a result, we see stories like this on CNN - stating that the courts are sending "conflicting messages about how sharp the dividing line should be between government and religious institutions." And those are the words from CNN's legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.

If you look at my previous post, you'll see that I don't think that the rulings are in conflict, but harmonious. The Pledge ruling was obvious. The 1954 Act is unconstitutional. I won't say with certainty that it will be upheld on appeal (as ostensibly most law makers and legal experts disagree with me), but it certainly should be upheld. The legislative history of the 1954 Act demonstrates unflinchingly that it had a religious purpose. I would argue, in fact, that it was enacted specifically to insert and establish the Christian God. Vouchers are neutral toward religion.

I should point out that there have been some good editorials, such as this history lesson by David Greenberg in Slate, and this civics lesson by Charles Haynes in the Christian Science Monitor.

However, I can understand the attractiveness to a reporter or paper to report the story as the Pledge itself as having been torpedoed, if indeed that reporter or paper disagrees with the decision. But to do so is, I think, poor and slanted reporting and leads the lay reader to believe that there is, indeed, a contradiction between the two rulings. In fact, I think that such reporting simply feeds into the reasons that we are outraged in the first place. It is simply too easy to see this case as "political correctness run amok," as noted by Scott in The Indepundit.

But more important than any of that is the following question - what if the 9th Circuit is reversed? On what basis will it be done?

I've read rumblings that the Lemon test has reached the end of its usefulness and that the United States Supreme Court (if this case does, indeed, make it there) could possibly modify or even adopt a new analysis to determine the existence of government establishment. However, what seems most insidious to me is the argument that the Pledge, with the words "under God," has now been around so long that it has simply become part of our culture and heritage.

It is on this point that I think John Rosenberg, one of two great writers on the blog Discriminations, shares what I think is a fundamentally important perspective in the continuing debate regarding the constitutionality of the 1954 Act. John links to this editorial in the Washington Post and to this editorial in the New York Times, both editorials citing specious reasoning for believing the 1954 Act constitutional, reasons which I think undermine the establishment protections in our Constitution. Of the Washington Post editorial, John notes the following:

In "One Nation Under Blank," its editorial on the issue, the Washington Post quoted with approval a comment of Justice Brennan (from Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 664 [1984]): "I would suggest that such practices as the designation of 'In God We Trust' as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood . . . as a form a 'ceremonial deism' protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."

That's a bit lame. It says, in effect, that the Congressional action adding "under God" to the Pledge might well have been unconstitutional when it was done in 1954, and perhaps for a year or two (or three? or four?) afterwards, but now that we're used to it it's O.K. Actually, it's worse than lame. We were also used to racial segregation, after all, as critics of Brown v. Board of Education (also 1954) have long pointed out. Have the WP and the NYT developed a new appreciation for those critics?

Pledges and vouchers

No chance to read the voucher decision today, but I was glad to see that Eugene Volokh thought it was the correct decision. Whether vouchers are good or bad education policy is irrelevant regarding the narrow question of their constitutionality.

I think one crucial distinction (again, having not read today's opinion) between the Pledge decision and today's decision is the proximity of state action (aka - degree of government involvement). The 1954 Act inserting "under God" into the Pledge had a specific religious purpose, to the exclusion of other religious beliefs, and it was through state statutes and policies that the religiously motivated legislation was instituted. Vouchers are distributed in a manner entirely neutral to religion, even though through entirely private choice, the money may end up funding private religious schools. However, as Eugene Volokh points out, the income tax exemption for charitable donations is the equivalent to a subsidy, and if Eugene were to donate money to that exact same non-profit school, government funds are essentially still going to the same place. Yet I don't hear anyone screaming for an end to the charitable donation exemption.

Support for yesterday's and today's decisions seem to be divided right down party lines. However, reducing the two cases down to the the legal/constitutional issues and precluding political maneuvering and such, I think both cases have solid legal ground and can coexist peacefully.

And finally, who knew that the Pledge statute also potentially discriminates on the basis of gender?! It was the astute legal analyst Garrett Mortiz (the one person who read to the end of the statute).

4 U.S.C. section 4, states:

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, ''I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

What Pledge of Allegiance?

And in a new turn of events, the Senate voted 99-0 to condemn the 9th Circuit's Pledge of Allegiance ruling today. The members then gathered on the steps of the Capitol to pledge their allegiance "under God."

Did Tom Daschle order this? Is this a form of new legislation? Is the entire 9th Circuit now de-confirmed? Or is it just efficacious timing for some good political pandering?

As everyone now knows, the 9th Circuit declared something unconstitutional today. Merely reading the lead-ins to the stories covering the court's ruling can be a little misleading. According to the lead-in on Fox News, MSNBC, and numerous other news services, the 9th Circuit declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. I suggest, however, that the astute reader should read past the lead-ins to see what the 9th Circuit really did.

The plaintiff, Newdow, did not challenge the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, but challenged the constitutionality of the 1954 Act inserting the words "under God," which even the government admitted was inserted for the purpose of recognizing a Supreme Being. The legislative history bears out the Act's original purpose:

As the legislative history of the 1954 Act sets forth: At this moment of our history the principles underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.

We don't want government involved . . . . I don't think the theists are going to be glad to have "one nation under no God" inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance.

HotTop Update

Exciting news! As some of my coffee readers already know, Chang Yue Industrial Corp. of Taiwan will soon be selling their new HotTop coffee bean roaster through its U.S. importer Baratza, LLC. The roaster has been under extensive evaluation by testers here in American for a number of months, with the major flaw in the roaster being the lack of an effective cooling system, and a more minor flaw in the microchip which didn't allow effective calibration of the roast.

These flaws may now be effectively remedied and the HotTop could hopefully be available for sale by the end of the year. According to one of the testers, Mark Prince of CoffeeGeek, (this is hot off the press folks -- these comments are not yet posted to the CoffeeGeek website), the new base, circuit board and microchip have produced great results. Mark states:

New Base: includes a better motor for the cooling tray arm. A redesigned cooling tray (more holes, different stirring arm), and the best part - the back portion of the cooling tray underneath is now mesh (the part under the machine's overhang) and there's a new fan in the unit, bringing the motor count in this machine to 4 at least. The fan looks like a beefed up cpu cooling fan. It blows up, which when described to me in email, worried me a bit because I was worried about flying chaff. (not much a worry, though more chaff is in the completed roast than before). The base is also higher off the ground, to allow for better air draw from underneath . . . .

New circuit board: redone to control the new fan, and to do other magical stuff I have no inkling of.

New microchip: HT has been playing with the roast profiles and the "plus" button. They've extended times on the unit. Previously, anything over 275 grams in this thing and I would not be able to roast to full city, second crack starting. Supposedly with the new mods, I will be able to.
. . .

Even with the new fan, this machine is about as close to silent as you can get. The only sounds are from minimal metal on metal contact from the drum rotating, and afterwards, the spinning arms in the cooling tray make a bit of noise. That's IT. It is supremely quiet. You have to have an Alp and this machine side by side to realize it makes the Alp a screaming banshee.

Give the Elves a fighting chance

Garrett Moritz takes some interesting criticism for bringing to light Sauron and Saruman's Middle Earth economic stimulus package.

Well, even being the economic novice that I am, I did notice an apparent lack of effective trickle-down benefit and a reticence to bring up the topic of fair wages. I wonder if Bombadil had anything to do with this? Who was he anyway?

Great music

I still can't believe that this little town here in Montana just hosted 25 bands on 4 stages over the last two days. The music was so good that I immediately dove into poverty, buying cd after cd. But oh how I love new music! There are too many artists to plug, so I have chosen to plug a single acoustic artist whose stage I could hardly leave when she was playing and singing. Unfortunately, she was the host of this particular stage and only sang in between other bands, so I didn't get to hear a whole set. But I heard enough to, you guessed it, buy a cd. I have been listening to it this morning and afternoon ~ it is one of my best music purchases in a long time.

Her name is Nancy Good. She is not originally from Montana, but has lived here for a number of years and still lives here off and on. Click here to go to her web page where she has six songs available for mp3 download. I especially like "I Got News" and "The Thing of it." I highly recommend that you give them a listen.

But even more highly recommended is that you buy her cd's! They are worth it! You can't order online, but you can e-mail her at [email protected] and she will sell them to you directly. They are also available at Hastings, but I don't know if Hastings is just a Montana business or not.

Sulawesi Toraja . . . and a new brewing method

As noted below, I roasted up a Sulawesi Toraja last Monday. Any one who buys coffee beans on a regular basis from specialty coffee roasters should at least find the name of this coffee familiar, even if you haven't tried the coffee itself (it may be labeled Celebes Kalossi).

It is an Indonesian coffee and shares a common quality with other Indonesians (Sumatra, Java, Timor, Papua New Guinea) ~ that of having a thick, heavy body. An Indonesian can have a mouth-feel almost like milk, but are low acid coffees which, to my palette, usually need to be blended with a higher acid coffee to give the Indonesian good balance. Without blending to add some beneficial acidity to the heavy body, a freshly roasted and brewed Sumatra can taste like the flattest, most plain coffee you've ever tasted (somebody is going to send me a mean e-mail for saying that, I just know it). But its body is so thick that you can add as much milk and sugar as you like. Sumatra is a fantastic coffee for many reasons. However, let's get back to the Sulawesi!

The particular Sulawesi that I roasted can be found here (includes a thorough description). I followed the suggested roasting profile:

Roast Time: Did I really forget to write this down? Um, yes. But for this bean it is less of a concern since I decided to roast by sound and not to insert any cooling cycles. I took the roast to a rolling Second Crack (see Roasting Terms) ~ probably about a good 10 to 15 seconds into it. This produced a Full City roast.

Cooling Cycles: (See Roasting Terms) None. Remember, the purpose of a cooling cycle (with the FreshRoast Plus roaster) is to slow the roast time and thus reduce the acidity in particularly high acid coffees. The Sulawesi is low acid to begin with.

Rest: 5 days (doesn't need to rest this long; probably a few hours would be fine -- it just happened to take this long for me to get to it)

Comments: I originally prepared this in a French Press, but keep reading to find out what happened next . . .

I think that this is one of the best Indonesians to drink unblended, that is, without blending with a higher acid coffee (although it is also a great blender). The Sumatrans especially, have an earthy, musty taste that the Sulawesi doesn't share ~ at least not to the degree of the Sumatra. But, however subtle the earthiness of the Sulawesi may be, the one way to be sure to taste it is by brewing the coffee in a French Press as I did yesterday.

Sitting on the porch, starting a new book, and sipping the pressed, unblended Sulawesi, I realized that I was really in the mood for a "cleaner" coffee ~ that is, something with less sediment, like paper filter drip coffee. This is where a little innovative thought came in handy.

(Here comes the new method -----> I decided to re-pour the coffee back into my thermos, but using a manual filter-drip cone, poured the coffee through a thoroughly rinsed paper filter (to remove any paper taste). The coffee quickly drained through as the paper filter removed the sediment. The surprise was that I ended up liking the coffee even better after this process. The coffee had great balance with no bitterness (common problem with paper filter drip). It was basically a press pot taste without the sediment!

As of yesterday, I had only attempted this with the Sulawesi. However, this morning I press pot brewed some Ethiopian Harrar, a much more subtle, high acid coffee with a medium/full body. The subtleness is in the form of wonderful blueberry notes that can only be tasted when the beans are fresh (within 3 days or so of roasting), brewed in either a press pot or a vacpot (additional link), and when roasted light, to a City roast just past the end of the First Crack (Roasting Terms). (Unfortunately, it may be difficult to find a specialty roaster who will roast an Ethiopian this light).

After brewing the Harrar in the press, I poured it directly from the press into my thermos ~ again through a thoroughly rinsed paper filter. I then proceeded to sit down and begin sipping it while writing this particular entry. The results: pouring it through the paper filter did reduce the blueberry notes. They are still perceptible, but probably only by someone who has tasted the blueberry before and knows what to look (taste?) for. The paper also added a slightly perceptible bitterness, but only slight.

Thus, while the Sulawesi was improved by this "press pot/paper filter" method, the Harrar was not improved, other than the complete lack of sediment. But don't get me wrong; the quality of the coffee is still very, very high because of the freshness available to home roasters and press pot brewing. I would put in in par with, or even claim that it is better than the drip coffee you can get in-house from many specialty coffee roasters. And compared to what an electric coffee maker produces, there is simply no comparison. My coffee maker ruined the Harrar altogether.

The press pot/manual drip method is sort of the best of both worlds: the fullness of press pot extraction, the cleanness of paper filter drip.

Middle Earth

Garrett Moritz thinks that something is seriously amiss with the Elves of Middle Earth ~ a must read for Lord of the Rings fans.