Catoctin Creek Distillery

a couple of weeks ago, i went with a group of friends to the

catoctin creek distillery

"organic spirits from loudoun county, va"

so, now you can get drunk but drink local and organic!

we went because these two decided to get married

lilypea and lil'p want to have fun at their wedding

and they want to be easy on the environment

so they decided to get everything locally

including booze, cigars, a pig for roasting, and all the fixins

(perfect public health wedding feast right?)

they asked a group of their friends if we'd like to check the place out and grab lunch

i now know way more than i should about how to make wiskey

catoctin creek was placed on the map this year by winning a silver medal

it is amazing because they won during their first year of business.

scott and becky decided they were going to chase their dream.

becky is a chemical engineer

scott is a software guy (defense & other gov't contracts)

they both wanted something new

so they invested in some spendy german distilling stuff and started making booze

there is scott teaching us about how whiskey is made

turns out you start by making beer

that thing holds 400 gallons

they make a 400 gallon batch of beer of beer

(he jokes to his brewer friends that they are only doing a 1/3 of the work)

and then at night they add 40 lbs of rye

and then all the yeast and live cultures eat on it

it becomes glue-like and then turns into a porridge

(that apparently doesn't taste very good, but is full of fiber . . . if you need that)

then they put it in these big bins and let the yeast work its magic,

but they get rid of the porridge stuff

(they feed that to their neighbor's cows)

this (the thing i'm looking in) is the distiller

apparently as the stuff heats up 3 different substances separate out

the head (bad and lethal), heart (what ends up being bottled and drunk), and foot (also bad)

he explained that they decided to go with organic because you could smell and taste the pesticides in the head and foot so powerfully it made you want to gag

he said the head smelled like perto-chemicals

and the foot smelled like rotten fish

now the head is this high octane substance that is 90 proof alcohol

they take it and use it to clean all of their stuff

this is part of what makes their distillery organic

they make their own organic cleanser.

and because the foot is so much cleaner now, they use it in compost.

interesting fun fact

catoctin creek is the first distillery in loudoun county since prohibition

this is becky

she is the real "chef" of the distillery

she comes up with the recipes etc

she is the one who quit her job to do this full time

scott still has his day job

because they are a small distillery they control everything by smell and taste

the big distilleries will include more head and foot in the stuff they bottle

but becky and scott decided early on that the most important thing would be quality

so they err on including too much heart in the head and foot

rather than including the bad stuff in the bottles.

in scotland, the distillers aren't allowed to taste or smell the stuff as it is distilling.

some government agent has the key that unlocks the part of the distiller that controls the process

they have to make all of their decisions based on temperature

becky thinks this really limits their ability to make good tasting stuff.

that 400 gallons ends up being 40 gallons.

so the level of concentration of the bad stuff is quite high

if you leave it in, that is

this is how/where the stuff gets put in bottles

they will pay you with pizza and experience if you spend a saturday bottling with them

and they let you sign the bottle

this is whiskey made exactly the same way,

but before they were certified organic,

so they can't sell it as organic

apparently the inspectors who check on their organicness give them a heads up

but the rabbis determine if the drink is kosher will stop by any time

an interesting fact about whiskey v. scotch etc

after prohibition the lumber lobby convinced congress to make a law that

american whiskey could only be made in brand new oak barrels

this meant that distillers had to make lots of barrels

and also created an interesting market of oak barrels from the US to scotland

scotch ages so much longer because it takes at least twice as long to get the oak out.

the whiskey catoctin won for is a "mosby" which means it hasn't been sitting in oak

the only difference between the mosby and the regular is the oak barrel.

the brown of whiskey comes from oak.

catoctin's whiskey only sits for about 45 days.

that is enough to change the color and give it the carmel (oak) taste

apparently about 10 gallons (or was it pounds) of whiskey is absorbed into the wood

this made lil' p think that beer should be made in those barrels . . .

after learning about how whiskey was made

we went to lunch at magnolias at the mill

it was DELICIOUS

and the space was really cool!!

if you are in purceville you definitely get a snack here

it was super fun and educational

if you are a whiskey drinker, check this stuff out.

if you can't get it in your area you can order online at schneiders of capitol hill

they can ship it to you.

i have to hand it to scott and becky,

they took some serious risks

(like spending their entire retirement on the distillery)

and they are starting a cool movement of organic spirits and small distilleries

apparently the big distilleries have had quite a hold on the laws of making

spirits since prohibition.

in fact, becky and scott couldn't even experiment before they made their first legal batch

no matter the amount, making a distilled spirit for your own (or anyone else's) consumption

is a federal crime

can you say

MONOPOLY??!

seriously, it is crazy how the big companies in america control so much.

katrina's response

this is one of my neighborhood friends responding to the listserv . . . i think she makes some really great points:

The meetings, the vigils, the oh-so-sincere concern ... they're always the same. But nothing ever changes because the status quo is too entrenched, and people are too afraid to challenge their established prejudices. For example, the much-scapegoated methadone clinics, which not only don't contribute to neighborhood problems, but actually helped (while they were here) to reduce them.

This innocent citizen was the victim of a huge, huge cultural divide. He tried to do what seemed to him as the only decent thing, and because of his color and his demeanor (as well as, maybe, other things), it cost him his life. People don't want to acknowledge the constant tension between the two worlds that uneasily co-exist side-by-side in the neighborhood. I see it as cultural, but there's a very big racial component to it.

I can guarantee you that some black man, probably a young black man, was acting thuggish somehow. The citizen - who represented everything this hypothetical young man hated - got involved, and the young man's anger was instantly redirected. He may not have meant to outright kill the citizen, or he may not have cared either way. He was likely under the influence of alcohol, and also probably feeling the need to uphold his hard-core image.

Inner city culture is very predatory. It reflects our predatory society. I see it all as connected, but people like Kathy Henderson and others on the listserv see it in black and white, citizens vs criminals terms. Kathy and her disciples think an extreme authoritarian approach is the only solution, and that anyone who disagrees (like me) is siding with the criminals ... even though time and time again, this path has provably only made things worse.

To be safe, you need to learn which set of rules is appropriate for whatever situation you're in. Until then, don't put yourself in situations you're not 100% sure of. I don't mean you can't physically be there, just stay focused on your business, don't be distracted by anyone or anything you witness, and don't get involved in other peoples' activities. Be civil, be respectful ... but not friendly. Living your life in fear is riskier than the things you, right now, may feel afraid of.

Yes, it would suck to have to turn away from someone who needs your help, but you never, ever put your life or physical safety on the line for the sake of someone's personal property, or to help them save face. And you never, ever get involved in domestic disputes. Above all, you never let your ego into the driver's seat. Whatever's going on, it's almost certainly not about you - usually even when it seems like it is. So avoid staring, leave the area quietly and inconspicuously. Then once you're at home or in a safe area, call the police.

Oh yeah: learn to tell the difference between firecrackers, backfiring cars, and gunshots. And if you hear gunfire, hit the deck or get behind something. If you're not sure, watch what other people are doing.

This is for sure the highest profile violent crime to have occurred in the ten years we've lived here. I hope with the real economy getting worse and times getting so hard, this isn't a sign of bad things to come.

What we need is (a) for both sides to learn a lot more about each other's mannerisms and cultural imperatives (b) an end to the Drug Wars which, underneath, fuel the engine that drives this whole underground scene

more thoughts on the murder of billy mitchell

over the past couple of days there has been a heated debate (though mostly constructive) on the eckington listserv about this heinous crime. participating in this debate has helped me see more clearly how we often choose distraction. many on the list are focusing on things that we cannot change. which stands in the way of actually making change.

i grew up being very familiar with the serenity prayer: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change, courage to change the things that i can, and the wisdom to know the difference." i hope my community can do this!

at first, when i heard the screaming & gun shots, woke up to the police tape and the investigation taking place, read the first reports, etc., i assumed a gang-banger had been shot. most of the violence in this city, and cities around the country, is related to drug trade and gang related muck. gang related violence is often ridiculously senseless, nevertheless it is also reality that most violence stems from this (in my 'hood).

my belief of this helped me feel safe. if you don't want to be shot, don't be in a gang. easy! it made me feel like my neighbors, friends, and self were safe.

billy's murder changed this.

he did what i would have done. he did what my friends would have done; on his way home from a play at the shakespear theater with his mom, he saw a woman in distress and he tried to help her. (you can read more about it here . . . its chilling) i have done this a number of times. most of the people i know in this city have seen this stuff and reacted similarly. his "Good Samaritan" instincts got him killed.

not only have i defended others. i've defended myself. i have yelled at cab drivers who drive dangerously close to me while i'm on my bike; i have told schizophrenics yelling at people to "be nice"; etc. i feel like it is my duty not to walk away from someone who is being hurt. i believe doing so, makes me an accomplice.

i don't like to live in fear! so i refuse to stand down. but now i have to rethink . . . will i stop the next time i see someone being abused? would i open the cab door to yell at the west african cab driver who TWICE tried to run me off the road? probably not.

though, i want to still be able to. i want to still be able to defend the woman in distress. i want to be okay with people taking the metro or bus to my house. but right now i'm not.

so, how do we get out safety back?

this has been the topic of discussion in eckington this week. the community response has been interesting to me. there are some who believe we should all have guns. that arming eckington will make it safer. much of the discussion has moved away from improving community safety and into a discussion on loosening gun laws.

this is completely ironic to me. not only because even dick cheney is saying we might want to tighten gun laws in response to the attempted assasignation of gabby giffords, and all the others killed and injured in tucson two weeks ago. but also, had billy's hate filled lunatic murderer not had a gun, billy would be alive.

those who believe that guns are the way to safety, say that if the guy who killed billy was worried at all that billy had a gun, he wouldn't have pulled his. i disagree! they just might now both be dead.

it is also way off track. it isn't something we can actually do something about. the people of eckington are going to change the SCOTUS' decision on Heller. and thus, we are distracted by the things we cannot change and are being foolish in not recognizing it.

there are things we CAN do! sometimes, doing what we can is scarier than talking about what others should do. when we are empowered and have the "courage to change the things that we can", we feel better. we also have responsibility. that is intimidating to many. in this case it may mean having to go to monthly meetings, having conversations with police, etc etc.

regardless, i will choose, no matter what, to stand with gandhi and martin luther king jr.; "an eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind".

plus i hate guns. i don't want a gun in my house! i certainly don't want to have to carry a gun in my neighborhood so that i can feel safe.

the truth is just seeing a gun makes me feel unsafe. a gun killed my cousin greg (at point blank range in the face when he tried to calm down some bad guys that invaded his girlfriend's home while he was taking a friend to work. he came home and the robbers/drug dealers had a gun to her head. he tried to smooth things over, and was killed).

my dear aunt sydeny was killed with a gun. she turned the gun on herself. she had started drinking again (after about 30 years of sobriety) and she hated herself for it. she studied long and hard the best way to kill herself. though my uncle galen knew she was suicidal, he insisted that he "had a right to bear arms", (which makes me believe he should be charged as an accomplice to murder"). she used one of his "arms" to kill herself. wrapped herself up in 2 plastic shower curtains, laid down in an empty bathtub, and pulled the trigger -- because "one should never leave a mess."

i believe greg and sydney would still be alive today if it weren't for handguns.

please don't think this worldview stems from me being some pansy-ass liberal that has never handled a gun. in fact, i grew up on a hobby farm in arizona (and you know arizonans do love their guns).

my dad hunted an arizona white tailed deer every year, and we ate that deer all year long. (see the photo to the left of my grandma, my dad, me, and our deer) when i got old enough, he taught me to clean and handle a gun LONG before i ever shot one. then we went out shooting. he had mostly rifles: shotguns, 22's, etc. he did have a muzzle-loaded handgun.

looking back now, i realize that the reason my dad would take me out shooting with his friends so often was because i was a pretty amazing shot.

i'm good at it. i know the rush of it. in college, one of my friends had a semi-automatic (why ???) that we took to his cabin and shot cans with. i amazed myself at how easy it was for me to hit down all the cans (and totally schooled the boys who were acting very bravado about having the gun and their ability to use it . . .who were hitting MAYBE on can at a time. i knocked down all 6 in my first try.)

but here is the deal: i think i should be able to live in a community that is safe enough that i'm not required to carry a weapon. police should have the guns and should be efficient and engaged enough to stop people with illegal guns and protect me, so that i don't have to protect myself. otherwise, what are the taxes i/we pay for?

my/our tax dollars pay the salaries and operating costs of the MPD, so that we are safe and protected. but they aren't really helping me feel safe OR protected. instead i feel ignored and frankly a bit inconsequential by those who are supposedly protecting my safety.

this is basic rule of law stuff.

i agree that police aren't the entire solution, they should be accountable to stand by their oath to "protect & to serve". paul suggested that we need to be out walking our kids and dogs more. that we need to have people out on the street at night. i say, we need the police to do their job first. then we might feel better walking our dogs, or even taking our trash out. which right now, to me, feels dangerous to me.

i've been trying to get ahold of the district commander, the investigator assigned to my burglary, the drug unit, etc since october 24th. i have left countless messages and received no response. i have noticed more cops driving through the alley, but i don't think being in a car going 25 MPH is really going to help change things. we need engaged community-oriented police. they need to be on bikes or on foot really patrolling their beat, not playing video games in their cars. they need to know us, and we need to know them. this type of community-policing is proven to be more effective. this engenders trust in the police.

i hope my community can work through this. that we can create a safer space here. that billy's life will be remembered and honored. he stood up to the bad guys and tried to protect people. we should all do that, and do it together, with the police so that dc can be safer. it is horrible that billy died. its disgusting! but i think we can honor his legacy of service by creating a city where women don't need to be defended as often and people are safe to walk home from the theater.

if you want to see dick cheney talk about strengthening gun control laws see this video:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

are you kidding me?!!

i'm pretty freaked out about guns right now. on wednesday i heard a woman scream twice and then 2 gun shots, then the woman screamed again and i heard another gun shot. i called the police as soon as i heard the shots. i heard the woman scream twice and then 2 shots. then there was a silence, then i heard another scream, and then another shot. by the time, the of the 3rd scream, i was calling 911.

it took at least 5 minutes until i heard the first police car. the 911 operator had no sense of urgency. the moment the call was answered i said "Police!Police!Police!Police!", but she just went through her script, it took at least a minute just for her to understand that someone had been shot. she just refused to hear me until it was time in the script for me to tell her the reason for my call. . . this is what had happened



i want to know why there aren't more police around here? i've reported seeing people shooting heroin in my alley; i was burglarized in october; i've seen drug deals go down and reported it; i asked for our alley and that corner be put on a special watch. I've called the district commander, with no return calls. i've tried to get ahold of the investigator of my burglary a number of times, no returned calls or emails. the police force in DC is simply unresponsive. and i actually have a hard time understanding how they can sleep at night. a woman, living alone, in a "transitional" neighborhood calls and says she is scared, and even that can't get a call returned ??!!!

oh, and i learned a couple of minutes ago another person was stabbed in the head just a block away from where this murder took place.

when i first came to DC, i worked at the National Institute of Justice, where demonstration projects around the country showed that community-oriented policing steeply reduces crime. it requires police to have relationships with the people they are supposed to be protecting. Obviously, this is not happening here, when i can't even get an assigned investigator to call me back.

and thank-you republicans for striking down our gun ban. truthfully, because of our pathetic laize faire police force, when we were able to ban guns we didn't enforce it. the truth is, i'm sure the gun that guy had was illegal. why not just start asking people to see permits? i really love this argument between an arizona member of congress and a talking head on the shootings in tucson. they are debating whether extended capacity ammo clips should be legal . . .

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

what would you do?

Myths and facts about 'Obamacare'

Washington Post
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 01/18/2011
By Glenn Kessler

House Republicans on Wednesday plan to press forward with their repeal of the health care bill passed last year. They have the votes, so passage is not in doubt. But the Democrats who control the Senate have no interest in following suit, and President Obama had pledged a veto. So this is mostly a symbolic act. But it does provide an opportunity to look back at some of the persistent myths about the legislation.

Some of the public confusion about what is in the bill is understandable. The long battle in Congress was often mind numbing except to a handful of policy experts, and key features were dropped or added along the way. Opponents often seized on small elements and exaggerated the impact, even if those provisions were no longer in the bill. Since the bill was passed ten months ago, polls indicate that Americans have a greater understanding of what ended up in the final version--and support for the overall law has slowly grown. During last year's midterm elections, both Factcheck.org and PolitiFact.com did yeoman work trying to pick apart the various claims made about the bill; The Washington Post also joined forces with Kaiser Health News to produce an excellent examination of myths and facts about the law.

Even so, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll as recently as September found that a sizeable group of seniors believed that the health-care overhaul contained provisions that are simply not in the bill. Here then is a review of some of the most persistent myths of the health care bill.

"This is a 'government takeover' of the health care system"

This snappy talking point is used by Republicans repeatedly to bash Obama's crowing legislative achievement, but it is simply not true. In fact, PolitiFact.com labeled this claim the 2010 "lie of the year," but that has not stopped lawmakers from making this claim. It will surely be heard again on the House floor during the repeal debate.

In many ways, the health care law resembles the Massachusetts reform enacted in 2006 under then Gov. Mitt Romney (a potential Republican rival of Obama in 2012). It builds on the existing private insurance system but adds requirements and incentives to ensure that most people have some form of health insurance.

Under the new law, there is no government alternative to the private system--this was a potential provision that was dropped during the congressional tussle--but the number of people who qualify for the existing federal-state Medicaid program for the poor will be expanded. States (or the federal government) will run "exchanges" -- essentially marketplaces -- in which private insurers will sell insurance to individuals and small businesses, but this should mean more people will get private insurance, not fewer. Tax credits will also be offered to people who have trouble buying private insurance.

Certainly, the law bolsters government regulation of the health care system, such as forcing insurance companies to no longer deny coverage to people who have existing medical conditions. People who currently do not have health insurance will be required to buy it. But the core of the health system in the United States will remain the existing private insurance market. So it in no way resembles the government-run health systems used in most industralized countries in the world.

"Medicare benefits will be cut--and payments will be cut to Medicare doctors".

This was another GOP attack line during the campaign, though in many ways this was payback for the Democrats' very effective use of the same charge against Republicans after the GOP took control of Congress in 1994 and attempted to pass a balanced-budget plan that sought to restrain growth in Medicare spending.

The politically radioactive word "cut" is a misnomer. Under the health care law, Medicare spending will continue to increase year after year, but at a slower than anticipated pace. Both parties, in theory, agree this would be a good thing. Medicare is the venerable government-run health care plan for Americans over 65, and one of the fastest-growing parts of the federal budget.

The health bill will reduce projected Medicare spending by $575 billion over ten years, primarily by reducing projected fees to hospitals and other providers and by reducing payments to private Medicare Advantage insurance plans. Benefits have also been added, eating into the overall projected savings, but the impact on the Medicare Advantage plans is unclear. Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary of the Medicare and Medicaid, has estimated that seniors may need to pay more in out of pocket costs for such plans. He has also cast serious doubt on whether the Medicare savings claimed in the second decade could be achieved without significant pain for many hospitals, nursing facilities and other providers.

In fact, since 1997, Congress all but once has waived a planned cut in Medicare payments to doctors, mostly recently in December. So depending on the political pressure, some of these projected "cuts" may never materialize in any case.

"A secretive government committee ('death panels') will be created to make end-of-life decisions about people on Medicare"

This claim, first made by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate, has been thoroughly debunked and was labeled "lie of the year" in 2009 by PolitiFact.com. Yet it persists in the popular imagination. The September Kaiser poll found that 30 percent of seniors still believed this to be the case--and 22 percent were not sure, meaning fewer than half knew the claim was false.

The charge stemmed from a proposed amendment to the bill that would have covered the cost of end-of-the-life planning discussions. Democrats quickly dropped the provision after the firestorm created by Palin's assertion, even after it was proven to be factually incorrect.

But the issue remains politically sensitive. In late December, The New York Times reported that under new Medicare regulations for annual physical examination, "the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment." The White House reversed course days later, ordering the Medicare agency to delete references to end-of-life planning in its new regulations.


"Repealing the bill will increase the deficit"

This is technically true--it comes from a Congressional Budget Office estimate--but we've documented before the problems with both this statement and the estimate. Democrats are sure to make this claim as they fight back against repeal, so here is a link to our previous post on this topic. Bottom line: This is a pretty shaky claim for Democrats to make, especially since the health care law was not really intended to reduce the deficit, but to reduce the number of uninsured Americans.