Archives for December 2007

North Carolina Targets Parents

December 12, 2007 By Jay Brooks

One of my favorite things about the internet, is how cyclical and serpentine it can be. You can start out somewhere and if you follow enough tangents — something I can’t frankly help — you end up in new and wonderful places or, at a minimum, at a place you either didn’t expect to find or didn’t know was out there. I find a lot of the things I write about by happy accident. One thing leads to another and before I know it I’ve stumbled yet again on something I think worth writing about myself. A good example of this is some new laws in North Carolina that took effect December 1. I learned of these new laws through a blog, The Agitator, which I found at another blog, Coffee and Diapers, which is a parenting blog that picked up on my earlier post about Mothers For Social Drinking (which I also originally found by accident).

At any rate, the original story came from a television station in the Raleigh-Durham area, WRAL Channel 5, which is a place I actually lived for several years. I used to be, in the early 1980s, a record buyer for a large chain of stores headquartered in Durham, North Carolina and lived in both Durham and later Chapel Hill. Having grown up in the northeastern state of Pennsylvania, being in the south was a real eye-opener, but that’s a story for another day.

Anyway, some forty new state laws went into effect at the beginning of December and their story addressed a few of them. They started out with the alcohol-related ones for whatever reason and there’s a couple of doozies. The first one that caught my attention I’m not really against per se, but I think it’s illustrative of how oddly people think about alcohol. From the WRAL story:

One law bans devices known as “alcohol inhalers,” which convert liquor into a mist that can be inhaled by the user. Lawmakers were concerned that the devices, which were assembled and distributed by a Greensboro company, were being marketed to underage drinkers.

Okay, to be clear, I think this sounds like a bad idea and it goes against my personal philosophies on the moderate enjoyment of alcohol and also because I’ve never been a fan of anything that has to enter my body through my nose. I knew plenty of people in the 1980s who disagreed with my personal nasal entry ban (my rhinoprohibition), but I never begrudged them their day in the snow. So okay, somebody figured out a way to snort alcohol. I wouldn’t do it myself, and I can’t understand why anyone else would want to either. But here’s what I really don’t get. “Lawmakers were concerned (my emphasis) that the devices were being marketed to underage drinkers.” Huh? So they decided that an ostensibly legal product should be made illegal precisely because minors might try to buy it. Let me put that another way. As an adult, I can no longer buy a (previously) legal product because law enforcement cannot effectively keep people (minors in this case) from illegally obtaining it. So effectively because they can’t stop underage use of this product, they’re willing to take away every adult’s right to buy it. Please tell me how that makes any sense whatsoever? That is about as ridiculous a justification for making something illegal as I’ve ever heard. Fast food is marketed to kids and demonstrably terrible for their health, yet I don’t see these same lawmakers rushing to ban Big Macs, Whoppers or happy meals. Soda is even worse, yet schools allow soft drink companies to put soda vending machines in schools. Apparently, that’s okay too. I guess it’s okay for our kids to be fat and toothless but heaven forbid they might even consider snorting a mist of alcohol despite the fact that it’s already against the law for them to do so. Just the possibility of that — there do not appear to be any actual facts of underage use — makes them locate their spines to “protect the children” and take one more step toward making their state fit only for children. How noble. How absurd.

But the one that got The Agitator worked up — and I can certainly see why — is this one:

Also, as of Saturday, people can lose their driver’s licenses for providing alcohol to anyone under 21. The penalty is important because many underage drinkers get alcohol from friends or family members, said Craig Lloyd, the executive director of the North Carolina chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
The law means that, theoretically, parents could be punished for giving a glass of wine to their 20-year-old son or daughter, even if the 20-year-old never gets behind the wheel.
Lloyd said that’s not excessive.
“It’s a zero-tolerance policy,” he said. “Breaking the law is breaking the law.”

As Radley Balko at the Agitator put it:

I know what you’re thinking. Surely authorities would never barge into someone’s home and arrest them for allowing their 18, 19, or 20-year-old son or daughter to have a beer, right?
Well, you’d think. But then, if you’d told me police might come to the home of a minor’s parents at 4 am, wake the entire family, then give the girl a breath test to see if she had been drinking at a party held hours earlier, I’d have been dubious, too.
But it’s happened. Never underestimate the absurd lengths to which the zero tolerance crowd will go to keep your kid stone-cold sober.

The link above is to an ALCU story from Michigan where apparently they’re the only state — for now, at least —where it’s “illegal for young adults and minors who are not driving to refuse a breathalyzer test when the police do not have a search warrant. Those who refuse to take tests in Michigan are guilty of a civil infraction and must pay a $100 fine.” under Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1703(6).

And there was at least one instance that you can just see being repeated both there and in North Carolina, as well.

Ashley Berden was 18 years old when she attended a party at a friend’s house to celebrate her graduation from Swan Valley High School. After she left the party, Thomas Township police officers arrived and found her purse which she had forgotten. They then came to Berden’s house at 4:00 a.m., woke up her family and demanded that she take a breath test. The police did not have a warrant but they informed her that would be violating the law if she refused the test. The test registered a .00% blood-alcohol level, indicating that Berden had not been drinking.

Pretty scary stuff. Especially when you consider that in societies where parents are allowed to raise their own children as they see fit, there is a much lower incidence of abuse later in life. But this new North Carolina law will make any parent who gives their own son or daughter even a taste of beer or wine to educate them a criminal. In effect, the state of North Carolina has decreed they can do a better job of raising your children than you can. Naturally, the North Carolina chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving sees the world in stark black and white whereas the rest of us can see all the shades of gray that parenting really entails. Because it seems to me that they really believe they can do a better job of raising my child than I can. They seem to have all the answers and really believe they know best. In their world an adult is no longer an adult but must live in a world where anything unsafe for children is no longer allowed for adults, either. In their world, a parent has little or no control over how and what they can teach their children about the world. That’s what zero-tolerance really means. It means tolerating only one way of life over all others. That’s as scary a world as I can imagine, a world that is the very opposite of free.

Beer Featured at Chef’s Association Dinner

December 11, 2007 By Jay Brooks

I got an invitation to attend a Chef’s Association Dinner Monday night at the Cathedral Hill Hotel. It was put on by Bruce Paton, the beer chef, who put it together at the last minute when the person who was originally supposed to do it dropped out unexpectedly. As a result, he put together an impromptu beer dinner, using beers he’d used throughout the previous year’s dinners. It was another really tasty dinner with some terrific beers.

Bruce Paton, the beer chef, and me in a self-portrait after the dinner. Thanks Bruce, for a great dinner.

For more photos from this year’s Chef’s Association Beer Dinner, visit the photo gallery.

Chanukah vs. Christmas

December 10, 2007 By Jay Brooks

Saturday afternoon there was a fun little event at the fabulous new City Beer Store, dubbed Chanukah vs. Christmas — because marketeer extraordinaire Jeremy Cowan, founder of He’Brew, was behind it. Essentially it was just an opportunity to taste around thirty different winter beers, including He’Brew’s Jewbelation 10th Anniversary Ale (last year’s beer) and He’Brew’s Jewbelation 11th Anniversary Ale on Rye. Craig and Beth, who own City Beer Store, put on a great event and the place was packed.

As for the beer, it was nice to see that about a third of the beers were from Belgium and included a few I hadn’t tried before. Standouts among the imports included St. Feuillien’s Cuvee Noel, the Delirium Noel and, of course, Samichlaus.

City Beer Store owner Craig Wathen, holding a magnum of 1994 Anchor Christmas Ale, and Jeremy Cowan, holding a bottle of He’Brew’s 11th Anniversary Ale.

For more photos from the Chanukah vs. Christmas Beer Tasting, visit the photo gallery.

Mothers For Social Drinking

December 8, 2007 By Jay Brooks

mfsd
While searching for an image yesterday, I came across this interesting new group organized earlier this year: Mothers For Social Drinking. It was founded in February by Jennifer and Jeremiah McNichols, who created and write a parenting blog that specializes in product testing called Z Recommends. What prompted them to take action was an annoying item on MSNBC entitled Do playdates and happy hour mix?. After introducing three former working mothers who quit to raise their children — as I did — they set the scene of how they now choose to socialize, with “a sandbox, the swing set and a backyard bar.” Then with the sensationalized moral zealotry so prevalent in daytime television, ask the most puerile of questions. “But is that ok? Drinking while you’re watching your kids?” Just asking this questions speaks volumes about the imbalance in our society today. It is to my mind a ridiculous question and I’m at least pleased to know I wasn’t the only one to think so.

The notion that an adult cannot drink alcohol moderately when children are present is such an astonishingly simple-minded position to take that it’s hard to take it seriously. That so many people here seem to be doing so is shocking. Perhaps more surprising is the number of comments this Today Show story has generated on MSNBC: 256 messages by 213 authors on 22 separate web pages. And while some are supportive and reasonable, a far greater number display the mental acuity of the average Jerry Springer Show audience member. It’s shameful how our educational system has failed us if this is somehow representative of how most people think. I could only make it through a few page’s worth because I had to keep stopping to scream at my computer screen. Eventually, I just gave up to maintain my sanity.

The Today piece goes on ask more annoyingly truculent questions and then cowardly refuses to give any answers — or even their opinion — saying they should be left to “other moms” and “the experts.” One example of these is “[w]ho would drive to the hospital if a child were hurt?” Pul-leeze. Even assuming for a nanosecond that one or two glasses of wine would render anyone incapable of driving or that the sight of your child injured wouldn’t snap you immediately into soberness, has MSNBC never heard of calling 9-1-1 for an ambulance? Or do they believe a glass of wine would render the average mom too incompetent to even dial a phone?

The New York Times also did a piece on this subject, albeit somewhat more reasonably, entitled Cosmopolitan Moms and takes the tone that although some may disagree there is nothing wrong with a few drinks during a playdate. They even highlight Christie Mellor’s parenting book, The Three-Martini Playdate, which has been on my Amazon wish-list ever since I first read a review of it a couple of years ago.

3mpd
The Three-Martini Playdate

I love the idea of parents banding together to fight this nonsense. Neo-prohibitionists should not be dictating to the rest of us how to live our lives or raise our children. But if they’re the only ones speaking then their voice will be the only one heard. Let’s make our view part of the pubic discourse, too.

Here is Mothers For Social Drinking’s “Statement of Belief:”

We, the undersigned, take exception to the claim that social drinking in the presence of our children is a sign of irresponsible or bad parenting. Further, we contend that it is moderation that makes responsible drinkers, and that moderation and good sense are the responsibility of all citizens; that healthy attitudes towards the consumption of alcohol are learned in the home; that successful parenting does not require us to sacrifice the exercise of our own maturity in order to protect our children’s innocence; and that our society has more to fear from the poor judgment and intemperance of institutions which prey on parental insecurities than with the hospitality we share with other mothers in our parenting journey.

What a beautifully written and well-stated sentiment. Change mothers to “mother and fathers” or “parents” and it’s nearly perfect. I realize using mothers is a nod and an alternative to that other notoriously mad anti-alcohol organization, so I think we can let that slide.

Mothers For Social Drinking have three different badges you can use to show your support if you run a blog or website. I would propose that if you’re a parent who enjoys drinking — mother or father — that you put up one of these on it, with a link to the statement of belief. I”ve also asked the folks at Z Recommends to make a badge with a glass of beer or send me their original graphic so I can create a companion badge for beer lovers.

mfsd-1 mfsd-2 mfsd-3

Z Recommends also has an interesting excerpt from an interview by Prof. David J. Hanson, Ph.D. (who hosts the wonderful website Alcohol: Problems & Solutions) with Dwight B. Heath, an anthropology professor at Brown University, who has studied the uses of alcohol across cultures for most of his career.

Dr. Heath: We have to be very careful in the messages that we send. It isn’t helpful to stigmatize a product that, when used in moderation, is associated with better health and greater longevity than is either abstaining or drinking heavily. This is especially the case when to do so tends to increase those problems that do exist.
Dr. Hanson: But isn’t it necessary to warn young people about the dangers of abusing alcohol?
Dr. Heath: Yes. It’s essential that we teach everyone the dangers of abusing alcohol, but in doing so we must be careful to distinguish between drinking in moderation and drinking abusively. Societies that have few alcohol problems tend to view drinking in moderation as entirely acceptable behavior, while they view abusive drinking as totally unacceptable behavior for anyone under any circumstances at any time.
Dr. Hanson: What else can we learn from other societies?
Dr. Heath: In societies that successfully control alcohol abuse, young people usually learn how to drink at home from their parents. In learning how to drink, they are also learning how not to drink. This helps promote moderation and reduces abuse. Importantly, this learning occurs in a caring, safe, supportive environment – not in a raucous fraternity house or military barrack. Again, perhaps ironically, groups that promote abstinence as the only option tend to experience more problems among those who do drink.

Session #10: Winter Beers

December 7, 2007 By Jay Brooks

This month’s Session, sponsored by Barley Vine, is Let It Snow: Winter Beers. Of all the seasonal beers, the ones released during winter are my favorites; the ones I look most forward to sampling each and every year. The category of winter beers lacks the tradition of, say for example, oktoberfest beers or springfest beers, both of which owe their existence to the seasons, a lack of technology and brewers having to adapt themselves to the weather. And, of course, even calling them winter beers is a modern conceit to be politically correct and, perhaps more importantly, to try to insure they will continue to sell beyond December 25. Because for the most part, whether we say so or not, most of the “winter beers” are really Christmas beers. And they are, like Christmas itself, largely a modern invention.

For centuries, the most important Christian holiday was Easter, because — as I remember it being explained — the redemption and resurrection it represented was the miracle that made Christianity different from other religions and so it was the centerpiece of an ecumenical year filled with celebrations Sunday after Sunday. Our present calendar system, the Gregorian calendar (named for Pope Gregory) was created precisely to more accurately predict the date when each year’s Easter would be because under the prior system, the Julian calendar (which is still used today by some Christian denominations) had allowed the year to drift by several days because it did not accurately reflect the true length of a year. (For a riveting account of the history of our calendar, read David Ewing Duncan’s Calendar: Humanity’s Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year.) The calendar geek in me could go on and on about this but the point is simply that for the majority of Christian history, Easter was the big day. Beginning in the 1840s, things gradually shifted toward Christmas so that now most people would say Christmas is the number one holiday.

The first Christmas beers were most likely brewed in medieval times by monks making a special beer — and stronger — at Christmastime to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. But it would take far longer for commercial breweries to begin making and bottling seasonal beer. And while there were breweries in decades past that made a holiday beer (I have, for example a full bottle of Ballantine Christmas Ale that was brewed in 1946 but not bottled until 1957), it was not the big business it is today. In my experience, here in the U.S. Christmas beers were more the exception than the rule until somewhat recently.

Germany has a rich tradition of Weihnachtsbier, as do several other Scandinavian countries. So does Great Britain with winter warmers and Belgium with beers like Delirium Noel and many others. My friend and colleague Don Russell (a.k.a. Joe Sixpack) is currently working on a book about Christmas beer which will be published next year. I can’t wait for it to come out, it should be a very interesting read.

For a time, there were only a few holiday beers, and most of them were quite obviously Christmas beers. Sierra Nevada’s Celebration, Samuel Adams’ Winter Lager and even Noche Buena (from Mexico’s Grupo Model) were all early favorites. Little by little, more breweries began making a holiday beer and by around 1996 practically every brewery made one and a large number bottled it, too. And they all sold pretty well. But oddly enough, the day after Christmas sales would abruptly stop. With the exception of the most popular two or three brands, you could barely give away a Christmas beer once the holiday was over. This made it tricky for retailers trying to balance not running out before Christmas but not wanting any inventory immediately thereafter. When I was a beer buyer, I can’t tell you how many offers at rock bottom bargain prices I would get in the weeks after Christmas by breweries trying to unload their remaining Christmas beer.

So what most breweries did was secularize the beers, calling them names like winter ale or holiday beer. Whatever the name, it de-emphasized Christmas in the hope that the fickle consumer would continue to buy them after December 25. And for the most part the strategy worked and eventually led to many breweries having a seasonal beer year-round, whether four different ones quarterly or more often. The reason for this is more business-related than you might assume at first blush. Most grocery stores have very specific beer sets (which is a schematic layout of what beers they carry and where they will be put on the shelves).

Breweries work very hard to get a slot on a grocery store’s beer set. No one wants to put in the effort to get their Christmas beer in the beer set over the holidays only to lose it as soon December ends. So what many did was get a seasonal sku authorized in the set that would be filled with whatever the seasonal beer happened to be. In other words, the same hole would be filled in summer with a summer seasonal beer, etc. throughout the year. One seasonal release would follow the last so that all year long there would be a rotating beer in that same slot on the store shelf. In that way the brewery would not lose it’s spot on the shelf and as a result, today we all have much more diversity on the shelf, a boon for consumers and breweries alike. Nielsen and IRI data confirms that the category “seasonal beer” is one of the fastest growing and best-selling categories of craft beer today. And this all grew out of Christmas beers and trying to figure out how best to sell them.

In modern times, one of the first and to my mind still one of the best is Anchor’s Christmas Beer. Technically, the name of this beer is not Christmas Ale as it is usually called but it’s more proper name is actually Our Special Ale. The first one was brewed in 1975. While there are certainly many other truly great holiday beers, this is always the one I look most forward to each year. It used to be released the Monday before Thanksgiving each year, making it one of the last Christmas beers to come out. A few years ago they bowed to market pressure and it’s now available in early November, usually the first week. I can’t say I don’t like getting it earlier now, but there was something grand about having to wait for it that built up your anticipation and made it somehow more special.

To me, there are two (or three) other factors to this beer that make it so great. First, they change the recipe each year. So not only is there anticipation about its release generally, but also about what it will taste like this year. How much time have I spent sitting around with friends trying to figure out just what spices are in each year’s version? I know there a lot of people, including many beer enthusiasts and the entire nation of Germany, who don’t like spice in their beer. I am not one of those people. I love spicy beers. Not every day, of course, but the more different types of beer loose in the world, the better off we are. The more choices, the better we can experiment and decide what works best when and with what. And there are times when spices in beer work perfectly. I usually pair my Thanksgiving meal with Anchor Christmas, for example, because the spices work so well with turkey’s modest flavors, making both taste better. In addition, the mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce and stuffing all benefit from being lubricated with a spicy beer.

Second, they change the label each year. Each year it’s a new mini-work of art featuring a different tree (which I confess I’ve always had a thing for: trees, that is). They’re beautiful labels and each year they create a new poster featuring all of the labels from 1975 up to the current year. I have one from a couple of years ago framed and hanging in my kitchen. You can see this year’s poster at Anchor’s website and you can even buy one in their gift shop. That also adds to the anticipation, finding out what tree will be featured on each year’s incarnation. They also do a kick-ass neon sign. But there’s one more thing about this beer that I love. It can be aged.

Despite it’s modest strength and most likely due to the spicing, Anchor’s Christmas Ale can be laid down, usually for almost ten years and still be drinkable. For a time during the late 1990s, when the beer was more heavily spiced, it actually seemed to taste better after being aged for at least a year and I would lay down quite a bit of it to take advantage of that phenomenon. I still have several Magnums from year’s past in one of my beer refrigerators, as well as at least a case of 12-ounce bottles from various years stretching back to the early 1990s. There’s nothing more enjoyable than doing a vertical tasting of Anchor Christmas beers. I’ve done a few myself, at least one at the Celebrator and twice at Anchor Brewing with older beers from their private cellar. It’s great fun to compare both the different year’s recipes and also what the aging process has done to the beer.

Last night was Anchor’s annual Christmas party and it was my first chance to have this year’s Christmas Ale on draft, though I’d had bottles several times. To my mind, this year’s tastes quite similar to last year but I haven’t yet had a chance to do a side-by-side comparison. The spicing is mild, as has been typical in recent years. As a result, it has a wider appeal — though for myself I miss the heavily spiced days — and is still a wonderful beer. I won’t even try to speculate on what spices are there, that’s a better thing to do with friends over a shared pint or bottle.

One last thing about winter ales that is somewhat different from most traditional seasonal beers. Unlike springbocks or marzens, which are distinct styles, holiday beers can be any style that the brewer chooses. This has led to much more diversity in Christmas beers than in any other kind of seasonal. Even summer ales, which have no style attached to them, still tend to be lighter so they’re more appropriate during that season’s warmer weather. This makes tasting all of the holiday beers the most enjoyable one each year, because you never know what you’re going to get. It’s fun seeing what a brewery decided to brew when left to do whatever they fancied. Since brewers under such circumstances tend to make what they like, you can learn different brewers’ personal tastes, which can be useful in evaluating their other efforts. Plus, it’s just plain fun, the best time of the year to try different beers is without question the winter when strong, full-flavored beers of striking diversity are king. It’s the most wonderful season of all.

Holding a cup of Christmas Ale by the Anchor “tree” at their annual Christmas party last night.

Anchor Christmas Bash 2007

December 7, 2007 By Jay Brooks

Last night was the annual Anchor Christmas Party at the Anchor Brewery in San Francisco. I’ve been going to this party for more than ten years now and it’s always a great event. Anchor puts on a terrific spread of food and all of the Anchor beers are available on tap, including this year’s Christmas Ale. The main floor of the brewery where the taproom is and the beautiful copper kettles are fills up with local beer industry people and other friends of the brewery.

My wife Sarah, beer chef Bruce Paton and Jen Garris, with New Belgium Brewing.

For more photos from this year’s Anchor Christmas Party, visit the photo gallery.

SABMiller Gets A Blue Tongue

December 6, 2007 By Jay Brooks

SABMiller announced yesterday that they are purchasing Australia’s Bluetongue Brewery in a joint venture with Coca-Cola Amatil Limited to be known as Pacific Beverages Pty Limited. The purchase price was not revealed though it is estimated to be around $20 million USD. It has also been reported that they are considering building a greenfield brewery to brew additional brands for distribution by Pacific Beverages in region including Peroni Nastro Azzurro, Pilsner Urquell, Miller Genuine Draft and other Miller brands.

Bluetongue was founded in 2003 in Newcastle, New South Wales. They have an annual capacity of over 50,000 hectolitres and make five different beers: Bluetongue Premium Lager, Bluetongue Premium Light, Bluetongue Traditional Pilsner, Bluetongue Alcoholic Ginger Beer and Bondi Blonde (a low-carb beer). In their four-year history, Bluetongue has shown remarkable growth including 70% over the past year. Earlier this year they even hired Paris Hilton as a spokesperson for Bondi Beer. And Bluetongue is Whale Safe Beer.

According to the press release, here’s the story of the brewery’s name:

Bluetongue’s name originates from the blue-tongued lizard, one of Australia’s favourite native creatures. They are about 30cm long, have a large fierce looking head and are easily recognised by their bright blue tongue which they stick out to warn off predators. Blue-tongues are often found basking in the sun in the Australian bush and in backyards across suburban Australia.

Prohibition Returns!

December 5, 2007 By Jay Brooks

Reason Magazine is a fine and well-respected Libertarian magazine that had a very interesting article in last month’s issue. I say fine and well-respected because they saw fit to ask me to write an article for them last year, showing exceptional good taste, and as a result I still get a copy of the magazine each month. The November issue included an article by David Harsanyi, who is a columnist for the Denver Post. Harsanyi is also the author of a recent book called Nanny State, whose subtitle is “How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children.” His Reason article, Prohibition Returns! Teetotaling do-gooders attack your right to drink, was adapted from his book and it’s a very interesting read. I wanted to post it when I first read it, but Reason doesn’t put the current issue online instead keeping all but the current issue on the web. As a result I had to wait until now to share it.

One of the most interesting parts of his article involves Candace Lightner, the founder of MADD. She was the original mother against drunk driving who started a crusade. I have on several occasions written unflatteringly about her but what I did not realize is that she’s every bit as disgusted with MADD as I am. For example she told the L.A. Times in 2002 that she realized she was wrong about lowering the blood alcohol level to 0.08% because that strategy “was not a solution to the alcohol problem. The majority of crashes occur with high blood-alcohol levels, the .15, .18 and .25 drinkers.” As a result, Lightner and MADD parted ways in 1985 and she is no longer affiliated with the organization she founded.

From the Reason article:

Lightner has moved on from MADD, and since then has protested the shift from attacking drunk driving to attacking drinking in general. “I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction,” she told The Cleveland Plain Dealer in 1992. BAC legislation, she said, “ignores the real core of the problem….If we really want to save lives, let’s go after the most dangerous drivers on the road.” Lightner said MADD has become an organization far more “neoprohibitionist” than she had envisioned. “I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol,” she said. “I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.”

I’m afraid I owe her an apology. I take back what I said previously. She has not taken things too far, the people who took over from where she started and fanatically went off to advocate a different agenda have much to answer for, not least of which is that they continue to use the tragedy of her daughter’s death at the hands of a drunk driver in their propaganda despite the fact that know they Lightner no longer agrees with what they’re doing. This also explains to some extent why MADD has gone off in such a radically different direction from the founder’s original intent. Neo-prohibitionists simply took over her organization co-opting it for their own purposes. Given that it’s been 22 years since the founder resigned, they’ve done a pretty good job of keeping that information in the background so that most people — myself included — weren’t even aware that the organization had internally changed so much. MADD’s mission statement changed abruptly in 1985 — the same year Lightner left — and has been changed two more times since then to incorporate the expanding agenda of the organization to include underage drinking and, although not stated explicitly, to end all legal drinking in this country if not the world. I think after learning this I’m even more frightened of MADD than I was when I thought it was still just a pissed-off mother trying to do right by the daughter that was taken from her by a drunk driver. At least I could understand that, even if I didn’t entirely agree with it. Now that I know she’s been gone for more than two decades and in her absence they’ve become more of a neo-prohibitionist organization I confess I can’t understand what they’re doing in the least. Nothing about their current agenda makes any sense whatsoever to me. All I know is we have to do everything we can to make sure they don’t succeed in bringing about another Prohibition.

Happy Repeal Day

December 5, 2007 By Jay Brooks

Today is the 74th anniversary of the repeal of national Prohibition in the United States. Bob Skilnik has, naturally, the most complete account at his Beer In Food blog. His piece is called “National Prohibition; Its REAL Anniversary” and goes into great detail about the history swirling about at that time. It’s definitely worth a read.

In addition, Eugene, Oregon bartender Jeffrey Morgenthaler has been leading an effort to make December 5 a holiday and he’s also set up a Repeal Day website. And Dewar’s is also running a Repeal Day promotion to celebrate the day (and sell some whisky, of course). Seems like a good idea to me, we can never have too many holidays to remind us what a bad idea Prohibition was, especially with the neo-prohibitionists of today trying so hard to bring about another one.

Revelers enjoying the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.

« Previous Page