Depends on where you are. It's fallen out of favor at most non-pub style bars in my area. Biggest reason is the nitrous tap and European sanke that makes it difficult to rotate.
@B.E. Nugent...I believe that you are of the Hibernian persuasion...can you give an opinion on the merits of Guinness? Possibly there is a conflict of interest?
First thing I'd mention is don't say this in any bar in Ireland. As a young lad, if I hadn't found Guinness, I'd probably have stayed teetotal. Lagers and whatever just tasted vile. It's still my favourite though I'm over the repulsion of everything else. But not all pints are the same. The cooling mechanisms need to be spot on. I was in a bar in England when the bar woman was filling a pint for me. The tap sputtered and spat the end of a barrel and she changed to a new one, poured straight onto what was in the glass and looked offended when I said I'd have a crappy generic lager instead. You've got to respect the process, for all that's good and holy! I've a story I don't know what to do with that I might throw into the workshop for feedback, though I know I'll be told to reduce the wordcount hugely. I'll just quote a short piece relevant to this discussion: It makes no difference to the taste but the pleasure of a pint of Guinness is as much a visual as a gustatory experience, the soft creamy head topping the obsidian body, leaving perfect rings on the glass to mark each savoured tilt. Cold and distinct, it needs to be downed before the barrier between cream and black breaks down.
Headline of the Day from The Babylon Bee: Ozzy Announces He Is Retiryouknow, The Thing With Sabbath And The Flibberyloo, An-n-n-Tony Andi Wit The Bloody Timeof Our Lives
I'd say the couple of decades before the 20's but yeah, those guys. The ceased to be after Independence 1921 and we turned our attention to a fairly brutal civil war. Correction: According to wiki, the Black and Tans were recruited during the War of Independence in 1920. My memory of the highly redacted version of history we got in school led me to believe they were active for decades.
Most of my family blew out of Ulster in the 18th and early 19th centuries, but didn't get along with the British here any better than they got along with them in Ireland.
Why does admitting error involve digesting what we did? We eat crow, eat humble pie, eat our hat, eat our shoe, eat our words
Probably a rhetorical question, but I can take a stab at it. One of the things I learned about Biblical symbolism is that words are basically magic (or divine), and that we issue them forth and take them in. The Word is the Logos, it's the divine principle at the heart of everything, and it created everything. It's God. Wisdom is often symbolised as food in the Bible. I believe the idea of fasting in the desert before attempting something serious like seeking God's wisdom means to refrain from the foolish words of ordinary folk, to avoid the company of the masses and seek solitude. This purifies your mind of the ridiculous ideas that the masses call wisdom, and opens you up to recieve the wisdom of God. By which I mean the deep wisdom you can recieve in solitude, through meditation and prayer (essentially meditation with some questions or requests). We say liars speak with a forked tongue. We also call lies and treachery and deceit poison. Taking in false wisdom has an effect very much like taking in poison. Also, "What you eat becomes you." It means essentially the same thing as "Garbage in, garbage out." What you take in forms you, just as the food you eat becomes your flesh and bone and blood. If it's bad, you become weak and vulnerable, perhaps poisoned. If it's good and nutritious, it makes you strong. The same applies to the ideas you take in through words. So, just as we stuff a dog's nose into what it did on the floor to teach it to stop doing that, the same idea applies to those who feed us poison with their lies. It's a little different—we can't tell them the same lie they told us, they already know it's false. So instead we force them to listen to us telling them off. That's the crow they're forced to eat. They have to take in the thing they hate, which is that they get exposed as liars. Those serpentine types who flick their forked tongues so freely and smirk and gloat can't stand to be exposed to the full light, they like to slither along the low ground, hide in the grass, and in the dark.
Voltaire was addicted to caffeine. It is reported that during the five months it took for him to write the novel Candide, he averaged 50-70 cups of coffee a day. https://www.cracked.com/article_22468_7-great-works-literature-written-while-wasted.html
Mentioned this to my husband who responded, "I didn't realize Voltaire was a North Dakota Norwegian."
An interesting bit of information I stumbled across. David Goggins turned down a $300,000.00 advance for his book "Can't hurt me". Instead he self published, and made the NYT best sellers list.
During my recent seven-hour drive home, I marveled at the complex infrastructure we have in this nation, and thought about Ukraine, and how much time and money it will take to re-create even a semblance of what they had before the war, and cursed the Ruskies for their barbarism in trying to drive the Ukrainians into being unable to continue fighting by destroying civilians. Then I recalled how, during the Vietnam war, the United States vowed to "bomb them back to the stone age" and to thereby win that war. (Unsuccessfully I might add). And I realized that war is war, no matter which side one is on. Or, as General Sherman observed during his destructive "March to the Sea" during the American Civil War, "war is hell." And the darker thought arose: maybe it was easier on the American psyche to be killing Asian civilians than watching European civilians be killed, because, well, most Americans are of European descent.
How old are you? Not old enough, perhaps, to recall the huge upheaval in America over Vietnam? Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today and all that? Nothing about it was easy on the American psyche. Sherman didn't have any trouble inflicting scorched earth on women and children in Georgia and South Carolina. They were "the bad guys" same as the Viet Cong. Equal opportunity destruction.
In WW2, the bombing of Dresden was justified by Arthur "Bomber" Harris largely along the same lines, that is, to deal a blow to German morale by bombing a place of limited strategic value (given that the Germans had already lost the war) and dealing civilian casualties. Likewise, the firebombing of Tokyo was done for the same reasons (the firebombing caused more casualties than the atmoic bombs). I don't want to turn this into a debate room thread though.
Yes, but what Sherman actually said wasn't just a simple quip: "War is hell. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation." Echoed by Eisenhower: "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
I am well old enough to recall those protests, I took part in them. But I never felt that the basic American psyche was bothered by killing those folks over there, but eventually got fed up with the loss of "our boys."
It doesn't matter who the enemy is. The mindset to get through it, requires dehumanizing the enemy as a mental defense. In WWII it was Krauss and nips, in Vietnam it was gooks. It doesn't matter who the enemy is, or their ethnicity there will always be dehumanizing names for them when at war, and jokes that do the same. The more civilized we become the harder it is mentally to take another life, excluding those with mental health issues like psychopaths.
