Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
Although I keep coming back to Basil Hayden's as my favorite, I tried Four Roses single barrel at the restaurant in Gaithersburg and had a similar experience. It's smooth almost to the point of being delicate.I tried the Four Roses single barrel and was blown away.
) I recently did a blind taste test with a friend. We were trying to see how much difference there was between cheap and pricey bourbons. Here's how my ranking turned out:
I've tried both Basil Hayden's and Maker's Mark at dlbpharmd's recommendation after I met him at Elohimfest '14, and both were quite good. Thanks, DLB!dlbpharmd wrote:Although I keep coming back to Basil Hayden's as my favorite, I tried Four Roses single barrel at the restaurant in Gaithersburg and had a similar experience. It's smooth almost to the point of being delicate.I tried the Four Roses single barrel and was blown away.
... win win really 
What a top shop!!!peter wrote:There's a shop down in a small village near us that for some reason specialises in collectors whiskeys. Think aisles of pet food, cornflakes, coffee, cabinet of three thousand quid whiskeys, toilet paper.......
... I said tasting wee little sips, and those that dont want to swallow can spit
The end of a liquor raid, Oct. 14, 1922. (Library of Congress/Wikimedia Commons)
By the time the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution went into effect in January 1920, prohibiting the manufacture, transport or sale of alcoholic beverages throughout the United States, 33 state legislatures out of 48 had taken it upon themselves to enact their own laws banning alcohol. Temperance societies and the Anti-Saloon League enjoyed significant influence in political institutions across the nation. While Prohibition's popularity would wane by the end of the decade because of its unintended consequences -- greater lawlessness, violence and widespread bootlegging -- at the time of its ratification and implementation, it enjoyed a fair amount of popular support.
Except in the pages of America.
While Prohibition's popularity would wane by the end of the decade, at the time of its ratification and implementation, it enjoyed a fair amount of popular support.
In the state of Virginia, wrote the editors (all Jesuit priests and brothers at the time) in an April 1919 editorial, "a small army of detectives and 'stool pigeons'" existed whose enforcement of that state's Prohibition ordinance constituted "a menace to the peace and welfare of the community, immeasurably greater than the disorderly conduct of a mob of drunkards."
The editors were just getting started. A paragraph later, they added:
A month later, they editorialized that Prohibition should be enforced equally against "the barons of wealth" as it would be against "the street-cleaner," noting that "[t]he rich are 'stocking up,' and will suffer no want; but after his day of exhausting labor, the poor man may not have so much as a single glass of harmless, necessary beer." And had the U.S. Senate vote on the 18th Amendment been taken by secret ballot, the editors argued later that year, it would have met with certain defeat -- as some of the same senators who argued most vociferously in favor of Prohibition were noted partakers of liquor.If the citizens of Virginia, or of any other State, put the machinery of government into the hands of fanatics, who care nothing either for good government or for religion, provided they continue to draw a munificent salary in the propagation of Mohammedan tenets, these same good citizens have only themselves to blame.
"After his day of exhausting labor, the poor man may not have so much as a single glass of harmless, necessary beer."
[...]
A Plot Against Catholics?
A more novel accusation appeared in an editorial published in August 1919, "Federal Prohibition and the Mass," suggesting a certain anti-Catholic bias in the technical language used to enforce Prohibition. Would the government try to ban the use of sacramental wine? Such "wearisome and difficult technicalities may satisfy some of our Prohibitionist brethren of the milder variety," wrote the editors. "To others, however, they seem to mark the beginning of the era in which the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can be made to depend on the favor of an internal revenue officer." If it were to come down to "a choice between Prohibition and the Mass," they warned, "it is not the Mass that will be protected."
The magazine returned to the theme two years later:
In 1925, the editors denounced the Anti-Saloon League and accused it of openly plotting against Catholics, sarcastically calling them "the good people who live in dread of the day when the Holy Father will order all Catholic Americans to capture the White House or the Washington Monument, or, if nothing better offers, even Congress." The next year, they approvingly quoted Cardinal William Henry O'Connell, the archbishop of Boston: "Compulsory universal prohibition is a different thing, for compulsory prohibition, in general, is flatly opposed to Holy Scripture and Catholic tradition."The Eighteenth Amendment has already destroyed a right reserved under the Constitution to the respective States. It has destroyed the right of the physician to prescribe what he deems best for his patient. In many parts of the country it has destroyed the right guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. The next extension will be to destroy the Mass.
The editors added: "We are not troubled by the accusation that we head the list of the brewers' beneficiaries. The sole interest of this Review is to assert Catholic and constitutional principles, in the hope that peace and good order may be secured through the practice of temperance in all things."
[...]
Populism I can certainly get behind."After his day of exhausting labor, the poor man may not have so much as a single glass of harmless, necessary beer."
