The third Guinness poster on our John Gilroy odyssey is also one of his earliest and most famous. The tagline is the also popular “Guinness For Strength” and features a construction worker able to carry a steel beam effortlessly with one hand after drinking Guinness.
One of the highlights of The Brewing Network’s Winter Brews Festival, held earlier today at Linden Street Brewery in Oakland, was Rosa, a sour beer brewed by the new Sacramento brewery, Odonata, recently started by former Sacramento Brewing’s Peter Hoey and Rick Sellers, formerly with Draft magazine. Here’s a short video of brewmaster Peter Hoey talking about Rosa.
Since Friday’s ad is number 33, I thought it only appropriate to feature one for Rolling Rock, since they so successfully exploited the mystery surrounding the number “33” being printed on their bottles, though the likeliest story isn’t that mysterious. This humorous ad plays on that theme with some of history’s greatest thinkers contemplating the mystery, which they call “Great Theories of ’33.'” The bottom row is Charles Darwin, Ludwig Van Beethoven and Thomas Edison. The top row is Sigmund Freud, Galileo and William Shakespeare. Also, the painting is called “Great Minds Drink Alike,” which is a pretty great name IMHO.
If you live in the Bay Area and have nothing going on tomorrow morning (or have Tivo), I’ll be on television in the early morning to promote SF Beer Week. It will air around 8:45 during the three-hour KRON 4 Weekend Show that’s on from 7:00-10:00 a.m. The exact time will depend on how the show develops, then they’ll cut to us at a remote location. I’m told it will be a very short segment, something like 3-4 minutes during which time I’ll try to taste the host, Henry Tenenbaum, on three beers paired with cheese, sausages and ice cream. And at the same time, I’ll try to talk about what he’s sampling and also discuss SF Beer Week, too. I expect it will be a lot like juggling while riding a unicycle. Did I mention I don’t know how to juggle? Or ride a unicycle or that matter. So tune in to watch me make a fool of myself or do Bay Area beer proud. Either way, it should be good for a laugh.
UPDATE: My sister-in-law Kit made a video of the spot and I’ve uploaded it to my YouTube Channel.
It appears MADD is up to their old tricks and actually this has probably been going on for some time albeit somewhat under the radar. In 1996, MADD created a youth organization of indoctrinated kids to do their dirty work for them called Youth In Action. One of their many “projects” is called Sticker Shock, which is described on their website:
YIA teams meet with local retailers that sell alcohol and ask permission to place warning stickers on the packaging of alcohol products (primarily beer). The stickers are very visible and warn of the consequences of purchasing alcohol for people under the age of 21. This project is designed to remind adults that they can be arrested for purchasing alcohol for minors.
Thanks for the “reminder” kids, but surely you could do something more constructive with your time. Maybe it’s the old curmudgeon in me, but it’s times like these when I miss the old days when children were to be seen and not heard. Do we really need these Stepford teens to lecture adults on the law?
This practice has apparently heated up in Massachusetts, with the state chapter there conducting raids of stores that sell alcohol to sticker the beer there.
Happily, Todd and Jason Alstrom, from Beer Advocate, take them to task in a recent column in Boston’s Dig entitled Fascist Youth Vandalize Liquor Stores. It almost reads like a headline from The Onion, except that it’s true. After detailing MADD’s Hitler youth in action, they strike the right note of indignation, certainly the same one I had.
Shocked? No, we’re pissed off! This is wrong on so many levels! First, while we agree that selling alcohol to minors is not cool, these sticker shock campaigns are outright acts of vandalism. Who cares if the storeowner gave permission? Who cares if these neo-prohibitionists are accompanied by an adult? Who cares if the adult’s a cop? Their little stunt is still illegal: Brewers must get approval from federal agencies for all packaging, including labels. Not only do these stickers alter the packaging, but sloppy placement could cover crucial information that, by law, must be visible to consumers.
And what about that cop? C’mon, with a cop backing these kids up, it’s no wonder that storeowners are consenting. And why “primarily beer”? Show us stats proving that kids are more likely to be hitting up adults for beer than for spirits. And why sticker all the beer in stock? Why not restrict it to the brands most popular with teen drunks? And why do we, the adult consumers, need to be “reminded” that purchasing beer for minors is illegal in the first place? Who said we forgot? Who decided this crap should be shoved in our faces? The YIA site says: “YIA teams look for community solutions instead of focusing their attention on their peers” — but isn’t that exactly where the primary focus should be?
This is not “reminding,” it’s intimidation, pure and simple.
The stickers read “Providing Alcohol to Minors is ILLEGAL. 4th Degree Felony. 18 Months in Jail. $5000 Fine. MADD’s Youth in Action.” All true, but why stop there. Why not sticker cans of soda with warnings that they can cause obesity. Coke and Pepsi would never sit still for that. In the UK several years ago McDonald’s sued a couple of activists literally for years because they had the audacity to criticize their food in what became known as the McLibel trial. But criticizing alcohol is perfectly acceptable because law enforcement and especially politicians are afraid to be reasonable thanks to the very vocal and active temperance minority, bowing to almost their every demand.
Jason and Todd conclude with an excellent suggestion.
So we’re challenging all true beer lovers to refuse to buy any product that has been vandalized by YIA, and to tell shop owners you’ll be boycotting their establishments until they get their beer from under MADD’s thumb — literally.
Amen to that. Don’t buy if you see the sticker. We have to start standing up to these bullies. I know in some cases the retailers had little choice in reality, but if they know there are consequences for acquiescence, ones that hit their bottom line, then they’ll begin to do the right thing, which is tell these gang of youths to go “remind” somebody else. That the police give these stunts the imprimatur of legality is quite frankly Orwellian and more than a little frightening.
Thursday’s ad is for a classic Schlitz ad from 1951. Like many ads from that time period, it was drawn by Bill Fleming. His work has a distinctive look to it. I confess I have a “thing” for old Schlitz memorabilia, especially their Schlitzerland campaign and the period of years where they used the globe logo prominently, as I also had an obsession with globes, too. This one is still funny nearly sixty years later.
This is one of the many reasons I loathe the neo-prohibitionist groups. Perhaps you saw the press release from Anheuser-Busch, detailing how they, along with many others, are trying to do what they can to help the people of Haiti, who were devastated by the recent earthquake that hit their country. They sent cans of water, hastily filled at one of their breweries, as they’ve done during other similar emergencies (I recall they did the same for New Orleans after hurricane Katrina). They’ve had plenty of negative publicity lately — some even from me — so I wouldn’t think anyone would begrudge them trying to win back some positive vibes for what really amounts to doing the right thing. That’s really what we hope any of us would do under the circumstances.
Except that you’d be wrong assume that no one would begrudge them. Those jolly folks at the Marin Institute wasted no time in admonishing Anheuser-Busch InBev, not for sending the water, but for using branded cans and for issuing a press release. In their own press release issued today, Help for Haiti Should Not be Branded, they claim that “most of these generous people are not putting out press releases about their good deeds.” I don’t know if that’s true and frankly, if those same people aren’t putting out press releases, then how can the Marin Institute claim to know about them or that they constitute a majority of the donations to Haiti’s disaster relief? How can they total up the anonymous donations that are, by definition, anonymous?
But they’re not done with their scolding. Next, they say most people making donations (of goods, one presumes) “are [not] branding their donated goods with their personal monikers” and asking the leading question “why does the beer behemoth need to brand the cans of this much-needed water with its corporate logo?” Well, I can think of one very good reason. Who would drink blank cans or cans just labeled “water.” I’d want to know where the water came from, who canned it to know if it was safe, etc. That just seems to be common sense. It would be counter-productive to can water with no information about its whereabouts or origins so people could judge its safety. I don’t want to go too far here, but a logo works better when not everyone speaks the same language, too. That way, even if people can’t read the can, they may recognize the logo and feel safer opening it as a result (though they may be disappointed it isn’t beer).
But the Marin Institute then concludes by saying ABIB’s efforts are “more than a tad distasteful,” calling their simple press release “bragging,” and suggesting that doing so “really does diminish your brand.” Wow. I thought there were no new depths that they could sink to in attacking alcohol, but boy, oh boy, was I ever wrong. So here we have a beer company who switches gears and spends their own money to create and donate much-needed water to Haiti. They have the apparent temerity to tell others what they’ve done, perhaps in part to inspire others to do likewise, and they also had the apparent gall to let the people they’re helping know who the water came from. Um, excuse me, but what exactly is the problem here? They helped. They did something. What exactly did the Marin Institute do to help the people of Haiti, apart from discouraging others from doing likewise, lest they also incur your misguided wrath. Or are you better than ABIB simply because whatever donations the Marin Institute gave were among the anonymous kind, you know, the better kinds of donations.
Do you honestly think the people Haiti give a rat’s ass where the donations came from? As long as they get enough to eat and drink so they can, you know, live, what possible difference could it make to anyone. Unless of course, you’re looking for absolutely any excuse to demonize your enemies and further your agenda. You criticize ABIB for issuing a press release, but that’s exactly what you did, too, using the opportunity to galvanize your supporters. But when you do it, it’s for a good cause, right? When ABIB does it, they’re shameless. This is seriously one of the ugliest and vilest demonstrations of how off the reservation the neo-prohibitionist groups are. Criticizing a good deed because it wasn’t done in the manner you’d prefer, or more correctly, by someone you already don’t like. You ought to be ashamed of yourself and your behavior. As they say, let no good deed go unpunished.
Wednesday’s ad is a contemporary one for Spain’s Estrella Damm. The illustration was apparently done for an Estrella Damm calendar. This work was done by Alex Trochut, a Spanish artist living in Barcelona. There’s a nice biography and short interview with him at It’s Nice That. I love art with a lot of detail, and this one has it in spades. Look closely at the waves and that alone should keep you occupied for some time. To see it larger, and see even more detail, click through the image and then select “all sizes.”
If you’re a regular Bulletin reader, you know I believe that the drinking age in the U.S. is too high, that the age a person can vote and fight and/or die for one’s country should also be the age he or she can drink, as well. I lived through this ridiculous hypocritical double-standard when I was in the military thirty years ago, and I still hold a grudge. It was absurd then, and it’s absurd now.
I think most of us believe that America is a progressive country where freedom is something we take for granted, that it’s the lynchpin of our society with free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, and on and on. But not when it comes to our puritanical view of alcohol, there we are nearly the most backward country in the world. When you take out the handful of countries that allow no alcohol consumption — which are all in the Middle East — only India has a drinking age higher than ours, and even that’s not nationwide, but on a state by state basis. I could talk about this ’till I’m blue in the face, but nothing shows this inequity better than a visual representation of drinking ages by country. Happily, Drinking Map went to the trouble of creating a world map showing the drinking age by country, where known. To see it larger, click through the image, then click on “all sizes.”
As you can see, the vast majority of the world is at a sensible 18, with only a few other nations (all in the Middle East, too) that are 21 like us. Japan and most of Scandinavia set the age at 20 and South Korea along with parts of Canada are at 19.
But perhaps more interesting is the map below, also by the folks at Drinking Map, called Where “Adults” Can’t Drink. This map shows the relationship between a country’s age of majority (when a person is considered an “adult”) and the age at which they are permitted to drink alcohol. Notice that for a majority of nations (in green) that age is the same, as I believe it should be. A few more (in pink), like India and most of Scandinavia, allow some drinking but with certain restrictions. Then we, along with parts of Canada and a handful of other nations (in red), stand out as having a drinking age that’s higher than the age of majority. To see it larger, click through the image, then click on “all sizes.”
Would it not be perhaps a reasonable compromise to allow 18-year olds to drink beer, or wine and beer, but not spirits until they’re 21? Anyway, just some food for thought.
I just saw this Re-Tweeted and I can’t pass up brewery porn. The photographs are of the St. Louis Brewery a.k.a. Schlafly Beer and were taken by a woman calling herself Truckey. The slideshow below is from her Flickr account and all the photographs can be purchased. According to her Flickr gallery page, “prices range from $10-$200, and range in size from 5×7 to 24×36. I can do matte, lustre, glossy or pearle paper, or even print on canvas!” There’s some beautiful shots there. They’d look great framed on your wall. But for now, enjoy the porn!