Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Harriet’s Beer For Girls

By

Harriet Easton, age 19, appears to be one ambitious and entrepreneurially-minded young lass. She’s determined to fill the void created by a continuing drop in UK pub beer sales. “Figures released last month showed beer sales in pubs at their lowest level for 70 years. Seven million fewer pints per day are now being sold, with sales down 49 per cent since they peaked in 1979.” One obvious market being neglected is the female segment. So Easton, a politics student at Newcastle University, spent a year and a half — and £35,000 — on R&D to create a beer especially for women. It’s a “light ale with extract of orange and a modest 4.2 per cent alcohol.” Easton teamed up with a local brewery, Hanby Ales of Wem in Shropshire, to create the curiously named Harry’s Beer, which will be marketed to women beginning Monday at the Salopian Bar in Shrewsbury. On hand will be, Paula Waters, chairman of CAMRA. “Waters said: ‘I applaud the inventive way Harriet has brought this product to market. She’s a sassy and savvy young woman who has recognised there are others just like her who want to drink real ale and retain their femininity.'”

But as far as I can tell, this is not her first attempt. In August of this year there was at least one story about Harriet Easton in the Shropshire Star called These Girls Are For Real. At that time, they reported Easton debuting another beer, this one called Rushing Dolls beer for girls. In that article, Rushing Dolls was described as having “a zest of lime—it’s very light and hoppy.” There Easton was quoted as having created her beer because others were — I just love this expression — too blokey. Hop Talk even did a post about it in September. The lime version was “thought to be the first ever beer for girls” and now the new orange version is being similarly touted, this time by the Publican, who say it’s the “first real ale aimed specifically at women.” This time around, Easton says:

“Real ale has typically and consistently been marketed towards men with names full of cheesy puns and innuendo, and images of buxom wenches serving up frothy jugs,” said the politics student at Newcastle university. “They can keep all that — there’s no need to move on, lads — just move over”.

Still, I can’t help but think of Virginia Slims or pink trains for girls. It seems to me either a woman will develop a taste for beer or she won’t. I know plenty of women who already love craft beer, including my wife, and it didn’t take a specially designed beer for them to like beer. Trying to make one specifically for the ladies seems like a gimmick at best. But if it brings more women into the fold, I suppose that can’t be all bad.
 

Beer & Christianity Redux

By

This came to me via Rick Sellers at his Pacific Brew News concerning another poll by ChristiaNet concerning Christian’s attitudes towards beer drinking. I meant to write about this earlier, but it got away from me. The story is about a poll ChristiaNet conducted with their readership, which they state involves twelve million monthly page loads, and they further claim to be the “world’s largest Christian portal.” The question they asked was “[i]s it wrong for a Christian to consume beer?” Now why they singled out beer is still a mystery to me. To justify the question, Bill Cooper, the president of ChristiaNet, says “Christ warns of the results of drunkenness.” But, of course, the question wasn’t “is it wrong for a Christian to consume beer to the point of drunkenness” or to be drunk, it was simply whether it was acceptable to consume any amount of beer. That’s a vastly different question and one which does nothing to examine the “results of drunkenness.” They did a similar poll last year, too, which I wrote about on Christmas Eve, but more about that later.

According to their press release, 5,200 completed the online poll and beer drinking got the thumbs up by a very slim margin, about 51%. A little over a third (38%) did, however, respond that they believed that having a beer was “wrong.” Here is some of their rationale.

They felt that one beer almost always leads to more and then can also lead to alcoholism, “I don’t know anyone that only drinks one beer, they usually drink more to get a buzz and that is wrong. Sometimes they even turn into alcoholics.” Others in this group quoted Proverbs 20:1 which states, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Most felt that all alcohol consumption was wrong, “There just isn’t any good reason to drink alcohol, and it is not like it tastes good.”

Wow, I don’t want to hang out with the person who doesn’t know even one person who can stop at a single beer. Being someone who visits the ChristiaNet website, I would think most — or at least some — of his friends were likely Christians like him. And not one of them could resist the temptation to have a second drink of beer? This guy needs to start hanging out with a new crowd. I can’t tell you the number of times that I’ve enjoyed one beer at a bar or with my dinner without being unable to stop there and even without turning into an alcoholic. I can’t help but picture that process as a bit like the gentlemanly Dr. Jekyll turning into the unsavory Mr. Hyde. Without trying to make light of alcoholism, is that really how it happens? And why on occasion is getting a buzz so wrong? Or is drinking “beer” to get that buzz what’s wrong here? Having the sacred wine makes it acceptable, does it? I guess I just don’t understand how these people think.

Just over ten percent wondered “about whether or not beer, in particular, was wrong” and at least one respondent was confused “because the Bible only talks about drunkenness with wine and strong drink, not about having only one beer.” What I assume many do not realize is that when the Bible was translated into Greek that there was no exact match for the Hebrew word and “wine” was simply substituted as being the closest word available. There are a number of serious scholars who believe that it is possible that it was actually beer (apparently the Greeks at that time had no word for beer) that Jesus turned the water into and that it may even have been beer that was served at the last supper. How different our world might be today if beer had early on achieved the exalted place in religion that wine did, possibly as the result of a mis-translation.

Last year about this same time, ChristiaNet asked this same question but got very different results. Only 339 people filled out the previous survey, of which 192 — or 57% — thought drinking beer was wrong. Armed with those staggeringly small and unscientific statistics, ChristiaNet proceeded to tell the world that Christians think drinking beer is wrong. I wrote about it a few days after their press release in a post I called Beer & Christianity. I thought it was nonsense then, and I’m not convinced it’s any less so this year, despite the fact that 5,200 people took the poll this year. When you look at how random sampling for polling data is usually done, this type of online poll has none of the features that make it a statistically accurate sample of the general population. Instead, as Rick also points out, the people responding are all people who regularly visit ChristiaNet’s website, most likely evangelical Christians — fanatics, possibly. That already greatly skews any data they collect on this or any subject they might ask their visitors’ opinions about. Of course, you may say, isn’t that obvious? Well, maybe it is, but then why bother with a press release unless you’re trying to convince somebody of something as a result of this poll? I scratched my head over this before and I’m afraid it’s still itchy.

Anyway, in his post, Rick called me a fanatic — which is true, of course — with regard to the agenda of neo-prohibitionists though he has tended to feel that “there’s no way we, as Americans, have anything to worry about with our beer related rights. Now, if there are this many ‘Christians’ in our country who think my beer consumption is flat wrong, it would seem appropriate to assume they wouldn’t mind seeing some form of control on my consumption.” I think that’s correct, and I think it’s also why there is a lot that we should be worried about. That’s precisely why I’m fanatical, because I believe apathy and complacency will ultimately spell doom. And while there are millions of self-avowed Christians who think drinking beer is no mortal sin, those that do seem to be more vocal and shrill about imposing that belief on everybody else.

Many neo-prohibitionist groups are religiously based, and often claim that Christian morals are at odds with alcohol, which suggests to me that fundamentalist Christians have more in common with fundamentalist Muslims than either group might be willing to admit. Both seem to argue that their belief leads them to prohibiting alcohol and both likewise believe that whatever their religion teaches should apply to non-believers and believers alike. Muslims have been more successful in building sovereign nations that use religious law as the law of the land, regardless of an individual’s religion, and under such rule religious freedom is not tolerated. But Christian evangelicals want exactly the same thing: to replace our secular nation — founded on the principle of church and state being separate — with a Christian United States, whose laws are all based on their literal interpretation of the Bible. And whether or not beer would be permitted under such an intolerant society would depend largely on whose interpretation holds sway.

So I see these polls as dangerous, because even though they are based on poor science, most people probably won’t examine that too closely and will accept them at face value. That seems to happen a lot with polling data. You see inaccurate statistics quoted over and over again, oftentimes even after they’ve been discredited. For reasons I can’t explain (perhaps because people trust the media or because in school we’re not taught how to think, only what to think) polls tend to be believed more often than not. In my experience, human nature causes people to want to side with the majority or the winner so polls which report that a majority feel one way or another often have the effect of bringing about that result, especially if it’s close. This is why I hate political election polling and exit polls on election day, because I think they have the effect of swaying voter’s opinions to vote for the leader. And therein lies the danger. Tell people that enough other folks just like them think drinking beer is wrong and they’ll start to believe it, too. One thing you can safely say about all religions is that they don’t encourage independent thought: the whole point of faith is to believe without questioning so it seems to me religiously-based agendas are particularly susceptible to manipulation.

Rick is quite right to question that statistic claiming 38% of Christians “feel that drinking beer [is] wrong.” As he correctly concludes, “it is likely only those with strong enough opinions took the survey. But that too scares me, because it isn’t just the church goers in our country who are more than slightly apathetic — its seems to be the American way these days.” But if ChristiaNet and others with a neo-prohibitionist agenda keep sowing these anti-alcohol seeds with their questionable statistics they may win over enough of the “more than slightly apathetic” to make their proclamation a self-fulfilling prophecy. And trying to play my small part in making sure that doesn’t happen, keeping the neo-prohibitionist wolves at the door so to speak, is what makes me a fanatic. Because allowing an extreme minority to dictate morality and tell you and me we can’t enjoy a beer is not the way a free society should operate. Those with the loudest voices are not supposed to be who wins. So in the hopes of keeping that from happening, I’ll keep shouting in the wilderness until they pry the glass of beer from my cold, dead hand. But let’s try not to let it come to that, shall we? Let’s take this threat seriously. I really don’t want the Pyrrhic victory that forces me to say “I told you so.”

 

North Carolina Targets Parents

By

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.

 

Mothers For Social Drinking

By

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.

Prohibition Returns!

By

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.

 

Costa Rica Just Says No to Swiss Beer

By

I guess it’s good to know that other country’s bureaucracies are every bit as irrational as my own, especially when dealing with the regulation of alcohol and other so-called “controlled” substances. It seems the Latin American country of Costa Rica is having issues with a Swiss beer, Hanfblute, because it contains the essence of marijuana to impart the cannabis aroma in the nose. It’s no secret, that information is listed on the label and Hanfblute has been sold in the Central American nation for four years. And, of course, marijuana is also illegal in Switzerland, too, meaning if there were any mind-altering cannabis (or THC) in it, the Swiss would have put the kibosh on the beer long ago. They do use hemp leaves and flowers in the brewing of the beer, but it contains nothing that could get you high.

Guiselle Amador, the head of the Instituto de Alcoholismo y Farmacodependencia (IAFA) — Costa Rica’s pharmaceutical and drug dependency institute — “expressed her concern for the sale of the beer in Costa Rica for its negative implications that it is good for ones health.” The IAFA is asking the health minister to investigate the importer’s permit and take the beer off the market. Despite the fact that the beer contains no marijuana whatsoever, she’s afraid it might persuade people to start smoking pot. Why, you might reasonably ask, would she think that? Apparently there’s a cannabis leaf on the label (pictured below) which she believes is a subliminal message which could entice people to begin smoking weed. I don’t know what Amador is smoking but if she thinks seeing a marijuana leaf on a beer label will lead people to fire up a spleef then clearly her country has more troubles than just this.
 

Here’s one logo:

And here’s the bottle label:

 

Clearly they’re skating on the periphery of what polite society deems acceptable with their label, but the family owned Brauerei Locher brews at least twenty different beers, of which the Hanfblute is only a small part. This is no hippie commune beer but a serious beer with a nod to a tradition that predates the use of hops in beer. Are they having a little fun with it? Sure, why not? They know the market for their beer. In my experience, hemp enthusiasts are fanatical in their love of the versatile weed. So why not market to a supportive audience?

The first hemp beer I remember was from Frederick Brewing in Maryland. I think it was called Hempen Ale and was made using hemp seeds (I’m shooting on memory here, if anybody knows for sure, let me know). I also remember shortly thereafter having a meeting with Mario Celotto (the former Oakland Raider and now former owner of Humboldt Brewing in Arcata, California) and suggesting to him that with his backyard’s reputation he should make a hemp beer. Several months later (I think around 1998?) Humboldt Hemp Beer made its debut and is still being brewed by Firestone Walker under the same label (they bought the Humboldt brand in 2003).

But I still can’t understand why people in government agencies are convinced that mere labels will corrupt people to the point where they’re afraid to allow citizens to even see something they find objectionable. It’s obviously ridiculous that seeing a cannabis leaf would make someone unable to control the urge to become a drug addict. It’s equally ridiculous that seeing Santa Claus on a label will make kids want to drink beer or seeing nudity on a label will .. well, I don’t really know what the easily offended think seeing nudity will do to harm society, that one will always be a head-scratcher to me. But we see this time and time again in the United States and — as this story makes clear — around the world, too. Most people if asked would probably say the national pastime is baseball and worldwide it has to be football (soccer). Personally, I think the true favorite pastime is trying to control other people in what they think, what they see and what they can do. Determining what is moral or good and trying to impose it on the rest of us seems to occupy a lot of a certain kind of person’s time and energy. The rest of us are just trying to enjoy ourselves and live our lives as best we can. But as long as there are people whose agenda includes stopping people from doing things that they don’t like or making decisions about how to live their lives that they disagree with, the remaining majority of us won’t be able to rest. As for marijuana, my favorite comedian, Bill Hicks, said it best:

Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn’t the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit… paranoid? You know what I mean? It’s nature. How do you make nature against the f#%king law? It grows everywhere. Serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive. To make marijuana against the law is like saying God made a mistake.

Which I find doubly ironic since most rabid anti-drug and anti-alcohol organizations seem religiously based or at least motivated by some weird morality that they believe is based on religion. But I also think Hicks’ argument works for beer, as well, which is likewise made from all natural ingredients growing wild on the planet. Ive said it before a million times, but if those of us who just want to be left alone and not told what to do and think, we have to remain ever-vigilant against this kind of nonsense wherever and whenever we can.

 

How To Win Friends and Influence People

By

I got a comment the other day to one of my old posts about Rolling Rock when the brouhaha was going down in Latrobe, Pennsylvania earlier this year. E-Rokk, the person who posted the comment, apparently had a run-in with an Anheuser-Busch distributor’s rep. He also has a blog with four friends called Hey Stupid, which according to their byline “is a collection of writers that are pissed off at society, culture, the world and most importantly…you.” E-Rokk is a former Pennsylvania resident who moved to the Rapid City, South Dakota area and took with him a fondness for Rolling Rock beer. He claims to be a beer connoisseur, but his list of favorite beers is not exactly bursting with esoterica. In fact, more than half of his list includes generic industrial light lagers, most of whom are made by the big three but marketed under their original regional brand names. His favorite three are Yuengling, Iron City Light and Rolling Rock, which pretty much tells you everything you need to know.

Anyway, he tried the new A-B-made version of his beloved Rolling Rock and found that it no longer tasted the way he remembered it, and so he wrote a rant on his blog that spared no one’s feelings and told A-B in no uncertain terms to go fornicate without a companion, though, of course, not in those words. A little while later, he received a response from his local A-B distributor, Eagle Sales of the Black Hills, Inc. The letter was apparently written by the distributor’s “Contemporary Marketing Coordinator,” Cassie Kimball. I can only imagine what that job description entails. Anyway, to satisfy myself that her response was legitimate, I checked out the distributor’s website and sure enough she is the last person listed at the bottom of the web page “Our People.” He reprinted her response in it’s entirety and it’s a terrific example of how not to interact with your customers, especially when E-Rokk still listed several beers as his favorites that Eagle Sales distributes.

Because technically her letter is copywrited material, I won’t publish it here, but please go read it at E-Rokk’s Hey Stupid blog, you won’t be disappointed. She basically swears back at him and further tells him his band will never receive any promotional support from A-B (which is odd since I didn’t even know he was in a band). It’s riddled with typos and grammatical nonsense, which is pretty scary especially since I would think communication skills would be fairly important for someone in marketing. I know people can make mistakes — hell, I make them all the time — but her letter seems to show only a rudimentary familiarity with the English language and how to communicate coherently. But perhaps I’m being too hard on her.

My favorite thing she says, though, is about her beer knowledge. She claims that mainstream beers are called “American premiums” — I just love this aside — “as real beer connoisseurs like to say.” That has me doubling over. American premium is essentially a made-up term used as a category by Nieslen, IRI and other businesses when discussing a particular group of goods, to distinguish them from sub-premium and other categories. It has no meaning in the real world but only as business jargon. And I don’t know many beer connoisseurs, real or otherwise, who refer to this type of beer as American Premium, not with a straight face anyway. It is a subcategory at GABF under category 26, American-Style Lager, but that’s more to allow the big companies a place to enter their products. Likewise, it’s a subcategory under BJCP guidelines for category 1, Light Lager. But you won’t find it coming up in any serious discussion of beer styles. But then again, maybe I’m not as “with it” as she is. After all, she’s the “contemporary” marketing coordinator, whereas I’m just an old curmudgeon.

I also love her revisionist history when she claims A-B bought the Rolling Rock brand “to help it stay alive.” Their own flagship brands’ sales woes had nothing to do with wanting to pick up another brand for their distributors. That’s hilarious. I feel kinda sorry for her, in a way. She just keeps putting her foot in her mouth. At least she does it with confidence, I guess. She really seems to believe what she’s saying and yet appears to have no idea about what’s really going on in the industry she’s a part of. Ah, to be young and ignorant.

The way she just attacked and swore back at her critic has to have come up in PR 101 as how not to communicate with a customer, no matter what they’ve said. It’s frankly pretty astonishing. E-Rokk responded by writing back to her, to what end I can’t fathom. It was just as bad as his original rant but it will be interesting to see if his baiting works and she writes back again to escalate things even farther.

 

Spot the Drunk

By

Maybe it’s just my peculiar sense of humor but anytime I hear the phrase “spot the … anything” I think of Monty Python, as in “Spot the Looney.” So that was my first thought when I heard that Britain’s Home Office had issued very specific guidelines to members of the police on “How to Spot a Drunk.”

A few days ago the UK’s Home Office launched a new campaign against — and here’s the part I don’t get — being drunk in a bar. It’s called the “Responsible Sales of Alcohol Campaign” and British and Welsh police have apparently identified 1,500 pubs that they will be visiting every weekend between now and Christmas Eve to make sure that no bartender “knowingly” sells any alcohol to someone who is drunk. To me, that’s already a weird law (more on that below) but it’s been on the books for awhile now, though up until now there’s been no shortage of confusion about exactly what it means, legally at least, to be drunk. Anyone found selling to a drunk person will be levied “an £80 fixed-penalty fine.” But now the Home Office has issued more specific guidelines trying to define drunkenness. They have no legal standing, of course, but they are asking the police to use them to “identify potential drunken customers” and then “gather evidence of drunkenness, witness a sale and deal accordingly”. So even though it’s claimed that they do not have actual legal standing, if the police are using the guidelines, as they’ve been asked to, then they de facto do have standing.

Here’s the part I don’t get, though. If you can’t be drunk in a pub, where exactly are you allowed to be drunk? Since when is it the business of the police to decide how pissed anyone wants to get on any given evening? I think in many states here a bartender’s not supposed to serve a person if they’re excessively drunk — equally difficult to gauge and define. But this law makes it sound like you are permitted to go to a pub, order a beer, drink it, perhaps have another, but the moment you’re drunk you have to stop drinking immediately or the pub owner will face a hefty fine. That doesn’t make any sense to me. Assuming I’m not bothering anyone else and as long as I’m walking, taking a taxi or otherwise not endangering anyone but myself how the f@#k is that anyone’s business but mine? I should be able to drink until I can’t stand up straight if I want to. I’m not saying that’s a good idea or that anyone should want to drink that much, but the point is simply that it should not be the government’s business to protect me from myself. That’s what friends and loved ones are for. That’s paternalism at it’s worst.

So here are the guidelines:

A Noticeable Change in Behaviour

  • Bad tempered, aggressive;
  • Offensive language;
  • Becoming loud, boisterous or disorderly;
  • Becoming physically violent;
  • Becoming incoherent;
  • Slurring, or making mistakes in speech; and
    becoming argumentative.

A Lack of Judgment

  • Being careless with money;
  • Annoying other persons, employees etc;
  • Exhibiting inappropriate sexual behaviour;
  • Drinking quickly or competitively (“down in one“)

Clumsiness & Loss of Coordination

  • Swaying;
  • Staggering;
  • Difficulty with walking;
  • Falling down;
  • Bumping into furniture;
  • Spilling drinks;
  • Difficulty in picking up change; and
    Fumbling for cigarettes, or other items

Decreased Alertness

  • Drowsiness, dozing or sleeping;
  • Rambling conversation;
  • Loss of train of thought;
  • Difficulty in paying attention;
  • Not understanding what is said;
  • Glassy eyes and
  • Lack of focus.

Appearance

  • Unkempt
  • Dishevelled

 

I think you’ll agree after perusing his list that many of the items here are obvious and self-evident. Defining being drunk is a bit like pornography: it may be hard to define but we all think we know it when we see it. But others make almost no sense at all, especially by themselves. This story originally appeared in the British trade publication, The Publican, and many of the pub owners they interviewed agreed, to wit:

Licensees have slammed the guidelines. David Wine, licensee at the Six Bells in Felsham, Suffolk, said: “This is an absolute nonsense. So what if someone is dishevelled? Does that mean Bob Geldof will not be able to get served in pubs?”

Steve Andrews, licensee at the Seven Stars in Devon agreed the campaign was “absolutely ludicrous”. “I have a lot of farmers and builders come in here and they’re dishevelled.”

“I would also question why police should be paid to sit around in pubs on a Friday and Saturday night.”

Yeah, that disheveled one does stand out. It’s as if you’ll have to dress up to go to your local if you want to be served. Since when does good grooming and a fashion sense equate with soberness? The “bumping into furniture” and “spilling drinks” would give my wife some trouble, as she tends to be quite clumsy without the slightest amount of alcohol in her bloodstream. Even if any of these aren’t dispositive, they will undoubtedly get you noticed by the bar Bobby as someone who bears closer watching. And that hardly seems fair: targeting the butterfingered and slovenly for special attention. Don’t they already have enough to worry about?

Overall, looney does seem the right word to describe this scheme to keep barkeeps from overserving to enforce a law that seems quite odd in the first place. Can this really be the most important thing Britain’s police force has to contend with right now? Surely there must be some more serious threats to the peace.

 

Ennui? Oui!

By

pint
I know it’s been quite a while since I’ve posted anything new and a few people have written me to see what is the matter. It’s nice to know that I’m missed so I thought I’d update everyone. I’m just tired and took a little unscheduled time off to spend with the family and, hopefully, recharge my batteries. I traveled a bit in October and November and the last three Novembers I was working feverishly on novels as I participated in NaNoWriMo, National Novel Writing Month, where you challenge yourself to write a 50,000-word novel in 30 days (and which I managed to be successful at each of the three years). I wasn’t able to do NaNoWriMo this year because I was in Germany for two weeks the first half of the month and I think I missed out on all the energy that enterprise produces. It’s hard to explain, and a bit counter-intuitive, but writing that constantly (at least 1,700 words per day) doesn’t really make me tired, but instead is more exhilarating because I’m creating something out of nothing. I guess that’s why I chose to be a writer, because even though it can be hard mental work it’s also very satisfying. It feels more like something I have to do rather than just something I can do. It’s been that way since I made up stories as a kid, when I wrote for the school newspaper and when I plotted out the endless books I never wrote. So that’s probably part of it.

The other part is I’m feeling more than a little ennui, which is common for me at this time of year. The holidays have been difficult for me for some time now. Most of my family — mother, father, grandparents, etc. — are all gone and have been for a lot of years. What family I have left is in Pennsylvania. My wife and her family are all out here and they’re great plus I now have the added joy of seeing the holidays through my kids’ eyes. I wouldn’t trade my life now for anything. But for some reason I always feel a touch of sadness at this time of year. Some years it’s better than others, but for this year it’s been tough. Also, over the last few months I’ve gotten a number of very unpleasant comments and e-mails from strangers (and organizations) who just don’t agree with my unfettered opinions. That’s to be expected, to be sure, but it is wearing me down. Many folks on the internet often don’t seem to realize that there’s another person involved and without the social cues of face-to-face communication seem to feel no compunction about treating their fellow human beings with appalling cruelty. It’s often so bad that even the most loathsome among us would never dream of treating even a stranger in a similar fashion if they were right in front of them. There’s a term for it, too: deindividuation, which essentially means “if we reduce our sense of our own identity we are less likely to stick to social norms.” That’s from an illuminating article in New Scientist and there’s some more good info in a Guardian opinion piece. There’s also another nice article at Salon by Gary Kamiya on manners online (for more about this, see Netiquette and RFC 1855). Of course, I’m often pretty obnoxious myself so perhaps I have it coming, who knows? Anyway, It’s gotten a little hard to take lately. I don’t mind disagreements — in fact I relish a good debate — but being called names and worse may not break my bones but it sure can drag down a mood and chill my enthusiasm for my fellow man.

Writing is, of course, a solitary endeavor so I find myself alone a lot of the time. I work from home, of course, so apart from my kids and the odd neighbor, I don’t really see, talk or interact with adult people all day long. My friends are all pretty spread out and rarely does anyone just stop by for the hell of it. Do that long enough and one does tend to go a little stir crazy. To everyone who wrote to inquire about my well-being, thanks, I appreciate it. It really helped to get me off the couch. So enough of my pathetic ramblings, tomorrow a new month begins and I’ll try my damndest to get back to pissing people off as best I can. Happy holidays.

neville
N is for Neville who died of ennui.
From Edward Gorey’s wonderful Gashlycrumb Tinies.

Craft Brewers Merge, Too

By

The last time I took a trip, that one to Denver for GABF, Miller and Coors merged their domestic operations. Now I’m in Munich, Germany on my last day of a long beer trip and Widmer Brothers and Redhook announce, they too, will be merging. I have got to stop leaving the house otherwise who knows what might happen next.

Maybe it’s because the news reports I read were from Seattle newspapers, but I was surprised that Redhook is the buyer because Widmer has been the much stronger performer ever since Anheuser-Busch purchased minority stakes in both breweries in the late 1990s. Shortly thereafter, Redhook was called “Budhook” derisively by many craft beer aficionados and their reputation, as well as their business, did appear to suffer. Certainly Redhook was not as active in the community as they had been before. Widmer Brothers, on the other hand, seemed to maintain their reputation and sales continued to grow. But perhaps more importantly, the Widmers continued to be active in the brewing community and were out in the public, effectively managing to keep the perception intact that they are a quality-minded small craft brewery.

Redhook reportedly will buy stock in Widmer valued at about $50 million. The new company’s name, with no touch of irony, will be called the “Craft Brewers Alliance.” Both Widmer and Redhook will continue to brew beer as before at their respective breweries.

Their combined output will be approximately 600,000 barrels, enough to catapult them into the top ten, probably around eighth or ninth. The pair separately was number 11 and 12 last year. Kurt Widmer will become the chairman of the Craft Brewers Alliance, which also has a stake in Chicago’s Goose Island Brewing and a distribution agreement with Hawaii’s Kona Brewing. Paul Shipman, who helped found Redhook, will be given the title chairman emeritus, but effectively will be retiring from the day to day operations of the business.