In 3 1/2 years of living New York, I have yet to find an establishment selling Shiner Bock. Truly, you don’t know what you’ve got 'til it’s gone.
When I was living in Iowa, I would load up my trunk with Shiner Bock at the end of every trip back to Texas. Made the start of a new semester ever so much more pleasant for a few weeks.
But now that I’m back home, I find to my horror that I occasionally miss Leinenkugel’s. :eek:
Is it my imagination or did it taste better 10-13 years ago, back when it was cheaper than water? It tasted more mushroomy, or something.
Shiner bock, that is. Not sodomy.
Well, the sodomy you can get anywhere at least.
Ironically, that’s one thing you can’t get legally in Texas (until the Supreme Court speaks this summer, anyway). 
They’ll take my sodomy when they pry it from my cold, dead penis!
Hey, Leinie’s is the reason I stopped homebrewing. Almost as good as mine, about the same price, and a hell of a lot easier to get. 'course, the lack of variety is the reason I got back into homebrewing, but what do you want for a lame attempt at a hijack?
Turdburglar!
D&R
Enjoy,
Steven
Homebrew, I just read about it in the paper. It was an AP story and mentioned that Texas joins 36 other states which have such a law. Does that ease your pain?
Minty, IMHO (and IANAL but am something of an aficionado of constitutional law, as you know), the problem with DOMA is not merely its attitude towards gay people, but the horrendous precedent it sets of allowing Congress to supersede the affirmative mandates of the Constitution. States are required by the Constitution to give FF&C to the actions of other states exercising “competent jurisdiction” when such actions affect persons’ interests in their own state; all Congress is empowered to do is to establish a uniform standard for proving in a state that such actions have been taken by another state.
“Public policy” has no business supervening the Constitution.
But not a pretty boy, apparently.
In other news, British Columbia just became the third province to have its supreme court rule that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples contravenes the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The feds will have to legally recognize gay marriage by 2004 or have the federal Supremes do it for them.
You’re welcome up here.
Jeez. First I learn they have a dildo quota (maximum of 6 or you’re judged to have intent to traffic, something stupid like that), then I find out that there’s a limit on legal ways to fuck (Mississippi’s worse in that regard, though that’s not saying much), and now this. This doesn’t directly affect me but that doesn’t make me any happier about it.
If it weren’t for warm weather, Charlie Robison and Gunslinger I wouldn’t be moving down there at all.
When the Spoetzel Brewery sold to Budweiser, they screwed with everything.
A necktie party from LaGrange convinced them to go back to original methods, as much as possible. Bud is a little tighter on certain sanitation rules than the original brewmaster, so it isn’t quite the same. You can’t put years worth of cleaned-out buildup back into the system.
(Family in the area, several generations working at the brewery.)
sigh
But it get’s cooooold up there. Anything below about 55 degrees F, and I start to get whiney. Can Canada and the U.S. just trade places?
55 degrees F… 55 degrees F… oh! he means 13 degrees C!
Not to worry. You could move to Vancouver (though I shudder to suggest living under the BC gummint, a damn sight further right than their supremes.)
Or you could move to Montreal and find yourself a nice apartment connected to the metro. What with the underground city, you could stay indoors for months at a time.
Unless the appeal is successful…
Meanwhile, we get this guy on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Canada, please consider this my formal request to annex Wisconsin.
Don’t be silly, Poly. The “public policy” limit on the FF&C clause is eminently sensible and vitally necessary to assure that the FF&C clause is a workable principle of comity between the states instead of a race-to-the-bottom method of imposing one state’s preferences on all states.
At its heart, Full Faith & Credit is about relations between sovereign governments. For the states to work together, it is necessary that they pay some amount of deference to the legal decisions of the other states. But at the same time, if those states are to retain any functional amount of discretion to order their own affairs, the states cannot be forced to accept every decision those other states make.
You point to gay marriage, claiming it is a travesty that a same-sex couple married under the (hypothetical) laws of Vermont would be denied the benefits of that legal marriage if they move to Texas. And from a policy standpoint, I would agree with you. But how many examples can you think of where it would be a travesty for one state to automatically apply the laws of another state?
Here’s an example for you. Say that, instead of fighting it out on appeal, those two guys from Houston who got convicted under the Texas sodomy statute fled to Vermont. Texas then goes to Vermont and files a request for extradition, but it’s against the strong public policy of Vermont to imprison people for engaging in homosexual sex. You would have Vermont reflexively extradite the fugitives to serve their sentences in a Texas prison; I would not.
Say that North Dakota awards drivers licenses to six-year-olds. Is Minnesota constitutionally required to to recognize the validity of those licenses?
Louisiana asserts title over all wildlife within its borders. Can Louisiana prosecute a duck hunter in Arkansas who shoots a duck that just flew in from Louisiana?
West Virginia allows residents to marry their 12-year-old first cousins. Can a pedophile avoid child molestation charges in Maryland on the ground that he and his victim married in West Virginia? Does Maryland have to recognize the validity of that marriage?
The pitfalls of an unyielding FF&C clause are tremendous.