Dublin Dr. Pepper

Dr. Pepper's Oldest Bottler Still Does it the Old Fashioned Way

Many soft drink makers are coming back to doing things the old fashioned way by re-introducing sugar instead of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).  Others never stopped doing it right in the first place.

While the rest of the Dr. Pepper empire is somewhat messy (some areas being bottled and/or distributed by Coca-Cola, others by Pepsi), the oldest bottling plant never stopped using the best ingredients -- Imperial Cane Sugar (which is not only sugar but the more expensive cane variety as opposed to beet sugar).  The result is the best version of Dr. Pepper you can get.

The Taste

Contrasted against the run-of-the-mill HFCS version, the biggest difference is that the various subflavors of the drink "pop" on your tongue; they stand out.  The smoothness of the sweet taste leaves no film behind on your tongue.  It's not quite the "smooth" effect you get with sugar Coca-Cola, but it definitely benefits the taste of Dr. Pepper.  The flavors of Dr. Pepper get a chance to dance and stand out, instead of the chemical-ish after taste of the HFCS version. 

For limited runs there has been a product called "Dr. Pepper Heritage" which also uses sugar although it is likely beet sugar and the taste is different.  Make no mistake, if you love Dr. Pepper the so-called "Dublin" variety is the best one. 

Luckily for Dr. Pepper fans across the country, Dublin Dr. Pepper can be ordered on-line at Old Doc's Soda Shop and shipped to your door.  Shipping makes it expensive but it works out to around $1.00 per can, worth it if you love Dr. Pepper as a treat.

The Secret to Theater-Style Popcorn Is: COCONUT OIL

I love popcorn, always have, always will.  It's one of my favorite things in the world.

Most of the time I pop it with an air popper because it's healthier than all the saturated garbage in the microwave bags and nobody has time to cook it in hot oil anymore.

That's a shame, because hot oil is the best way to make popcorn.  Sometimes you just can't beat it.  But have you ever wondered what the secret is to movie theater popcorn?  It's got to do with popping in oil, but there's more.

The truth is, there are several different kinds of oils you can try.  Most people have vegetable oil or corn oil around the house, and it does work just fine for popping popcorn.  You can try olive oil; you may find yellow goop sold for popcorn that is actually soybean oil.  Some stores even sell peanut oil as what you need for gourmet popcorn.  In a fit of desperate creativity I tried everything, including vanilla (hint:  it doesn't work and turns into caramel).

But the stuff that is the real deal, the stuff the theaters use, is coconut oil (or used to use before the hippies at the Center for Science in the Public Interest got it banned -- ironically, it is now considered healthier than other oils and is actually sold at health food stores like Whole Foods).  And good luck finding it in a store; I looked all over creation for months and couldn't find it even in the most exotic specialty stores. 

So if you want to make the best popcorn you can, here's what you need.

Coconut oil.  Yes, it comes in a paint can, and when you open it up it looks like wax.  But trust me, this is the real deal.  You won't regret it.

Stovetop Popper.   Sure, you can just use a pot, but these poppers have agitators you turn by hand, and it makes a world of difference in popping the corn quickly and efficiently.  Don't do the jiffy-pop shake-until-your-hand-falls-off method.









I buy from Amish Country Popcorn.

In Defense of Lost NFL History -- the NFL Championship

With the storied Packers franchise picking up its 4th Super Bowl and 13th championship overall, an old bugaboo of mine is raised again -- the erasure of NFL history from 1920-1966.  The era before the Super Bowl.

Casual NFL fans don't know about, or don't care about, anything before the Super Bowl.  Part of this is the NFL's fault, for trying to smooth over its merger with the rival AFL in 1970, by emphasizing the new Super Bowl as the championship of both leagues and an entirely new animal.  Part of this is the laziness of the sports media, not bothering to keep history alive.  Part of this is the fact that the Super Bowl has become an icon unto itself and sees increasing hype every year.  Part of this is the ignorance of bandwagon fans who follow whoever is winning this year and don't recall 5 years ago.  Part of this is fans who follow teams whose only success has come in the Super Bowl era (The Steelers are the perfect example of this.  While very successful with 6 Super Bowl wins in 8 appearances, the team has been around since 1933 and for the first 40 years didn't even make the playoffs one single time).

As I get older, I come to appreciate history more.  In baseball I am a Yankee fan, and the Yankees revel in their incredibly rich history.  In football I am a Giants fan, and the Giants tend not to toot their own horns, at all, despite a very rich history dating back to 1925.  The Giants are the 4th oldest team in the NFL (behind the Cardinals, Packers, and Bears), and are one of the tall oaks of the NFL forest.  The Giants are responsible for countless innovations in the game and the growth of the league.  In a frustrating sidenote, they have competed in the NFL championship game a record 18 times (including 4 Super Bowl appearances); unfortunately they lost in the title game a lot -- they went to 6 championship games in 8 years and only won one.  Worth something getting there, but losing 5 out of 6 in 8 years must have been heartbreaking.  You wouldn't know about all this history by looking around Giants Stadium or the New Meadowlands (they have added a secret "legacy room" as a museum of sorts in the new stadium).  Adding the ring of honor was a good start.

Thorpe Trophy

The NFL did not start in 1967 when the first Super Bowl was played.  It started in 1920.  Until 1932, teams won by having the best record.  Starting in 1933, the two best teams in each division played in the championship game.  There was a team standing alone at the top each season as champions.  It wasn't imaginary.  There was a trophy, called the Thorp Trophy.  Much like the NHL's Stanley Cup, it was passed from champion to champion each year.  Ironically, the trophy has been lost; the Minnesota Vikings were the trophy's last custodian as the last NFL champion before the merger and they can't find it.

Green Bay is a perfect example of my point.  Vince Lombardi's Packers are the ultimate dynasty, and there's a reason the NFL championship trophy is named after Lombardi.  He won 5 championships in 7 years, including being the only modern era team to win 3 in a row.  Only the last two of those championships were Super Bowls; the first two Super Bowls.  Saying Title Town only has 4 Super Bowls is a great disservice to the legacy of the NFL and Vince Lombardi in particular.  Green Bay has stood at the top of the professional football world, the NFL, 13 times. 

Back when the Super Bowl was new, they didn't make a distinction between old NFL championships and the Super Bowl; this is a recent "don't bother me, kid" move by the sports media.  As evidence, I cite the Packers' ring from Super Bowl II.  You will note that it has three diamonds, representing the feat of winning 3 championships in a row (which has not been equaled since).  The last NFL championship and the first two Super Bowls.  They seem to be treated equally here.

Usually you will get arguments from Cowboys fans (whose teams were eligible to win a championship from their first year in 1960, but didn't) or Steeler fans (whose team didn't even make the playoffs a single time from 1933-1972), saying that old NFL championships don't count, only Super Bowls count.  Well, first they have a reason to say that because it makes their teams look better, and since neither team won any, they see no reason to include them.

They will say those old NFL championships aren't relevant.  As if a Super Bowl won in 1971 when there were fewer rounds of playoffs, 6 fewer teams, and a 14 game season, is relevant?  In my book if we can dismiss history as being irrelevant, 1966 and 1971 seem to be equally dismissible from the vantage of 2011.  They will say there were fewer teams; that the rules of the game have changed; that the playoff format has changed; that it was pre-merger and thus doesn't count.

We don't have such a break in any other sport; why do we have it in football?

Baseball has had rule changes (notably the Designated Hitter rule), expansion teams added, and the playoff format has changed (until 1969 there were no playoffs; the pennant in each league was determined by standings alone and the two pennant winners played in the World Series; the wild-card didn't exist until 1995).  We don't throw away World Series titles won before 1969.

Basketball has undergone a merger (with the ABA in 1977), expansion teams, and rule changes (notably introduction of the shot clock) but we don't throw away NBA championships that predate them.

In football, if we make a break at the introduction of the Super Bowl, why stop there?  Some other notable changes in the NFL that have happened since the Super Bowl started:

• Several divisional realignments
• 6 new expansion teams (Bucs, Seahawks, Panthers, Jaguars, Texans, new Browns).
• 14 game season expanded to 16; may be increased to 18 in 2011.
• Playoffs expanded from 4 teams total to 12; wilcard and then extra rounds added.
• Free Agency

So why not throw away old Super Bowls too, since the sport has changed so much?  I say let's start at 1985, a nice round figure of 25 years, and then nobody has more than 3 trophies.

I call for an end to the hypocrisy.  We do these hard working early NFL pioneers a disservice by discounting their history.  The announcers of this year's Super Bowl did right to acknowledge the Packers' 13 title and not just their 4th Super Bowl.

And I urge the league to honor its past by not throwing away this history.

Congratulations to the 2010 Champion Green Bay Packers

Vince Lombardi and Tom Landry together on the Giants

I'm a die-hard Giants fan, but if the Giants were to disappear tomorrow I'd probably become a Green Bay Packers fan, because they share a lot of character with the Giants.  A well-run, defense-oriented, conservative franchise with a rich storied history.  And many casual fans may not know, but Vince Lombardi made his bones with the New York Giants.  In fact, the Giants had Vince Lombardi and Tom Landry on the same coaching staff.  I want to know who let these guys go.  The Giants seem to have a history of losing great assistant coaches (Lombardi, Landry, Belichick, Sean Payton, etc).

I also like the current Packers team's solid fundamentals and good tackling (something the Giants are lacking lately).  So even though this Super Bowl win moves Title Town to 13 NFL championships, 4 of which are Super Bowls, widening the gap of my Giants' 7 and 3, respectively, I tip my hat.  I can live with it.  Much more than I could have lived with Pittsburgh collecting #7.

Allentown Coke (made with sucrose)

The Taste

Let's get the important part out of the way first -- the taste.  Although this version of Coke is still made with sugar (specifically "sucrose" a.k.a table sugar on the ingredients label), it's quite different from the MexiCoke I reviewed earlier.  I've actually come to like this version more.

Compared to the mellow, lightly-carbonated MexiCoke, this version is more peppy; sweeter, but it still has a deep mellow sugar bite to it.

By comparison, the normal High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) version we are all used to has a very sweet but hollow taste to it with a kind of slimy and chemical-ish aftertaste to it.  Once you've tasted either variety of Coke made with sugar, the HFCS version is unacceptable swill.


Jurassic Park

While there is a buzz surrounding MexiCoke, I came across this version quite by accident.  I've been a Pepsi drinker all of my life but every now and then I'd like a Coke.  For a few years I worked in Allentown, PA, and I'd come to notice there was something different about the Coke in the vending machines at work.  Slowly I started choosing it (and its Cherry Coke counterpart) more and more over Pepsi.  There was definitely something different, more refreshing.  Then one day it occurred to me to read the label.  That's when I discovered sucrose in place of HFCS, and it all suddenly made sense.

The can is completely indistinguishable from the HFCS version aside from the ingredient swap.

Apparently, for unknown reasons, two Coca-Cola bottlers in the US continue to use sucrose instead of HFCS.  The Allentown/Bethlehem PA bottler and the Cleveland OH bottler use sucrose; whether they've never switched to HFCS in the first place, or they have a cheaper regional source of sugar, or if it's a stand on product quality, is unclear.  But these two bottlers stand alone in the domestic Coca-Cola empire, quietly producing a better version of Coke than their counterparts.

MexiCoke (Coca-Cola "hecho en Mexico")

The Taste

First things first:  the taste.  MexiCoke tastes great.  Much like Coca-Cola used to taste.  It comes in glass bottles, and there is something nostalgic and refreshing about drinking from a glass bottle.  From the way it looks, to the way it feels in your hands, but most importantly the way it doesn't alter the taste the way an aluminum can does.  But beyond that, the cola itself, is terrific.   The taste is very mellow and smooth, and very lightly carbonated.  You can really taste the syrup.  This is Coke the way I remember it, and the way it should be.

I'll put it to you this way.  All my life I've been a very enthusiastic Pepsi drinker.  Pepsi first, if there's a choice.  On occasion a Coke.  The taste of sugar Coke has made me flip -- sugar Coke is my first choice and I hardly ever drink Pepsi anymore.



We've Lost Our Way

Grab a Coca-Cola overseas (pretty much anywhere but the USA and Canada) and you'll notice it tastes different.  Better.  The way it used to be. That's because ironically, inside the US, the soft drink that is the face of America around the world is not made the way it used to be -- and still is in the rest of the world.  Here in the US, they don't use old fashioned sugar anymore; instead, they use High Fructose Corn Syrup, an unnatural sweetener made from corn courtesy of the corn lobby, our country's overabundance of corn and underabundance of sugar.  And despite claims that HFCS is equal to sugar, I can tell you if you know your sodas, it does not taste the same.

Oddly enough, ethnic food stores (the small corner stores such as Mexican Bodegas) not only bring in food from home but they import their Coca-Cola from home as well.  I would guess the taste of the US made stuff just isn't the same so it's in demand.  And thus was born a grey-market for importing Coca-Cola from Mexico. 

When I first discovered this, I just had to try it.  I bought a 6 pack over the web at an insane price.  Oh man was it good, but I had to treat it like gold.

One day out on errands with my wife, I drove past a bodega in traffic which had all their bottles of soda in the store front window.  I gave her "the look" and pulled over to check it out.  Not only did I score some Mexican Coke but some Mexican Pepsi as well, and at prices way better than on the internet. Finding such a bodega may be your best source and I'd recommend checking it out.

Coca-Cola Semi-Officially Imports It

The popularity of the grey-market imports made the Coca-Cola company take a stance somewhere between completely ignoring it and putting it on every store shelf.  They import the bottles and add a white FDA label, and distribute it in very limited channels.  In border states, it's easy to find in places like Costco.  I've found a somewhat steady supply as far north as eastern Pennsylvania in Sam's Club.


Now What?

Various soda companies are starting to recognize the appeal of going back to sugar instead of HFCS.  I'm sure this has more to do with competing demand for corn from boondoggles such as Ethanol than it does with taste and customer demand, but I'll take it either way.  Coca-Cola has notably abstained, aside from importing MexiCoke.  Pepsi and Dr. Pepper, for example, have done limited run "Throwback" versions of their sodas reverting back to sugar.


I'd like to see Coca-Cola do a "throwback" of their own.  Heck I'd like to see them permanently change the formula back over to sugar and ditch HFCS altogether. Two Coca-Cola bottlers in the US (Cleveland, OH and Allentown, PA) still use sugar (sucrose) in their product.  And in the weeks leading up to Passover, certain areas get Kosher for Passover versions.  I'll post a separate review of both later.  I'd like to see those two sucrose bottlers become the new model for the entire nation.  I don't fully understand the behind the scenes technicals of it, but apparently processing sugar and HFCS requires different machines, so it's not so simple as switching ingredients.

The wildcard that may explain Coca-Cola's hesitance is Truvia -- a new low calorie natural sweetener developed by Coca-Cola and Cargill.  Truvia is said to be sweeter than sugar and low-calorie.  Perhaps Coca-Cola is biding its time and waiting for Truvia to prove itself before being mainlined in the company's products.

If you love soda, you've gotta read this

Almost everybody likes soda.  Some more than others.  I know I drink way too much of it, and now I'm trying to cut it back to a treat I give myself a few times a week in moderate doses.

I've always enjoyed a good soda, but recently I discovered a secret.  If you're old enough to remember the late 70's and early 80's, or if you travel overseas, you may have noticed that the soda you get tastes different than you remember.

The truth is, the soda you buy is constantly changing formulas, and beyond that there are slight variations by bottler (e.g. a bottle of Coke you get in New York might not taste the same as one you get in California).  But the major change that happened to us in the late 70s and early 80s was the switch away from actual sugar to High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).  In fact, if you start reading labels, you'll find HFCS in almost everything you eat.  Despite claims by the corn lobby, HFCS products do not taste the same as their sugar counterparts. There are also controversial claims that HFCS coincides with the increase in obesity and diabetes.  While I won't draw that direct link, I liken it to the butter-versus-margarine debate.  Neither are good for you in large quantities, but perhaps it's wiser to go with the "natural" version instead of the artificially created product.  HFCS does not occur in nature and it's produced by heavily processing corn meal in a centrifuge. 

I'll probably go on a unibomber-style rant about HFCS in a separate post, but the short version is this:  we don't grow a lot of cane sugar in the United States.  I remember seeing a lot of it in Hawaii, but aside from that the US doesn't grow cane sugar.  But we sure do grow lots and lots of corn, subsidized by the American taxpayer.  So much corn, in fact, that there's big money in finding other uses for it such as Ethanol and HFCS.  

Ironically, the United States is known around the world for Coca-Cola, and to a lesser extent Pepsi; yet in the United States, the product we buy is an inferior variation made with HFCS while the rest of the world gets it the way they used to be made, with sugar.

You might not expect the taste to be very different; if you can't tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi, you probably won't care about the difference between HFCS and sugar.  But if you savor a good cold soda, you will be interested.

There's a developing market of soda buyers that is looking for soda made the old fashioned way, with actual sugar instead of HFCS.  There are boutique soda makers like Boylan who take pride in making their products the old fashioned way.  (Try their black cherry, it's incredible).  There are ways to get soda made in other countries imported into the US; Mexican-bottled Coke is a very popular score.  There are limited-time sugar versions of normal drinks such as Pepsi Throwback.

My recommendation is, if you love a good soda, give the sugar variations a try, I think you'll enjoy it and you'll have a hard time going back to the HFCS swill the soda companies put on our store shelves.

I will review each of the sodas I've tasted individually in the coming weeks.  This includes:

• Mexican Coke
• American sucrose Coke
• Kosher for Passover Coke
• Mexican Pepsi
• Pepsi Throwback
• Kosher for Passover Pepsi
• Dr. Pepper Heritage
• Dublin Dr. Pepper
• Boylan
• RC Cola, 7-up, et al.

What to Expect

This is going to be my place to discuss whatever is on my mind.  Usually that involves what shiny things are competing for my attention and money.  Cars?  Electronics?  Computers?  Photography?  Sports?  Completely unexpected things?  All of the above.