Recently I was coming back from a trip to the U.K. and had a little time to kill in Heathrow. So, naturally, I stopped by the World of Whiskey. It was about 10:00 in the morning and time for a little taste-testing.

For some years now, 16-year-old Lagavulin has been a steady friend. On cold, winter nights, there is nothing like its rich, smokey flavors to warm the insides. It’s the internal equivalent of lamb’s wool slippers or an old, worn, woollen blanket. There are other scotches, but this one has embracing familiarity.

So, at Heathrow I was eager to try the 1990 Distiller’s Edition. Once I did, I purchased a bottle immediately, price be damned. Now I wish I had purchased two.

This is a truly special single-malt scotch whiskey. Its color is a beautiful coppery bronze, and its round, full, smokey flavors are deeply satisfying. It’s a whiskey that makes you want to put your feet up.

At the time I made the purchase, the sales clerk said it could not be obtained in the United States. I am inclined to believe this is mostly true, although I did find it for sale on eBay for $149 per bottle–significantly more than I paid. I also understand the 1991 Distiller’s Edition now can be purchased from some high-end wine and liquor stores in the U.S.

Keep your eye out for this whiskey. If you see it, buy it. My birthday is in May.

I don’t know if you were paying attention, but my dream from September 21st turned out to be only a bad dream, as the Red Sox won the American League East last night.  This actually is really good news, as it suggests the other elements of my dream also are not likely to happen.  At least, that’s what I now have decided to believe. 

The Chicago Cubs also won their division last night, returning to the post-season for the first time since 2003.  We should have had a Red Sox - Cubs World Series back in 2003, but both teams collapsed in a heap just when the pennant for their respective leagues was all but theirs.   Could this be the year?  I wonder if Steve Bartman will be attending any of the Cubs’ playoff games this time around.

Droplets splashing, faces
        laughing.
Merriment. Merriment.
        Joy.
Times were good. Times were
        oh so good.
Exulting present pleasures.
Yesteryear remembered.

– Tim Brooks

One of the things I like about the French language is that, if you know the basic rules of pronunciation, you can read aloud anything, even if you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re saying. (I did this in Quebec once, when I was pulled from the audience to participate in an outdoor play by reading a town crier announcement at the top of my lungs. The mostly French-speaking audience knew exactly what I was saying, even though I had no idea.) You see a word like fromage or chapeau or regarder, and you know precisely how it should be pronounced. I took this language from the United Nations Web site:

Pour engager le XXIe siècle sous de bons auspices, les États Membres des Nations Unies sont convenus de huit objectifs essentiels à atteindre d’ici à 2015.

Even if you cannot translate it, anyone who has taken enough French to know how each of these letters is supposed to sound and what the accents mean can read this out loud.

Now let’s look at our own language. Four of my favorite words to compare are:

• tough (ˈtəf)
• though (ˈthō)
• through (’thrü)
• thought (ˈthȯt)

You add or change one letter each time, and the ough dramatically changes the way it is pronounced. Very simply, there’s no logic to it whatsoever–that’s just the way it is.

How are young spellers supposed to learn that although tough and rough rhyme, cough and dough look like they should but are not even close? And if the ough in tough, rough, and cough is pronounced with an -f sound at the end (never mind that the ou sounds entirely different in cough), why is it that we doff our caps instead of doughing them?

Fortunately, in the United States we have turned plough into plow. And we’ve pretty much abandoned hiccough, in which the gh, as one logically would expect, makes a -p sound.

Earlier today, I came across the Family Genealogy Forum for the Ough family, who undoubtedly are experts on this issue. Perhaps someone from the Ough family could shed some light on the true pronunciation of ough.

But enough.

First of all, Alison King did a fantastic job in last night’s debate of Democratic presidential hopefuls. Very nice work, Alison. You can ask my question next time.

That said, I learned quite a bit about these eight candidates.

• Clinton is playing it safe and protecting her lead—her response about the Yankees-Cubs World Series said it all. Still, she came across as highly confident and knowledgeable, and I liked her response when Russert suggested Bill Clinton would have answered a question differently. “Well he’s not the one standing up here, is he.”
• Obama sounded naive on foreign policy. I know he is trying to say his lack of experience is an asset, but I just don’t see that as being the case. At this point in his career, he probably would make an excellent Vice President.
• Edwards said “I was the first [blah] [blah] [blah]” about 600 times and came across salesy—me, me, me. In response to each question, he spoke not about policies but about himself.
• Dodd impressed me—I had not expected that. I’d like to hear more from him.
• Gravel is a huge distraction and needs to get out of the race, like, now.
• Kucinich, as much as I like some of what he says, also should bow out—he’s adding nothing and last night came across as self-aggrandizing.
• Biden I once liked; now he just seems bitter and brusque.
• Richardson I once thought I liked.  He has vast experience in the foreign policy arena, but he was able to demonstrate none of that experience last night.  He, too, should bow out.

Perhaps early primaries are not such a bad thing, as they could weed out some of the excess. Fewer people up there would make for a better debate, as we could get longer answers and challenge people to be more specific.

I was very disappointed that none of the eight candidates challenged the appropriateness of Russet’s question about the Bible. (”What is your favorite passage from the Bible?”) Maybe all of them are church-goers, I don’t know, but the question brought Christianity (and only Christianity) into a debate where it did not belong. Moreover, the question and its answers were meaningless. It’s possible that Russert was looking for a challenge and did not get it. I would have been impressed if one of them had said, “Tim, it is inappropriate to bring religion and religious texts into this forum. If you would like to ask me about my favorite clause in the United States Constitution, I would be happy to answer it.”

A good friend of mine by the name of Alison King has been given the honor of co-hosting the Democratic presidential debate this evening along with Tim Russert. Alison is the political correspondent for NECN, and those of us who graduated from Colgate University with her and consider her a close friend are continuously thrilled (although not surprised, of course) by her success in journalism.

While preparing for the debate, Alison recently asked a group of us for question ideas. As I said to Alison, last year I was listening to a call-in debate between two Maine Republican gubernatorial candidates. A caller said, “I am looking for a very conservative governor. Could each of you please tell me why you are more likely than your opponent to appeal to my conservative values?” After they had answered the question—each trying to outdo the other on how right wing he was and, essentially, boxing himself into a very tight conservative corner—a second caller said, “I’m a Democrat looking for an alternative to the incumbent Democratic governor. Now that you’ve both gone to the effort of explaining how terribly conservative you are, can you give me a reason why a moderate voter—Democrat or Republican—would vote for you?”

I thought it was brilliant. How do you answer this absolutely crucial question without alienating the previous caller and similarly conservative voters? Here in Maine a Republican candidate must appeal to a large number of Democratic voters to stand any chance of winning. Neither did a good job with the question, however, both essentially saying that their positions should appeal to everyone.

Candidates frequently are preaching to the proverbial choir, usually because it’s that choir–and only that choir–that is listening. Democratic candidates are saying what they think Democrats want to hear. Republicans are saying what they believe Republicans want to hear. However, to win the general election, a candidate from either party must be able to attract votes from the other party.

What I proposed to Alison, therefore, was something along these lines:

There is an enormous number of moderate to conservative Republicans in this country who are deeply dissatisfied with the current administration’s social and economic policies. These people are seeking an alternative to the Bush administration’s agenda, but they are not interested in what they perceive to be liberal social and economic policies. Still, to get elected, you will need many Americans to cross party lines. If you were the Democratic presidential nominee, therefore, how would you win the support of these voters?

In other words, the Democrats are likely to be up there trying to outdo each other on how “Democrat” they are. But winning the general election will require votes from people who voted for George Bush in both of the last two presidential elections. I’d like to hear how they’re going to attract those voters. Because if they can’t, they can’t win.

I hope Alison asks my question.

Columbia University invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on its campus yesterday. Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia, took severe criticism for extending the invitation. Personally, although I support President Bollinger’s decision, I was disappointed to hear him introduce Ahmadinejad with direct, personal attacks.

President Bollinger said in his introduction:

Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.

These lines were not necessary during the introduction, even if true. Challenge Ahmadinejad, point out his country’s record on sponsoring terrorism, accuse Iran of being a root cause of the continued chaos in Iraq, say what you want about the country’s treatment of homosexuals, demand clarification on their position toward Israel (i.e., whether they want to “wipe them off the map”), but the personal attacks–even if deserved–were a step too far during an introduction.

It is possible that President Bollinger was attempting to respond to the criticism that inviting Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia–a highly prestigious university–somehow legitimized the man. Perhaps, but if that is your concern, don’t invite him at all.

Do not get me wrong: Ahmadinejad does indeed show all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator who, in all likelihood, is both brazenly provocative and astonishingly uneducated. Many of his comments during his speech (that, for example, Jews live peacefully in Iran and that the country has no homosexuals) were flat out lies. Still, as much as I protest the man and his country, I do not protest Columbia’s invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak. I only wish President Bollinger had shown the unearned respect and courtesy not to cast personal insults during the introduction.

The tiny rock in my shoe causes a pain
          that it seems never will end.
With each placement of my sneaker
          my foot screeches in ineffable agony.
Oh! The hideous pain caused by this
          tiniest of stones is near reason to stop
          and remove my shoe.

And yet
          with my mind fixed squaredly
          on the anguish and misery in my shoe,
I momentarily set aside the perpetual suffering
          in my soul.

All previous cares and concerns
          are carried far away
          by the raging current of sorrow
          caused by this one small pebble.
I think not of the dark and hellish essence
          flowing in the blackened gutters
          of my mind’s inner passageways.
The seemingly endless torture of my days
          is wholly consumed
          and slips easily from my thoughts.

With this pebble in my shoe,
          I walk on.

– Tim Brooks

Let me say out the outset that this is not a paid ad. I tried a product, I liked it, and I’m sharing with you what I found out. I don’t do blog ads.

Okay, that said, let’s move on.

Like a lot of people, I spend a significant amount of time in front of my computer. So, like a lot of people, I spend a little time making my desktop–my computer desktop, not my actual desktop, which is a mess–look nice. For a couple of years, I have used desktop artwork from a talented artist named Vladislav Gerasimov. You can find his Web site here: http://www.vladstudio.com/home. I learned of him through a graphic artist I work with, and I really like Vlad’s work.

Vlad recently teamed up with Jury Gerasimov (I assume they’re related) of softshape on the Chameleon Clock–a piece of software developed by Jury that turns the standard Windows tray clock into an artistic and useful tool. However, with Chameleon Clock, you also can have Wallpaper Clocks: desktop artwork that actually keeps the date and time.

Some of the wallpaper clocks are bright and colorful, others dark and brooding. Some are more functional, others just fun to look at. But all of them keep time on your desk top, and they’re all beautifully done.  Together, the Gerasimovs have created  a great add-on to the Windows environment.

Give them a try by going here: http://www.softshape.com.

You know, I like baseball–I really do–but I still found it odd last night when I had a dream about the Red Sox and their current struggles.

In my dream, I was listening to a call-in radio show.  It essentially was Car Talk, but the guys doing the show were Don Orsillo and Jerry Remy–the TV announcers for the Red Sox.  When I called in, I pointed out to them that New York had left in their schedule four home games against a pretty tough team (Toronto) and then six away games against easy teams (Tampa Bay and Baltimore).  The Red Sox, by contrast, have three away games against an easy team (Tampa Bay, which has done them in before), followed by six home games against two tougher clubs (Oakland and Minnesota).  This was news to Don and RemDawg (I guess they had not bothered to look at the upcoming schedule).  On balance, I told them, the Yankees–who are playing much better baseball right now–have an easier set of games remaining.  Accordingly, I predicted that the Yankees would overtake the Red Sox and win the division. 

I did not stop there, however.  I also predicted that the Red Sox would lose in the first round of the playoffs and that the Yankees would win the World Series.  Don and RemDawg were very sorry to hear this; we said good-bye, and I hung up.

On this occasion, I am hoping dreams do not come true.