It’s no secret that I used to be a Star Trek fan. From the time I was a kid in the early 1970s, I watched the original series most afternoons after school. Once it hit its stride in season two or three, I thoroughly enjoyed The Next Generation, too. Nut I stopped there and never really watched the series that followed afterward, at least not beyond a few disappointing episodes of DS9. So overall, despite having owned a stuffed Tribble as a 10-year old, I was more of a Trekker than Trekkie, a small but important distinction in the world of fandom. So when I stumbled on this website earlier today, it made me want to dust off my old VHS copies of Star Trek. The only thing that prevented that was the fact that I got rid of them several years ago because I hadn’t watched them in many, many years.

Beer Trek is, of course, a drinking game. It’s hosted by Planet of the Geeks and bills itself as “The Greatest Star Trek Drinking Game in the Universe!” And while such boasting may be hard to prove, I certainly don’t know of a better one. It’s a standard enough take on the TV/movie watching type of drinking game, where everybody drinks whenever a certain action takes place on screen or whenever a character says a particular phrase. But with Beer Trek there appear to something on the order of 350 or more separate rules, not including footnoted rules and advanced rules, which even include meta-rules. Plus, the rules can be filtered for rules that are only good for the original series or one of the newer ones. It looks like the game has been up on the web for over ten years, but I never came across it until today. If you need a reason to drink while watching Star Trek, and lord knows it can’t hurt, this may be the perfect vehicle to make it through another viewing.

The Saturday night session of GABF always used to be the most crowded, most crazy night of the week, at least on the floor of the festival. With sold out crowds for every session, it’s no longer the most crowded, but it still retains the title of the craziest night. After a short break after the afternoon session, where the awards are handed out, the evening session begins right on time, at 5:30 p.m. Many brewery attendees don’t even go to the Saturday night session, because of its reputation, but I usually stay for as long as I can manage the crowds.

Waiting for the train to crazy town.

A sextet from San Francisco. From left: Adrienne McMullem, with 21st Amendment, Ben Spencer, from Magnolia, Sean Paxton, the homebrew chef, Ben’s wife, Shaun O’Sullivan, from 21sr Amendment, and Dave McLean, from Magnolia.

For many more photos from this year’s Great American Beer Festival Saturday night, visit the photo gallery.

People keep calling me names (or at least disparaging the things I keep writing) for pointing out the connection between John McCain and Anheuser-Busch, as if business and politics together is merely coincidental. Sorry boys and girls, but I will never believe that business intruding into politics is good for ordinary citizens or that it ever makes our lives any better. Its obvious ubiquitousness doesn’t make it any more right and is hardly a reason to give up and stop talking about it.

The problem is the contradiction between statements and actions. As Balko describes it:

McCain has never been shy about laying into what he feels are the excesses of capitalism, including the way lobbyists can bribe lawmakers to jigger the system to their liking. The problem for McCain is that the fortune he married into came by way of alcohol wholesaling, an industry that isn’t remotely free market, is awash in excess, and that wouldn’t exist were it not for rigorous system-jiggering from high-powered lobbyists.

Now I probably don’t have to tell you that I think the three-tier system does have some merits, though it has problems, too, and Balko goes on to highlight a number of those. I have many friends who work for beer distributors and most of the ones I know are hardworking, good people who have done much to raise the status of and, most importantly, the accessibility to craft beer.

The article spends most of its ink on detailing the history of how beer distributorships came into being and how they function. Many large retailers, notably Costco, would like to dismantle the three-tier system, and in fact they sued the State of Washington recently in a much-watched test case. Eventually, the court ruled against Costco in all but one of their arguments, citing a compelling state interest to regulate alcohol sales. But the fight is hardly over. Costco — and Balko — see the three-tier system as merely a way to keep a stranglehold on the pricing of alcohol and gouge customers, but that’s not entirely true, either.

The three-tier system, for all its flaws, does at least keep a relatively level playing field for all sizes of retailers, from the smallest mom and pop corner liquor store to the Costcos and Walmarts of the world. Dismantle it without a coherent new plan to regulate alcohol, as Costco vs. Washington sought to do, and a massive advantage will be given to large retailers, as well as the biggest beer companies. This would have enormous negative consequences for small, local craft brewers in gaining access to market and would likely put the brakes on thirty years of progress in re-invigorating America’s beer market, taking us from laughingstock to world leader in terms of quality and diversity in three short decades.

So what does this have to do with politics, again? Balko concludes by answering that question thusly:

But let’s get back to John McCain. What does the candidate lecturing Wall Street about greed think about the alcohol wholesaling industry? Is it fair? Should government be subsidizing (if not outright creating) an industry by forcing consumers to pay more for alcohol—for which they get little to no added value in return? And who’s greedier, the family who exploits that system to amass a small fortune, or the brokers and traders McCain derides for pursuing profits in a free market?

So is it “silly” or “unrealistic” (which are some of the gentler epithets lobbied at me) to worry that putting a President in the white house with ties to Anheuser-Busch specifically and the big alcohol lobby generally will not result in a boon for their interests? After all, businesses don’t donate money just to be good corporate citizens. There’s always some sort of quid pro quo. As Balko mentions obliquely, as a senator, McCain has usually recused “himself from federal legislation pertaining to alcohol regulation.” But if John McCain is elected President next month, he will no longer have that option. Does anybody really think his ties to A-B won’t matter under such circumstances? If not, your Kool-Aid must be better than mine, and well above 5% ABV.

Friday during GABF week, I was invited to the 2nd annual meeting of the Publican National Committee. Formed the previous year in Denver, Colorado, the group is made up of the owners of most prestigious beer bars in America. Founding members are Don Younger (Horse Brass; Portland, Oregon), Tom Peters (Monk’s Cafe; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), Dave Keene (The Toronado; San Francisco, California), Chris Black (The Falling Rock; Denver, Colorado) and Matt Bonney and Matt VandenBerghe (Brouwer’s; Seattle, Washington). Dr. Bill is also an honorary member, as a publican without a pub.

Dinner was held at Sullivan’s, a wonderful steak house in LoDo.

The meeting commenced with copious amounts of fine wine, beer and spirits.

My entree of filet mignon, smothered in blue cheese crumble with a side of lobster tail.

Each year, the PNC plans to nominate one new member. This year, Ray Deter of d.b.a. was invited to become part of the PNC, but was unable to attend because he was opening a new bar.

The assembled members of the PNC … except one. Dave Keene and Tom Peters have their arms around an invisible Don Younger, who chose not to attend this year to protest his being named president the previous year. At last year’s inaugural event, Don stayed at the bar — where smoking was still permitted — and his absence at the table resulted in his election to the highest PNC office. Don is planning on attending next year so that he can impeach himself for failing to show this year.

The assembled members, Matt Bonney, Dave Keene, Tom Peters, Matt VandenBerghe and Chris Black, without Don Younger.

The entire PNC Convention attendees. Non-members there included myself, behind Dayna Guy (of Toronto’s beer bistro). Behind her is Matt Younts (from Click Wholesale Distributing in Seattle). On the right there’s Dr. Bill. Behind Chris is Cheryl Black, and all the way in the back is Ian Roberts (also from Brouwers), Dave Keene’s better half Jennifer, and the beer chef, Bruce Paton.

The next beer dinner of the Beer Chef at the Cathedral Hill Hotel will feature something a little more unusual. Instead of one brewery’s beers, it will feature a variety of San Francisco beers paired with various local cheese and dishes made with cheese. Also on hand will be Sheana Davis of The Epicurean Connection, who will conduct “A Beer and Cheese Pairing Education.”

It will be a four-course dinner and well worth the $75 price of admission. It will be held at the Cathedral Hill Hotel on Monday, October 20, 2008, beginning with a reception at 6:30 p.m. Call 415.674.3406 for reservations as soon as possible to insure a seat at the dinner.

The Menu:

Reception: 7:00 PM

Beer Chef’s Hors D’Oeuvre Selection and Cheese Tasting

Beer: A Selection of Beers from the San Francisco Brewers Guild

Dinner: 7:30 PM

First Course

Puree of Sugar Pie Pumpkin with Gratin of Beehive Full Moon Raw Milk Cheese

Beer: Thirsty Bear Ocktobearfest

Second Course:

Napoleon of Oven Roasted Pears and Delice de la Vallee Cheese with Peppercress

Beer: Gordon Biersch Hefeweizen

Third Course:

Olive Oil Poached Duck Breast with Carbonera of Duck Confit, Hobbs Bacon and Aged Gouda

Beer: 21st Amendment Diesel (Imperial Smoked Porter)

Fourth Course:

Mac and Cheese Custard with Franklin Teleme Cheese and Fig Compote

Beer: Magnolia Deep Ellum Dubbel

 
10.20

Dinner with the Brewmaster: Cheese & Beer

Cathedral Hill Hotel, 1101 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California
415.674.3406 [ website ]
 

This is another of my slightly off-topic rants, and I hope you’ll forgive the intrusion of politics once more into what should be all about the beer, but with a very important election just around the corner I just can’t help myself. Tonight is the final debate between the two major-party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, and naturally no third-party candidates will be invited to participate in this evening’s debate.

That’s old news, but what perhaps you didn’t know is that Anheuser-Busch is one of eight major sponsors of the four debates (three presidential and one vice-presidential) through the corporate-funded, tax-exempt Commission on Presidential Debates, which essentially stole the right to stage debates from the League of Women Voters in 1988.

The first televised debates were sponsored solely by the major television networks, but in 1976 the League of Women Voters took over the debates. The League then held the next three debate cycles, through 1984. Apparently, both the Democratic and Republican parties didn’t like the League’s management of the debates, primarily because they told the parties what to do and wouldn’t cede enough control of the process to them. Frankly, that seems like the right approach to me, because as long as everyone is treated the same, how exactly is that unfair? But instead, here’s what happened, according to an account by the Center for Public Integrity.

Then, as Connie Rice, a prominent Los Angeles-based civil rights lawyer and commentator on National Public Radio, characterizes it, “The debates were hijacked.” In 1988, the two major political parties seized control — against the wishes of the League of Women Voters. The Democratic and Republican national committees argued in a joint press release that their co-sponsorship would “better fulfill our party responsibilities to inform and educate the electorate, strengthen the role of political parties in the electoral process and, most important of all . . . institutionalize the debates, making them an integral and permanent part of the presidential debate process.” Rather than trying to change the way the League ran the debates, the two national party chairmen simply “commissioned” their own “independent” debate entity — and put themselves in charge.

With that, the Commission on Presidential Debates came into existence, led by then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. and then-Republican National Committee Chairman Frank H. Fahrenkopf Jr. They hired one full-time employee, a Republican former Senate staffer named Janet Brown. The three have led the Commission since its inception, with a board of directors made up primarily of committed partisans from the two major parties. The Commission sponsors and produces the debates, picks the locations, sets the rules, selects the moderators, and determines which candidates participate.

The New York Times recently had their own take on the CPD entitled In Staging Events, Debate Commission Gets Help From Corporate America. Their account includes more about Anheuser-Busch’s participation. A-B has been a major sponsor since 1996, and they’ve been the only sponsor to contribute money to the CPD each of the last four elections. According to the Times’ article, not everybody is happy with this arrangement.

“We are very concerned,” said George Farah, executive director at Open Debates, a nonpartisan group critical of the commission. “We don’t think that this most sacred forum should be brought to you by Anheuser-Busch.”

Corporations are barred from making campaign contributions, but they can donate to the Commission on Presidential Debates, whose two co-chairmen are former heads of the two major political parties. In addition, sponsors receive tickets to the events allowing them to “hobnob with campaign staff advisers and managers who will be senior advisers in the next administration,” Mr. Farah said.

The Times’ article continues about Anheser-Busch, and A-B defends their sponsorship of the debates.

By far the most prominent backer is Anheuser-Busch, a debate sponsor since 1992. Not only does the beer company donate directly to the commission, but it also sponsors a hospitality tent at each debate, where members of the news media and others who are working can receive free food, beer and other refreshments.

“We hope our hospitality area will provide a welcome opportunity to relax with some great food and ice-cold beverages,” said an Anheuser-Busch invitation to the tent. “If you’re looking for a little entertainment, you’ll be able to watch some of our latest television spots and enter a drawing for a chance to win a Budweiser fire pit, perfect for outdoor gatherings this fall.”

Francine Katz, vice president for communications and corporate affairs at Anheuser-Busch, declined to say how much the company spent on the debates, except that it is “a very significant sum.” Compared with events like the Olympics and the political conventions, the debates offer minimal opportunities for Anheuser-Busch to promote its brand, she said.

Others have raised concerns, as well, such as media and social critic David Rosen in his piece, Debates a Sham, No Argument. Then there’s two interesting articles by Allison Kilkenny, Meet Your Debate Sponsors! and Presidential Hate Week.

With much, if not most, of Republican hopeful John McCain’s fortunes coming from his wife’s Anheuser-Busch distributorship, it’s hard to avoid speculating about what this all means, and it does seem to raise some perception issues, at the very least. I keep coming back to how easily A-B managed to get the California Trash & Trinkets bill passed earlier this year, despite overwhelming opposition and being the only beer company supporting it. With that much political clout, can there be any doubt that sponsoring the debates sends the message to all politicians that what’s good for A-B, is good for the country. And in my mind, that’s just not how democracy is supposed to work.

There was an interesting AP story by Eric Gorski, the Religion Correspondent for the Associated Press, giving his take on the Great American Beer Festival, which from the article it sounds like he attended. The article is called Finding God at a Beer Festival. It’s nice to see a positive spin from the religious community for a change.

On Thursday during GABF week, we held a reception at the Falling Rock for SF Beer Week. We served several California beers and had available SF Beer Week t-shirts and postcards to spread awareness of our event next Febrewary. Given that it was the beginning of the festival, we had a pretty decent turnout and it was a good first event. We now have t-shirts for sale, to help raise money to promote SF Beer Week. The cost is $20. If you’d like to buy one, drop me a line and I’ll arrange to get one to you.

The SF Beer Week set-up at the Falling Rock.

Rich Higgins, from Gordon Biersch in San Francisco, who took charge of getting the beer to Colorado.

Tom Dalldorf and British beer writer Tim Webb.

Notice the SF Beer Week banner on the wall.

Jessica Jones, who writes the Thirsty Hopster (top right), along with her sister (bottom left) and friends.

Me, sporting my SF Beer Week shirt, with Tim Webb.

I’m not quite sure how I feel about this, or whether I should laugh or cry. The Paul Frank stores around the country are holding voter registration drives between September 23 and October 20. That’s all well and good, and I applaud that effort. But according to the SFist (and thanks to Motor for bringing this to my attention), today (and today only apparently, from 3-6 pm), the San Francisco location (262 Sutter Street) is giving free Budweiser in exchange for you registering to vote. While beer being used to get people to vote has a long and storied history, I was fairly certain it’s frowned upon these days. Didn’t Michel Moore get into hot water for giving underwear away for the same thing? But if Paul Frank is going to get in trouble for giving away beer, I wish it was for at least a neutral or tastier beer.