I should confess at the outset that I think astrology is utter nonsense so this person’s attempt to pair with beer the twelve zodiac signs already seems to me to be an exercise in futility, a complete waste of time insofar as I can see no way such a list could ever be remotely useful or accurate. That being said, I can’t help but be curious about her choices. The list was complied by Fern Feto Spring and yes, that’s actually her name. She’s been a professional astrologer since 1990, lives in the San Francisco Bay Area and writes primarily at her website Wisestars. To say I find it strange that she’d even attempt to divine what beers people should be drinking according to when they were born is an understatement. Do the results speak for themselves? Oh yeah, but I’ll interject a bit anyway.
Here’s her introduction:
There are as many different types of beer as there are people, with a myriad of brands and flavors to choose from. So whether you prefer light or dark beer, ale or stout, there is a beer out there for you. But do you know which beer is most likely to satisfy the inner workings of your astrological sign? Read on to find out what the cosmos have to say about one of America’s most popular beverages.
Where to begin. First of all, if we’re talking about alcoholic beverages, beer is America’s most popular beverage, not one of them, outselling the nearest competitor at least four to one. And, of course, stout is an ale, so I’m not sure about the distinction she’s making there.
So here are her suggestions for what beer should be your favorite, depending on your zodiac sign. If you want to read the full write-ups and her apparent rationale for choosing each beer, check out both part 1 and part 2. To give you an example, here’s the full write-up for Pisces, which is what I happen to be:
Gentle Pisces, your sensitive and poetic imagination encourages you to seek out a beer that has a slightly sweet flavor and an easy finish. You prefer light beers with a fruity signature. Paradise Ale has a flowery influence that is perfect for your artistic self. This beer mixes both new and traditional influences to create a taste that was made for you.
I confess I had to look up the beer, which is one of Theakston’s seasonal beers, Paradise Ale. As far as I know, it’s not one they import and though I’ve been to the UK countless times, I don’t believe I’ve ever run across it. That alone makes it an odd choice. You’d think she would have chosen beers people might actually have a good shot at finding.
The full list:
- Aquarius (Jan. 20–Feb. 18): Anchor Humming Ale
- Pisces (Feb. 19–Mar. 20): Theakston Paradise Ale
- Aries (Mar. 21–Apr. 19): Killian’s Irish Red (Coors)
- Taurus (Apr. 20–May 20): Guinness Stout
- Gemini (May 21–June 21): Corona, with a slice of lime
- Cancer (June 22–July 22): Newcastle Brown Ale
- Leo (July 23–Aug. 22): Chimay
- Virgo (Aug. 23–Sep. 22): Anchor Summer Ale
- Libra (Sep. 23–Oct. 23): Smithwick’s Draught
- Scorpio (Oct. 24–Nov. 21): Theakston Old Peculiar
- Sagittarius (Nov. 22–Dec. 21): Russian River Pliny the Younger
- Capricorn (Dec. 22–Jan. 19): Samuel Smith Indian Pale Ale (sic)
It’s an eclectic list to say the least. Two Anchor beers, one which they’ll likely not be making very often. Two from Theakston. Smithwick’s Irish Ale was imported around 2004, but has since been pulled from the American market. The list is certainly UK heavy given that she’s in the Bay Area. On the plus side, she’s included Pliny the Elder and Chimay, though not specifying which Chimay. But then there’s Corona, Killian’s and Newcastle.
As I said at the outset, silly and pointless, but there you have it. I’m stuck on an airplane with nothing but silly and pointless to entertain me. Perhaps instead of the cliched pick-up line “what’s your sign” this will inspire people to change it to “what’s your beer?” That’s a line I could get behind.
When I was searching yesterday for images to use for my post about pull-tabs, I was surprised by how many websites there are devoted to finding other uses for the little aluminum pull-tabs, both the old-style ones and the more modern one-piece tabs. There are so many of these and they’re so inventive I thought I’d share a few of them. This is just the tip of the iceberg, there’s a whole world of DIY, recycling and craft people who are finding amazing ways to use the discarded pull-tabs. So here we are, from head to toe:
Here’s a kid’s hat and shirt, and there are lots more at the wonderfully named Art of Tabistry.
Here’s a woman’s top from Apocalypse Creations Chainmail in Canada.
And a colorful vest by Tiffany, posted on Craftster.
How about a dress made entirely of pull-tabs? Here’s one posted at Recyclart.
And let’s not forget the shoes, shown here, and you can see another pair at This Next.
Or if you want to be covered head to knee, here’s an entire suit of pull-tab armor, from Geekologie.
And don’t forget to accessorize with this fetching purse, also from This Next.
In case you get tired wearing all that heavy metal, here’s a pull tab chair for you to sit down and rest made by Studio G.
I can’t say I’d actually wear any of them, but they impressive nonetheless. Enjoy.
This may well be the most disturbing story about our Nation’s Prohibition ever told, and one that’s certainly been kept fairly secret. While doing research on her book, The Poisoner’s Handbook, author Deborah Blum discovered that anti-alcohol factions of the U.S. government became so fanatical that they poisoned illegal alcohol either directly or indirectly, possibly killing, or more correctly murdering, as many as 10,000 U.S. citizens! Let that sink in. The whole sordid tale can be found on Slate, entitled The Chemist’s War: The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences. I’d encourage you to read the entire article, but here are the nuts and bolts.
The government added chemical substances to alcohol used for other purposes, like paint thinner, and unscrupulous bootlegger’s were stealing industrial alcohol and then converting it to something that could be consumed. So the government, knowing full well that it would end up being drunk by people, started spiking it with chemicals that were very, very harmful, ones that the bootlegger’s chemists couldn’t deal with and the result was thousands of deaths. Why would our government do that? Here, Blum cites the frustration of lawmakers to stop people drinking along with prohibitionists who were surprised by our “country’s defiant response to the new laws [which] shocked those who sincerely (and naively) believed that the amendment would usher in a new era of upright behavior.”
During Prohibition, however, an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place. As the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1927: “Normally, no American government would engage in such business. … It is only in the curious fanaticism of Prohibition that any means, however barbarous, are considered justified.” Others, however, accused lawmakers opposed to the poisoning plan of being in cahoots with criminals and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy. “Must Uncle Sam guarantee safety first for souses?” asked Nebraska’s Omaha Bee.
Only a handful of people in fact spoke out against this practice. One was Charles Norris, chief medical examiner for New York City, who referred to the program as “our national experiment in extermination.”
“The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol,” New York City medical examiner Charles Norris said at a hastily organized press conference. “[Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes, although it cannot be held legally responsible.”
Frankly, I don’t see why they couldn’t be held legally responsible since they were in effect knowingly poisoning people, especially after the first deaths occurred. That they didn’t stop it then says quite a lot about how determined they were. It often appears to me that modern day prohibitionists take an ends-justify-the-means approach to further their agenda and will employ just about any tactic, despite its consequences or ethical disconnect. It would appear that’s nothing new after all. The fact that more people don’t know about this dark chapter of our history of prohibition makes it easier for today’s anti-alcohol supporters to continue their quest for another national alcohol ban. Let’s hope we can all learn from this mistake of history and aren’t doomed to repeat it.
Thursday’s ad is for Schlitz, when they introduced their version of the pop top can, which I talked about yesterday in my post John Updike’s Paean to the Beer Can. The ad is also from 1964, when by then nearly 75% of American brewers had some version of the pull-tab.
| 
| 
Digg/Brookston
Flickr/jbrookston
Facebook/Jay Brooks
Friendster/Jay Brooks
Linkedin/Jay Brooks
Twitter/Brookston
YouTube/jbrookston
Del.icio.us/jbrookston
Wishlist/Jay Brooks
GMail/Jay Brooks
Technorati/Brookston