Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Session #2: Dubbel Your Pleasure

By

For our second session of Beer Blogging Friday I went a little farther from home and chose an old favorite, Westmalle Dubbel. Dubbel, of course, doesn’t mean the beer is double anything, but merely that it’s stronger than the single and not as strong as the tripel. It’s all relative, meaning the strength of dubbels can vary widely. Nor should the dubbel be based on the single but is more often its own and very separate style, as opposed to an Imperial or Double IPA (which is at least based on an IPA).

Westmalle undoubtedly made the first modern dubbel shortly after World War Two, and based it on a heavier beer they began making in 1926, which itself was based on a darker beer pioneered around 1856. So there’s quite a bit of history in every sip, though I don’t know if the brewer originally had a limp or not. I make that comment in reference to a Publican article by British beer writer Ben McFarland where he essentially excoriates amateur beer snobs, going so far as to call them “condescending clowns” and other rather insulting word portraits of his vision of the classic beer snob. One of these was the beer snobs “patronising dismissal of any beer that isn’t brewed by a 16th century monk with a limp.” In a later rebuttal of sorts on Rate Beer, McFarland indicated he intended the piece to be a “light-hearted article” but also that he was trying to make the point that “beer snobs are damaging beer’s appeal by taking it too seriously.” I frankly thought his article was in fact damaging to beer enthusiasts and enthusiasm, and said so. Though I more often very much enjoy McFarland’s writing style — his piece in the new issue of the Celebrator, for example, is priceless — this one seemed more vindictive and spiteful than it did tongue-in-cheek or funny.

But Westmalle Dubbel is without question, if not a beer snob’s beer, certainly a beer for the enthusiast or aficionado rather than McFarland’s “everyday chap.” That’s too bad, really, as it should be more of an everyday beer. The monks assuredly don’t view it as anything too special, just another beer in the mix, though perhaps reserved for a particular day, Good Friday for example. But compared with so much of what passes for beer, it really is quite extraordinary.

Some form of this beer was indeed more than likely brewed in the 16th century by a Trappist monk — though the limp remains purely speculative. It was revived again during the 19th century’s industrial revolution when many Abbey breweries began to modernize and then revived yet again in its present form some sixty years ago.

Happily, I’ve got the right glass for this beer and it’s finally warmed up enough to open it. It’s quiet in my office, and I can hear the bubbles crackle as I pour it down the center to release the CO2. The tan head recedes after a couple of minutes, revealing a deep mahogany color. I grandiosely swirl the glass to enhance the aroma and inhale ostentatiously (note: in case you missed it, this last bit is sarcasm, it was a regular swirl and I used my everyday nose). The nose is sweet and malty with some underlying fruitiness — raisins? — with a hint of characteristic nuttiness. The first sip is a jolt of sweetness with a raisiny, prune-like character. In subsequent tastes, the beer dances on my tongue with a pleasant effervescence. The malt character continues to change with time and chocolate notes become more common, as do tiny hints of banana and some kind of berry or fig that I can’t quite put my finger on. The finish is clean and dry.

Westmalle’s Tripel deservedly gets a lot of attention, in the manner of a favorite son or daughter. But the dubbel is no Jan Brady, and has plenty of secret and not-so-secret admirers, of which I am unabashedly one. I’m sure I’m not the only person who will write about this beer today, as it is one of the truly great dubbels around.

But back to this question of beer snobs and how taking themselves too seriously might be “damaging beer’s appeal.” Westmalle’s Dubbel is, I think, a perfect example of a beer worthy to be taken seriously. Should that fact be off-putting to the novice or uninitiated? Must I tone down my enthusiasm for this beer so as not to scare off “potential drinkers?” Frankly, if anyone won’t try a Westmalle Dubbel because I waxed too lyrically about it or used “absurd verbal acrobatics” to describe it, then that person wasn’t ready yet anyway. I want to bring people over to the cause of better beer at least as much as McFarland does, possibly even more so, but I don’t think discouraging or disparaging a beer geek who’s stepped over the line into snobbery is a very helpful or effective tactic.

Like it or not, the people McFarland so disdains are the very people who can and will carry the message of good beer in their own personal missions. Will they always carry out their missionary work in a way we’d like, in the way we might do it, or even in a way that brings honor to the cause? Probably not, and at least not all the time.

But maybe, just maybe, those of us in the public eye as brewers or beer writers didn’t always know as much as we do today. Perhaps we once were empty vessels waiting to be filled, too. As I learned about better beer and began homebrewing, I tried to talk to anyone and everyone I knew about how good this stuff was, especially compared to the popular bile of the day. Did I make mistakes, overstep myself beyond what I really knew or make a fool of myself. Why yes, yes, I did. Was I a beer snob? Yes, from time to time I was insufferably so. Thank goodness nobody gave me the advice to just “shut up and drink it.” Because over time I learned more and more and made a fool of myself less and less. And I have personally introduced better beer to scores of people, who are today telling two friends, who in turn will tell two more, and so on and so on, dubbeling our pleasure at every turn.

Budvar to Privatize

By

Czech brewer Budejovicky Budvar — from the Bohemian town of Budweis — announced today that it will be transformed into a joint-stock company as the first step toward privatization. Currently, Budvar (whose beers are marketed in the U.S. under the name Czechvar) is a state-owned company.

Agriculture Minister Petr Gandalovic, whose ministry controls Budvar, also said today that privatization will depend largely on any outcome in the long-standing trademark dispute with Anheuser-Busch, whose beer brand “Budweiser” was inspired by the town of Budweis. The speculation is that this move, along with several other proposed similar privatizations of other nationally held companies, is being taken to assist the government in dealing with a recent budget crisis.

Greene King Visits the Clue Farm

By

The Publican is reporting that Greene King is going to subject its decision to remove the locally brewed Harvey’s Best Bitter from the Lewes Arms to an “internal review” where most expect that decision to be reversed. Though no timetable has been set, Harveys will once more be sold at the pub most likely within the next few weeks.

From the Publican article:

Adam Collett, marketing director for Greene King’s managed pubs, acknowledged his company had “underestimated the strength of feeling which led to many locals boycotting what was once a great British pub. As a result, it has lost some of its character and greatness.”

Although he defended Greene King’s right to remove the beer from the pub “and, where we choose, not to sell rival beers”, he admitted the group “did not fully appreciate its special position in Lewes as the former ‘Brewery Tap’, or take into account its history and traditions”.

Sure they did, just a simple misunderstanding. They’ve been completely belligerent and intractable throughout this episode, to say now that they just didn’t “fully appreciate” how locals felt about their local beer is more spin control. They knew exactly what they were dealing with from almost the beginning, but they believed they could outlast the boycott and they also didn’t count on the publicity the story generated. The PR backlash was so bad that it probably led to former marketing director Mark Angela leaving over his handling of what became a “public relations nightmare” and the restructuring of the managed pubs division. Collett, who replaced him, was undoubtedly tasked with fixing the Lewes problem. Naturally, Greene King denies this scenario. It was just a coincidence is what they’ll probably say. I guess Angela just wanted to spend more time with his family, that’s a common reason given by exiting executives.

Notice that even within the conciliatory reversal of position, Greene King retains the bullying language that they will do whatever they want and “where [they] choose, [will] not [to] sell rival beers.” To me that signals a company desperately wanting to fix its negative public image but without changing its corporate culture in any meaningful way. They may have bought a clue in this particular instance, but it probably won’t help them if they face similar opposition at another location.

I’m certainly happy for the people of Lewes who fought for their local heritage. Getting a big company to see reason and be a better corporate citizen is no easy feat. It’s proof once more that sufficiently motivated groups of organized people can successfully challenge institutions, and that makes the world a slightly less depressing place. Congratulations to the Friends of the Lewes Arms. Next time I’m across the pond, I’d like to stop in the Lewes Arms and have myself a pint of Harveys.

Alabama Maintains Image of Backwardness?

By

I saw a blog post the other day that made me chuckle by a young entrepreneurial businessman who believes that the finest beers in the world come from Redhook and Pyramid, not that there’s anything wrong with them. But he begins his post with something to the effect that most people don’t think of San Diego as a place to find good beer. You’d have to have gotten stuck drinking beers from 1987 to not notice that San Diego has one of the most vibrant beer cultures anywhere in world, and a handful of breweries there have literally redefined hoppy beers. But what does that have to do with Alabama? Nothing, really, except that in my mind it would be hard to find a place I perceive as more backward, beer-wise at least, as Alabama. It’s a beautiful state and I’ve been through it twice, though I confess that I didn’t stay long. There homebrewing is still not legal, despite federal legalization in 1978! Brewpubs were only very recently made legal there, albeit still under limited circumstances.

In 1937, four years after Prohibition ended, when Alabama reluctantly passed the Alcoholic Beverages Control Act, beer finally became legal again in the Yellowhammer State. Having convinced business owners that if they allowed workers to drink beer over 5% abv (6% today) or in packages larger than one pint that productivity would suffer. And that means approximately 98 of the top-rated 100 beers on Beer Advocate are still illegal in Alabama because they’re either too strong or in a bottle too large, or in some cases both. That’s assuming you live in county that’s not “dry,” meaning no alcohol can be produced, sold or distributed. Approximately one out of every three is dry, with 26 of Alabama’s 67 counties designated dry. There are also some “wet cities” within the dry counties and draft only areas in the state, along with a maze of Sunday laws, too, according to the state’s ABC website.

An excellent grassroots non-profit organization, “Free the Hops,” has been working tirelessly to bring Alabama kicking and screaming into the 21st century. They created a bill, SB 211 (which passed in the Senate), and in the House, HB 1195, with Representative Thomas Jackson (D-Thomasville) sponsoring the bill.

Unfortunately, according to the Decatur Daily, it was defeated yesterday by failing to get the necessary two-thirds votes. The main reason cited in the article was that old canard, “the children.”

Here’s a sample of the genius thinking of Alabama’s elected officials:

“I can’t see us doing something that’s going to encourage people to drink more and get drunk faster,” said Rep. DuWayne Bridges, D-Valley. Bridges said the measure would increase the problem of teenagers drinking by making more potent brew available to them. “Our children don’t need to increase their alcohol consumption,” Bridges said.

Rep. Richard Laird, D-Roanoke, said young people would still find a way to drink the stronger beer. “The only thing this bill will do is just get our young people dead a whole lot faster,” Laird said.

I find it quite amazing that these so-called representatives of the people are so willing to completely ignore the right and wishes of every adult in the state in order to reduce the possibility that one of these extreme beers might fall into the hands of a minor. If that’s the logic, do all wines and spirits likewise have to be 5% abv or less? They don’t, of course, and it’s the usual hypocrisy where beer is demonized while the higher alcohol drinks do not face the same obstacles.

As anyone with an ounce of common sense and even a little experience with beer will tell you, the complex flavors of big beers do not appeal to younger palates. If they want to get drunker quicker they’ll gravitate toward sweeter wines or mixable liquor, both of which are already legal in the state. All this prohibition accomplishes is restricting Alabama adults from the full enjoyment of a product that’s readily available to most of the rest of the world, in effect punishing their own citizens.

This is not the best way to live. When you go too far in trying to protect children that you infringe on the rights of your adult population you’ve jumped into the deep end of fanaticism. I’m sure the feeling is mutual, but I’m certainly glad I don’t live in a place that’s more concerned about what it’s kids could get their hands on than the rights of its adult population.

But there is a silver lining. According to “Free the Hops” and a comment posted by a friend at the BA, news of the bill’s demise may be premature. Here’s how Free the Hops explains it:

HB195 did not make the floor for a vote today. An odd little corner of our constitution known as the Budget Isolation Resolution (BIR) kept our bill off the floor. More on that later, but in a nutshell, our state constitution mandates that at any point before the legislature has passed a state budget, every bill must first pass a BIR vote before it goes for a “real” vote. And while a bill can pass a “real” vote with a simple majority, it must pass a BIR vote with a 3/5 majority. In other words, you need MORE votes to pass a BIR than you need to pass the floor. Therefore, even though we had a solid majority of votes today, it was not sufficient to pass the BIR, and thus we never made the House floor.

Especially surprising and troubling was that certain Representatives who told their constituents they would support HB195 voted “No” on the BIR today. They voted against us. They lied to their constituents. This is a deep matter I will explore in depth, and tirelessly so. I will not rest until the truth is exposed. The fact that AL Representatives lied to their constituents about how they would vote on a particular bill is a matter far bigger than the Gourmet Beer Bill.

Realize that our House bill was not killed. It can still be put back on the calendar and we can get another shot. If we can convince a handful of today’s “NO” votes to abstain or vote yes, this is worthwhile. We are FAR from finished this year.

There are a LOT of questions floating around. A lot of emotions. A lot of comments. A lot of fact-based thoughts. A lot of everything for those of us who started this day thinking we’d see HB195 pass the House. I simply don’t have time to answer every question and address every comment. There is too much to be done.

But know this: I am more energetic and more committed than I have ever been to seeing the 6% limit raised.

Our House bill was not killed today; it simply did not make the floor for a vote. Our Senate bill is still very alive. Our local bills are still very alive. We just have a lot of work to do, me especially. And the result will be over 6% beer hitting the shelves somewhere in Alabama in 2007. We are FAR from finished this year.

So why did the Decatur Daily report that the bill had been defeated? Good question, perhaps Associated Press Writer “Billy” Bob Johnson or the newspaper is against the bill, who knows? I hate to sound the conspiracy gong so early, but it’s more than a little odd. It’s either that or an example of some pretty shoddy reporting.
 

UPDATE NOTE 4.6: This post has been substantially updated thanks to the comment from Bradley. Thanks for that.

Sam Adams to Be Made in the Glass-Lined Tanks of Old Latrobe

By

The big story yesterday, reported by practically everybody, is that the Boston Beer Co. — makers of Samuel Adams beers — have signed a contract with City Brewing of Wisconsin to brew Sam Adams beer at the newly acquired Latrobe Brewery. It appears the relationship between Boston Beer Co. and City Brewing on this project will be some form of partnership, with Jim Koch’s company kicking in between three and seven million dollars to upgrade the Pennsylvania facility. In addition, “the parties are discussing the potential of Boston Beer having an ownership interest in the brewing facility.”

The parties expect the brewery to be up and running again in the second quarter, which means anytime over the next three months, and possibly as soon as next month. Happily, around 250 brewery employees should finally be back at work after InBev’s sale of the Rolling Rock brand — but not the Latrobe brewery — to Anheuser-Busch for $82 million closed the plant last July. Anheuser-Busch declined to buy the brewery and moved production to its facility in Newark, New Jersey, where it’s been brewing Rolling Rock for almost a year. Curiously, Boston Beer was one of the leading contenders in last year’s rumor mills surrounding who might buy the threatened Latrobe brewery and save it from closure. Federal, state and local officials and politicians worked tirelessly with InBev to find a buyer and rumored potential suitors also included Pittsburgh Brewing, Sierra Nevada and Yuengling before City Brewing bought it for an undisclosed amount.

Boston Beer’s co-packing contract with Miller is set to expire in October of next year, so this is seen by financial analysts as putting to rest any long-term concerns about meeting rising product demand. Sales volume increased 17% last year. Boston Beer President and CEO Martin Roper indicated that the Latrobe deal gives Sam Adams “increased flexibility” and they chose Latrobe brewery in part because of its heritage. As a result, yesterday afternoon shares of Boston Beer rose 66 cents to $33.74.

Samuel Adams has also been pursuing a property in Freetown, Massachusetts to build a brewery from scratch. According to company spokeswoman Michelle Sullivan. “’We’ve signed a purchase and sale on the site,’ Sullivan said, adding the company has also hired consultants to look into building plans.” Boston Beer also owns the Hudepohl-Schoenling in Cincinnati, Ohio and a smaller pilot brewery in Jamaica Plain, a little southwest of their headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts.

Craft Brewers Pour into Austin in Two Weeks

By

Austin to Host Conference on Craft Beer

Boulder, Colo. • In mid-April Austin will be flooded with flavorful craft beer and the brewers who make it. That’s when the Brewers Association, the not-for-profit trade association for America’s small brewers, will hold its annual professional conference. Craft brewers from across the country will pour into Austin to attend the Craft Brewers Conference, the brewing industry’s largest gathering in North America. Attendance is expected to exceed 1,600.

Austinites will benefit from this surge of beer culture with public events at local venues featuring special beers on tap, craft beer-paired dinners and good elbow-rubbing time with the royalty of craft brewers. “Austin is a city rich in craft beer culture and we look forward to bringing the industry together in such a beer-friendly town,” said Cindy Jones, Marketing Director for the Brewers Association.

Today, sales of craft beers — beer made by small, independent and traditional brewers — are at an all-time high. 2006 marked an 11.7% increase for the category totaling a retail sales figure of $4.2 billion and 3.2% share by volume of the beer market with over 6.65 million taxable production in barrels. America’s craft beers are now a world-class brand being emulated and talked about globally.

“Having the Craft Brewers Conference come to Austin is a fantastic opportunity for the local brewers to showcase our beers,” says Chip McElroy of Live Oak Brewing Co. “We Austinites are proud of our town and the local things we have produced — especially music and beer. We just had the SXSW music conference in town, now bring on the brewers!”
 

Events open to the public include:
 

Event: American Homebrewers Association Rally
Presented by: Independence Brewing Company
Date/Time: Sunday, April 15, 3-6 pm
Location: 3913 Todd Lane #607, Austin, TX
Contact: 303-447-0816 x 123
Cost: Free for American Homebrewers Association (AHA) members or $33 for non-members– which includes a 1 year membership to the AHA!
To kick off the Craft Brewers Conference and support the American Homebrewers Association, Independence is hosting a rally. There will be special guest speakers, brewery tours, raffle prizes, complimentary beer tasting…and to top it all off, they’ll be pouring an experimental beer they’ve been working on. Visit the website for more details. www.independencebrewing.com
 

Event: American Beer Feast
Presented by: Alamo Drafthouse Lakecreek
Date/Time: Thursday, April 19 @ 7:30 p.m.
Location: 13729 Research Blvd., Austin
Contact: 512-219-8135
Showing of “American Beer”, the movie, with director Paul Kermizian and many other special guests. Ticket price includes pre-show appetizers and a three-course craft beer meal (many great beers) to accompany the film.
Cost: Admission is $65 and includes entrance, meal and beer. Guaranteed to be a special evening. Visit the website for more details. www.drafthouse.com/lakecreek/frames.asp
 

Event: Zax Pints and Plates Beer Dinner
Presented by: Zax Pints and Plates
Date/Time: Thursday, April 19 @ 7:00 p.m.
Location: 312 Barton Springs, Austin
Contact: 512-481-0100
Join your friends at Zax Pints and Plates for a 4 course beer and food pairing featuring fine ales and lagers from Victory Brewing Company. Space is limited so make reservations early.
Cost: Open to the public. Admission is $45.
Call 512-481-0100 for more information and reservations. www.zaxaustin.com
 

Event: John Langford Live and in effect!
Presented by: Opal Divines Austin Grill (Penn Field)
Date/Time: Friday, April 20 @ 7:00 p.m.
Location: 3601 South Congress Street. Austin
Contact: 512- 707-0237
A free concert and short film featuring the music of John Langford and featuring Dogfish Head Craft brewed ales.
 

Be sure and visit craft beer hotspots in the Austin area open year-round: Blue Star Brewing, Draught House Pub and Brewery, Fredericksburg Brewing Co, Independence Brewing, Live Oak Brewing, Lovejoys Taproom and Brewery, North by Northwest Restaurant and Brewery, Real Ale Brewing Co. Visit beertown.org for a complete list of breweries by state and city.

For more information about the conference visit www.CraftBrewersConference.com. The Craft Brewers Conference is open to brewing industry professionals and media only.

Hay Fever Symptoms Lessened By Drinking Beer

By

According to Dr. Daniel More, a new study of persons with pollen allergies shows a decrease in sneezing (60%), runny nose (55%) as well as allergy symptoms generally from drinking Sapporo beer.

From Sapporo:

Sapporo Breweries Ltd, the company that makes Sapporo beer, has found that their beer is useful in treating allergic rhinitis symptoms because of the presence of hop flavonol glycosides, a natural anti-histamine. The company plans to also study the effects of beer on allergy symptoms related to dust exposure.

Snobs, Geeks and a Pinch of Hypocrisy

By

A Bulletin reader (thanks Garrett) sent me this article by Ben McFarland from the British trade magazine, the Publican. McFarland is a two-time recipient of the title, “Beer Writer of the Year,” an honor bestowed on him by the British Guild of Beer Writers. If you’re in America you probably haven’t heard of him, because he writes primarily in England and in trade magazines, rather than consumer publications.

I recently invited him and some colleagues to join me in judging Imperial IPAs at the Bistro’s annual Double IPA Festival. He seemed an affable enough chap, though I didn’t get a chance to talk with him at length. He was in America working on a CAMRA book for British tourists wanting to visit our west coast beer scene. So I confess I was more than a little surprised by the tone of this recent article, “Look out for the beer snobs.” I think my first reaction was something along the lines of worry. As in, oh dear, did he recently suffer a blow to the head?

This is a subject somewhat near and dear to me, as I only recently wrote an article on beer geeks for the new Beer Advocate magazine. Since I use words on a daily basis, like any writer, I probably pay more attention to them, their meanings and how they’re used than the more normal person does. As a result, I became fascinated by the uses of the terms “beer geek” and “beer snob.”

The origin of snob, for example:

Originally, a snob was someone who made shoes, a cobbler, before migrating to a person of the lower classes who wants to move up and then on to its present meaning of a person who places too much emphasis on status or “a person who believes that their tastes in a particular area are superior to others.”

Occasionally, you hear beer fanatic, beer enthusiast, beer aficionado or hophead, but for me they never seem to quite strike the right chord. Despite my personal feeling that a new term needs coining, geek still appears to be the preferred term. Quoting myself, again:

Most of us prefer to be known simply as beer geeks though, oddly enough, the word geek meant originally a fool and later referred to the lowest rung of circus performer, one who may even have bitten the heads off of live chickens, as popularized in a 1946 novel, “Nightmare Alley,” by William Gresham, about the seedy world of traveling carnivals. In that book, to be a “geek” was to be so down and out that you’d do virtually anything to get by, no matter how distasteful or vile.

Like many old words that were primarily derogatory, its meaning has now been turned on its head. Beginning probably with the original new nerd, the computer geek, it was taken back as a source of pride. So today there are band geeks, computer geeks, science geeks, film geeks, comics geeks, history geeks and Star Wars geeks, to name only a few, all of them proud to call themselves geek, because of the shared passion that is so central to its modern meaning. Today a geek is an obsessive enthusiast, often single-mindedly accomplished, yet with a lingering social awkwardness, at least outside the cocoon of their chosen form of geekdom.

But while there may be some general disagreement about the preferred term to call ourselves, most would agree, I think, that geek is the more gentle term and snob more derisive. At least all my anecdotal research seems to suggest that. I find that I’m most often a beer geek but consider that when I veer into obnoxiousness — oh, yes, it happens more often than I’d like — that I’m acting like a snob. For me, that seems the general distinction though there are certainly times I feel just as proudly snobbish as geeky.

Given that McFarland is by all accounts a good writer, he begins his little screed by admitting that although “beer is undoubtedly a truly wonderful drink there’s really no need to wax quite so lyrical.” “Quite so lyrical?” Quite so lyrical as whom? Who gets to decide how far is too far? Ben McFarland? Are we all to use his gauge of what is gong too far, because he offers no other or more general rules of thumb by which to police ourselves. Is Stephen Beaumont, Fred Eckhardt or Michael Jackson’s writing too flowery, too imbued with nuance or introspection? Do we who take money for our words get a pass for being lyrical or is everyone so cautioned? Or is he simply taking a cue from the Mike Seate playbook of inflammatory journalism where it’s enough to simply be outrageous without really being able to back it up? Where it’s enough to simply wind people up and watch the hit counts soar.

McFarland continues:

Beer, thankfully, has always lacked wine’s academic airs. Beer is the solace of the everyday chap and, quite frankly, can’t be doing with such excessive introspection. OK, so beer education is important, but there’s never been and still isn’t such a thing as a ‘Master of Beer’. Quite right too — anything that requires holding a pen or scratching a chin is using a hand that could be clutching a pint.

There’s a difference between academic airs and being able to describe how something tastes — no easy feat — by just grunting. He seems to be suggesting that beer writers must stick to unlyrical terms or else he’s saying we should say nothing at all. And that helps who exactly? And as for this “solace of the everyday chap” bullshit, I am sick to death of this insulting argument. Mass-produced beer-like industrial products may indeed be the drink of a large portion of the masses, but that’s not the only thing beer is. Beer is not just one thing. It’s not the same to every person, nor should it be.

He goes on:

That’s not to say that beer is entirely without its pomp and pretentiousness. As beer has climbed the social drinking ladder, so too has the number of self-important beer snobs whose lexicon is becoming increasingly ludicrous.

You know the type: grandiose swirling of the glass; ostentatious inhalations; unnecessarily opaque and absurd verbal acrobatics; haughty guffawing at the word ‘lager’; and patronising dismissal of any beer that isn’t brewed by a 16th century monk with a limp.

We all apparently know the type he’s referring to:

  1. grandiose swirling of the glass: By all means, let’s not swirl the glass to release aromas. That wouldn’t be cricket apparently, especially not for the everyday chap. Let’s keep those aromas locked inside. Good plan. Or perhaps it’s just the “grandiosity” he objects to. If so, I’ll have to watch my swirling arm very carefully for fear of descending into the realm of a circus freak. I wonder where the point is where swirling becomes “grandiose?”
  2. ostentatious inhalations: Uh, oh. We’ve got the same problem here. When does smelling the beer become too ostentatious for Ben? I won’t be able to sleep tonight if I risk upsetting his delicate sensibilities of smelling propriety
  3. unnecessarily opaque and absurd verbal acrobatics: Again, who gets to decide when a description is too dull or unintelligent or when the words turn absurd.
  4. haughty guffawing at the word ‘lager’: This must be a British thing, because I’ve never heard anyone guffaw haughtily or otherwise.
  5. patronising dismissal of any beer that isn’t brewed by a 16th century monk with a limp: Sure the limp is important, but I think anyone who’s been dead for five centuries would probably have a limp of some kind. I know McFarland’s merely waxing poetic to make a point, albeit a labored, somewhat unnecessarily opaque one, and therein lies the rub, and the pinch of hypocrisy.

And on:

The fact of the matter is, these condescending clowns are, so far as I can tell, incapable of describing what’s in their mouth or on their nose with any degree of accuracy.

Hmm, now that sounds like “a person who believes that their tastes in a particular area are superior to others.” Because in order to so definitively know that such people are “incapable of describing what’s in their mouth or on their nose with any degree of accuracy” one would have to be a snob, wouldn’t one?

And that’s why this whole things seems laced with hypocrisy on several fronts. First, most beer writers, McFarland included, simply by virtue of doing so much tasting over time probably do have better palates than the “everyday chap” who sticks to one brand his whole life. So that alone makes him something of a snob already, even without the disdain.

Then there’s the desire to keep beer descriptions simple and without lyrical prose. Clearly, any description of anything can go so far in trying to be clever that its meaning is obfuscated … sorry, becomes unclear. Does that mean we should only use short, simple one-syllable words in our descriptions, only describe a beer by comparing it to another beer, or dumb it down for the “everyday chap” he assumes the reader to be? To me, that seems a huge mistake that takes us back several steps. There should be beginner’s books that use simple terms for the inexperienced but a developed palate demands better, more thorough descriptions that also include the beer’s more subtle complexities. Not all sports writing assumes the reader knows nothing, but is written for different levels of understanding in different contexts. The same is true for business writing in the evening paper versus a business magazine, or even in USA Today versus the Financial Times. The writing is tuned to the presumed sophistication of the average reader. Since McFarland admits that “beer has climbed the social drinking ladder” (a condescending remark if ever there was one) why would anyone think the way beer is talked about or written about would not change, too? That he finds the beer snob’s “lexicon is becoming increasingly ludicrous” is entirely his own problem.

Then let’s not forget the irony of the initial complaint that “[w]hile beer is undoubtedly a truly wonderful drink there’s really no need to wax quite so lyrical” as he proceeds to wax this way and that way throughout the article. Using phrases like “ostentatious inhalations” for sniffing or “unnecessarily opaque” for dull or unintelligent is not waxing lyrical? McFarland may indeed be a terrific writer who uses, ironically, very lyrical prose. I just wish he’d come up with something more constructive to write. I feel like I’m attacking a colleague and it causes me no small amount of pain to do so. So Ben, if you ever do read this, I’m truly sorry but I felt it necessary to write this strong rebuttal. Perhaps I went to far, but as reasonable men may differ, I sincerely believe your words are damaging to the idea that beer is worthy of respect in how it’s enjoyed, perceived and talked about. That it’s discussed at all in print and in the pub is why you and I have a job. I don’t always agree with the way people talk or write about beer, either, but I’m content that they are.

McFarland ends his piece with this final thought.

Sure, beer is just as complex as wine in its aromas and flavours but let’s just shut up and drink it, shall we?

Good idea. You first.

Beer Sampling Coming to Wisconsin

By

Surprisingly, in the great state of Wisconsin — okay, you caught me, I’m a Packers fan — retail stores can sample customers on wine, but not beer. But now Assembly Bill 122 is winding its way through the state legislature. So far it has “passed unanimously out of the Senate Affairs Committee and will be scheduled soon for a full floor vote.” If passed, beer retailers will be able to sample customers on two 3-oz. samples.

Retailers and small breweries will benefit most if the bill becomes law, because it will greatly increase opportunities for consumers to try new products, possibly for the first time. Regular Bulletin readers will not be shocked to learn that not everyone is so thrilled about the proposed law. To wit, from an article in the Green Bay Press Gazette.

But some in law enforcement and alcohol abuse prevention fear it’s bad public policy.

Wisconsin has the highest rate of binge drinkers in the country.

“There are a lot of places in our community for people to get a drink,” said Portage County District Attorney Tom Eagon. “People with alcohol issues can’t stop at one or two. One of the ways they deal with their problem is to avoid situations where they will be tempted. A grocery store should be a safe place.”

“A grocery store should be a safe place?!?” What the hell does that even mean? Safe for whom? People who can responsibly enjoy a 3-oz. sample of beer should be punished because others can’t? Does that make any sense? This is the mentality that passes for law enforcement? Let’s restrict all citizens because some people abuse themselves. What great policy thinking. It would appear Mr. Eagon has never been to a bar, because he suggests that having a sample is the same as any of the other “places in our community for people to get a drink.” I’m not entirely sure he understands what sampling is, but I’m certainly glad he’s not looking out for my best interests.

Then, of course, there’s the inevitable “it’s for the kids” gambit.

Some argue, however, that having beer available at the grocery store sends the wrong message to kids shopping with their parents.

“The environment we create for our young people is critical to their long-term health,” said Lauri Rockman, the coordinator of Portage County’s Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention. “We need positive adult modeling. Making alcohol part of a trip to the grocery store is just another way to make it so pervasive and casual in our culture.”

Yes, by all means we wouldn’t want our kids seeing “positive adult modeling” that involves alcohol. She’s fallen into her own neo-prohibitionist trap that sees all behavior involving alcohol as inherently negative. It’s impossible for her to recognize that an experience with alcohol could be positive. But it’s just as reasonable to argue that Wisconsin may have the highest “rate of binge drinkers” (though I can’t imagine how you could accurately measure such a claim) precisely because kids never see adults engaged in responsible, moderate drinking.

And the most egregious part of these nay-sayer’s arguments is that they all fail to account for the fact that in Wisconsin it’s already legal to sample wine and yet none of these predicted problems have come to pass. Groceries are already not safe from wine and kids already see wine pervasively and casually as part of a trip to the grocery store. Has the sky fallen as a result? Let’s take a look outside the window. Nope, it’s still there.

What this does illustrate quite starkly, however, is the very different perceptions people hold about wine vs. beer. Wine, on average, has almost three times the percentage of alcohol as beer, yet there are no (or at least) less perceived societal problems associated with it. Beer, on the other hand, is continually demonized as the root of all evil. The way to change that perception should be simple, and allowing sampling should be a good step toward such change. But that also assumes that beer is not under constant attack which, with so many neo-prohibitionists at work today, it so often seems to be.

Whenever there’s a potentially positive story about alcohol, such as this one, it is undermined. Allowing sampling increases awareness, education and possibly the availability of non-binge beers (because no one’s going to be sampling Corona). That would increase the market share of craft beer and better imports, beers which generally speaking are less prone to quaffing at huge frat parties. This in turn, could lead to more responsible drinking and a lowering of Wisconsin’s binge-drinking statistical infamy. So that should make this a story to be celebrated, shouldn’t it? Yet of the article’s 472-word count, 281 of them — or just under 60% — are given over to people and groups voicing objections instead of examining the positive aspects. I’m sure the newspaper is just trying to be fair and balanced in their reporting. But if that’s true, why doesn’t every negative beer article give the other side of that story? Because there are plenty of responsible, upstanding citizen beer drinkers. We just never hear about them.