Thursday, July 28, 2011

Making Ghetto Wine on the cheap

Hi all,

Just documenting and sharing something I've spent very little of my time on lately.

After seeing a product advertised online that allows you to make ordinary juice alcoholic in just a few days for $10 a piece (without the juice to do it with), I figured I could do the same thing only cheaper.

What I did was buy some grape juice (the supermarket sold X2 2.4L bottles of assorted sorts of juice for $6), and some blu-tack...I already had an airlock from a home brew kit I purchased years ago.

What I did then was poured out some juice to allow some head space (during fermentation CO2 is released and it bubbles/froths up) and added whatever sugar I still had left around the place (around 1 cup I suppose), activated some ordinary bakers yeast buy adding a little lukewarm tap water and putting it into the grape juice and shaking the bottle to mix it together well. I then cut a small hole into the lid with a knife, just big enough for the bottom stem of the airlock to fit through and screwed this back onto the bottle. I then sealed this up air tight with a bit of blu-tack...and that's it!

After 4 days it was still bubbling away, I got toey and decided to check the alcohol content (with an alcometer I also had from the brew kit) and it registered around 5.5% alcohol content! Wow, impressive. Considering it was still bubbling away I decided to keep it going until it slows down significantly. I am not a big drinker, I just wanted to go through with the concept. After fermentation has completed I plan on putting the batch into the freezer to make the water freeze and pour off the alcohol. I'm hoping for an end product that is about 14-16% alcohol/vol. Then I guess I'll clean the kitchen sink with it, or give it to an alcoholic friend that doesn't mind how it tastes...

Feel free to share :D

Here's a picture for you of the grape juice on it's journey to becoming some cheap, ghetto wine :)

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Carbon Tax impacts the Aussie battlers

On 'Carbon Sunday', June 10 2011, Julia Gillard addressed the nation to announce that a new tax that hadn't been voted on and that the public were told wouldn't occur, had enough backing to pass through parliament.

Anyone that didn't like it were basically told to get used to it, and anyone expressing concerns were given assurances that it isn't a big deal. 

As a researcher and critic of Government I investigated the situation. Here it is, for the first time findings available publicly - Feel free to share, to quote...absorb and enjoy :) 


The Labor Government's arrogant suggestion that everyday people won't lose out with a Carbon Tax is deceitful. You need an example? How about the price of margarine then? Given as being $0.016 extra per 250g with the tax added. 

A newspaper (Sunday Telegraph) article that ran alongside the announcement, informing of the price rises one can expect with the introduction of the Carbon Tax - As it used Julia Gillard's "Tim Tam" example, and that it received coverage with perfect timing suggests this was a targeted release with Labor Government influence - The Australian Federal Labor Government are now looking into investigating ethics in the a knee-jerk reaction to the "cell-phone hacking saga"

The product used to illustrate that we "won't lose one cent" is Meadow Lea which *currently* costs $1.94 for 250g ($1.956 in 2012) which doesn't seem much of a difference really. However take the cheaper stuff that costs $1.09 per 500g (54.5c/250g) and the price increase obviously has a greater impact increasing the price to $1.122 (56.1c per 250g). Paying 56.1c for something that used to cost 54.5c represents an increase of 0.029%

People buying Meadow Lea ($1.94 to $1.956) only represents an increase of 0.008% 

The difference is those that can afford brand names will barely notice the minute % increase, whereas those on a tighter budget will notice a bigger % increase. This HURTS the low income earner more, despite Labor trying to convince everyone they will be looked after.
One other thing to note is that 'pokie machine' (slot machine/poker machine) hater Andrew Wilkie apparently "demanded" benefits for the Zinc smelters (see image below). Which raises the question - Why does Andrew Wilkie single out the Zinc industry, where other industries are expected to cop the new tax on the chin? Is there a conflict of interest occurring? 

Source: The Sunday Telegraph - July 10, 2011. Pg. Unknown 

This takes me back to an earlier entry of mine discussing the specifications of the tax, which states "Australia's most polluting electricity generators will be closed and replaced with gas-fired units by 2020" - Which makes one wonder 'why is the Government steering the nation specifically towards gas for?' It's anti-competitive 

What are your thoughts?