Superbowl 42; scotch review

Personally, I thought the game was great. I’m not really a Patriots hater, I see the value in making history, and I think their 18-0 run was incredible. I would rather have seen smarts, teamwork, and intelligent scheme beat flash, bling, and high payrolls (insert New York Yankees). But, again, the media pummels you to death with the overhype of how good they are, that there’s just no way that NYG could win, and that the game is a formality. Colin Cowherd (whom I normally like) had a show a couple of days ago which was a verbal lingual massage of Tom Brady’s ABC (see definition number 7). He kept going on and on about how John Madden said that “this kid is giving me chills” when watching him early in his career. Get real.
I guess it’s true: when you laugh, the whole world laughs with you. When you cry, you cry alone. Where’s the Patriot/Tom Brady-loving media now? My point is that I don’t get a sense that there’s any accountability, it’s all about hype and ratings build-up.
Even worse, there are almost NO interviews with the losing team. Bellicheck walks off the field before the game is over, then he says that the Giants made more plays than they did, and that they were disappointed. That’s it. I guess that’s enough. Brady Brady Brady has yet to say a thing as far as I’ve seen.
Is this not a double standard? So who of the fallen former high and mighty are immune to scrutiny by the media who usually revels in the downfall of celebrity? Is that not what so many media outlets are about? Schmooz with the famous and then kick ’em in the mouth when they’re down? Or is this just part of the grander ESPN conspiracy that says that if we criticize the team that had been built up so high by the talking heads, then we’re (the media) is having to admit it was wrong all along?
Maybe I’m just missing the point. Maybe it’s just as simple as the better team got outplayed on one night, and there’s nothing to say. Maybe, then, there was nothing to say before the game, either.

Single malt scotch review
That which you thought was not very good, all of a sudden, it’s good again.
My taste in Scotch seems to change every week. Every time I taste Glenmorangie 10, it tastes different. From paint thinner, to sweet and light, vanilla, mild spice, etc.
Case in point: Balvenie SMS. I tried their 12 year double-wood before I really had any knowledge of what it was. Honestly, I didn’t like it. Part of that was I was really under the impression that if you didn’t like how it tasted neat, then it either wasn’t any good, or you didn’t have any business drinking it. Then I learned about cutting it over a small splash of water instead of waiting for an ice cube or two to melt. It tasted awesome! At a recent outing, we tried some of the Balvenie 15 year. Man is that stuff good. I think it tastes comparable to many 18 year vintages out there (Farin, are you reading?) for about 2/3 the price.

Balvenie 12 year Double Wood.

Highland single malt, finished in standard oak and then final (I think) finish in sherry casks. This sherrywood imparts a really sweet quality that really comes out with just a touch of water to release it. Not very spicy. Somewhere between 50 and 60 bucks.

Balvenie 15 year.

Highland single malt, much smoother taste than the 12 year, not quite as much oak wood. As sweet, but lighter. I guess it does get better with age. This one goes for about 70-75 bucks a pop.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s