Roseville (Calif.) DUI Crackdown

The city I live in is not the City of Angels, but it ain't a bad town. The streets are generally safe,drug use is about the same as any other city in America and crime isn't much of an issue - mainly idiots being idiots. That said the city of Roseville has seen an increase in the number of alcohol related accidents over the past few years, even as general traffic incidents have declined. I for one don't exactly buy into the numbers they tout, seems like any time there's a fender bender and the driver has had a drink in the past few hours it become 'alcohol related' - maybe I'm just seeing things funny though.

Regardless, Roseville has built up a pretty good case for needing to crack down on drunk driving... well, driving by those with a BAC of 0.08% or more anyway. Their grand idea? DUI Checkpoints, and lots of them. For some time now the local news outlets get press releases from the Roseville Police Dept. announcing a checkpoint coming up - so be careful. Most recently (Saturday) the RPD teamed up with law enforcement officials from FOUR other agencies (other local Police Dept. and County Sheriff's Office) to do one of these high profile stops. The results?

Cars Stopped: 2,500
DUI Arrests: 11

Forgive my ignorance for a few moments, but this seems absolutely ridiculous! I don't know exactly how many law enforcement officers were involved in this spectacle, but I suspect it was too many. Is this what we've come to expect from our law enforcement, a group of uniformed officers who set up camp and wait for the bad guys to come to them?

Oh, if you've not seen a DUI Checkpoint before, or been through one, they're pretty hard to miss and can often be seen many many blocks before you are confronted by a cop. Lights, more lights, with a bit of light added to make it safe. It's no wonder the arrest count was low.

Maybe the cops just don't know. As someone who goes to many bars around the country I've figured out that if there's heavy law enforcement in an area near the bar in question, the early-out folks are very quick to text a buddy in the bar pointing out just where a checkpoint is located. Within a few minutes, word gets to the barkeep and most patrons. It may sound bad for the dry folks, but it's just the way it works.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like drunken fools behind a wheel of a big metal moving object, but I also don't think the folks nabbed at checkpoints are the people I'm most worried about. No, instead I worry about the people who can't drive straight and have troubles remembering where that damned brake pedal is. Ironically, I've seen quite a few of these in my city with nary a cop to see it. These people may be sopped in alcohol, but they know it. They see cars stopping ahead, they get off the road... at least that road.

So, what to do? We can't encourage cops to come into bars and pull folks out who've been enjoying the juke box and beers all night - although they're trying to. We can't throw out our liberties to catch people that may or may not need to be caught (I do have issue with the 0.08 BAC limit, by the way) - what about the 1489 sober drivers this weekend? There simply isn't a cut and dry fix for the solution, but I do think we need to have a national conversation about this - along with the drinking age - and figure something out.

Quick story. I had a boss once from Norway. Apparently there the rules are rigid and the penalties swift. That said, there's also a touch of common sense. As it was told to me if you blow over the country's quite low BAC limit, but maybe just by a bit, you're allowed to sit for 30 minutes and blow again. If you're still over that limit, then you're in trouble - the thought being if you can be under 30 minutes later you weren't all that drunk to begin with. Now what if we kept the nation's .08 limit and instituted such a ruling? After all, my breathalyzer (yes, I own and use one) tells me in the instructions that I need to stop drinking 20 minutes before using to get an accurate test.

I don't want to seem to be disrespecting police, I honestly admire the work they do and am happy someone is there in those rare instances I need them. If anything I would like to see them allowed to police my city, not stand guard on a busy corner to administer a breath test for motorists that just want to get home.

Detecting a Theme

Have you seen the news, read stories online or just stuck your head outside lately? If so, you'll certainly know that the nation's economy isn't growing as fast as it once was. In fact, some say the economy is going in the wrong direction. With this we're seeing a lot of states finding themselves in a shortfall, fiscally. In California a few weeks back a state legislator, Jim Beall, figured a sure-fire way to help the budget would be an astronomical tax increase on beer. (Funny thing about Jim, I heard him recently on the news, he was shocked that he had such a negative response - apparently one constituent threatened to beat him up. I wouldn't suggest violence as a protest, but it was clear he was getting the word.)

Today there's a new guy making the news with his supposed tax fix. Gov. Mike Easely, of North Carolina, wants to raise funds for teacher pay increases and a boost to the state's mental health program. To do this he is proposing an increase on the state's "sin taxes" for cigarettes and alcohol. The cigarette tax revenue would go toward the teachers funds and the alcohol revenue to the mental health program. Here's his breakdown:

• 4 Cents more per bottle of beer
• 3 Cents more per bottle of wine
• 4 Cents more per bottle of liquor
• 20 Cents more per pack of cigarettes

One thing jumps out, a penny less for a bottle of wine compared to a bottle of beer. Beer is mostly sold in 12-ounce bottles, whereas wine is sold mostly in 750ml. Wine typically has a much higher ABV than beer, too. There is no way you can convince me this is a proportionate burden, in fact I'd suggest that the beer drinker is having it stuck to him pretty good on this.

The other thing that jumps out is the whole notion that only those who enjoy alcohol or tobacco are being asked to help with the state's teachers and mental health system. I guess I'll never really get this, punishing adults who legally enjoy a drink or smoke, making them shoulder the load as a quick fix for a state's budget. If there are programs that will benefit the entire state, why not suggest we all pay for them? I mean, I know why not, but really, how does this even make sense to anyone? You want your kids' teachers to have a pay raise, pay for it. You want the state's mental health division to be better? Pay for that too. It isn't as though teachers are making less because there are smokers in the state, and the mental heath workers aren't understaffed because the people of North Carolina enjoy a drink or two.

I assume we'll see a lot more of this in the coming year. Even this morning's Brew Blog (by Miller) warns of a national excise tax war that will be waged in 2009, something that came out of the National Wholesalers convention in DC. I've stated before that my concerns are two-fold. First, I worry that we'll say nothing, assuming the taxes won't increase, or that their increase is simply inevitable. Second, I worry that legislators will propose astronomical tax increases in hopes that there will be a 'compromise', where we'll give up more than we ought to because it just sounds better than the original idea.

Brew Dog vs. Portman Group

Clearly I am not intimately familiar with the issues here, but I have run across some of Brew Dog's beers lately and found them interesting, in that good kind of way. Apparently they're in a bit of trouble over their offensive labels, which is I guess where the Portman Group comes in. Below is the list of offenses Portman Group has listed with Brew Dog over these labels.

PIPC considered Rip Tide to be in potential breach of Code rule 3.2b for the following reason:“The product is described as a “twisted merciless stout” associating its consumption with anti-social behaviour”

PIPC considered Hop Rocker to be in potential breach of Code rule 3.2j for the following reason“Description of the product includes ‘nourishing foodstuff’ and ‘magic is still there to be extracted from this drink’ implying it could enhance mental or physical capabilities”

PIPC considered Punk IPA to be in potential breach of Code rule 3.2b for the following reason:“This product is described as an “aggressive beer” thus associating its consumption with anti-social behaviour”

Anti-social? Man, these guys are picky, seems more picky than our own label approving body. I gather that the Portman Group will also be advising retailers to not sell Brew Dog products because of these label offenses. I have each of these beers here in my house right now, not one of them appears offensive in the least. I'll need to do some homework on these guys and figure out what Portman's is up to, and why they seem to have it out for Brew Dog and their fun marketing.

According to their own website, Portman Group is:

"concerned solely with the social responsibility issues surrounding alcohol. Our role is:

- to encourage and challenge the industry to promote its products responsibly, which we do mainly through operating our Code of Practice on the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks;
- to show leadership on best practice in the area of alcohol social responsibility through the actions of our member companies; and
- to speak on behalf of our members on these issues to inform public opinion and policy.

I don't know, these guys seem a bit fishy. I don't see how anything listed in the complaints against Brew Dog really violates these stated goals they have. Again, more research into these guys in necessary.

Babies, Bathwater and the War on Drugs

Today, I figured I'd talk about a topic I really know nothing about, feel free to correct my misguided curiosities. I ran across this story on Reuters, about Peru's fight to keep Coca chewing legal. We all know that Coca is key for producing cocaine, but evidently it has more mainstream uses as well. For instance, the article states that chewing coca leaves helps with altitude sickness, is used in cooking and seems to be akin to our energy drinks we're so fond of here in the US. I don't know anything about the leaf form of the plant, but the little I've read seems to suggest it's great for increasing energy output of workers and can be consumed on a regular basis without ill effect (certainly, moderation is key). Oh, it also seems to suppress hunger, and I bet there's fewer potential side-effects than found in our prescribed and overly advertised pills that do the same thing.

So, what's the big deal? The war on drugs has deemed coca to be a bad thing because of what it's processed into, then distributed around the world. I don't condone cocaine use and in theory support keeping it out of schools and streets. However, it just seems like another typical over-reaction to ban the base substance, a product that most don't believe to be harmful and can be, in apparent situations, useful. Additionally, there are many cultural, historical and socio-economic issues that seem to not be considered in all of this - there really is more to the story.

It's been enlightening to read more about this, as well as entertaining. In the original Reuters piece it made mention that, in the trial/debate/hearing surrounding its ban, coca was passed around in a hat by a congresswoman. To my surprise it seems as though several folks there - other members of congress - partook of the gift, much to the dismay of those who believed it to be the menace we're comfortable believing it to be (there were "boos" and "hisses"!). Gotta love that.

Why am I posting this here? I still have no idea, thought it was an interesting story, figured you might think so too. Oh, and if you do find it interesting, check out this quick study on energy output and productivity of workers who chew coca vs. those who don't. When done, think of all the silly ads on TV that promise to make you more productive, the energy drinks that I'm convinced to be more harmful for your body over time than good for us. Wonder if we'll be seeing coca tea on the market anytime soon?

Beer & Peru

This was online a couple weeks ago, not really anything I felt needed repeating, but evidently Peruvians are enjoying a more prosperous life these days - evidenced solely by their increased beer sales. Yup, the good people of the country apparently bought 11.5% more cerveza in 2007 than 2006. From the article:

"Household earnings are up, we are building more houses, buying more telephones and consuming much, much more beer," President Alan Garcia told reporters in front of the presidential palace.

Prosperous, all while having laws permitting coca chewing? Go figure.

What's the "P" Stand For Again?

File this under Things that Annoy Me
Part II

Have you noticed how IPAs and (especially) Double IPAs are getting darker and darker? This bugs the hell out me. I hate to be "that guy", but is it purely the need to put the word 'double' on something that stops many brewers from calling their uber-hopped caramelized product a stock ale, or barley wine? You see, I like a light colored hop bomb, they generally showcase the hops more appropriately for the consumer than those with a bit more 'balance', even though that also sticks in my craw.

Over the weekend I was fortunate to judge the Bistro's Double IPA Festival and throughout the judging beers would pass my way that were deep golden to brown in color. The aromas in the darker beers had hints of toffee, a mess of alcohol and hops. That's just not what I want in my DIPA. Instead, give me a PALE beer, bready up front and ultimately nothing short of a hops showcase.

Are the darker versions good beers? You bet your ass they are! I seriously love some of these messy monsters, many of them beers I'd seek out on a regular basis if I could. I just can't help but think about the P part of the IPA abbreviation (pale, just in case). Sure, it can be deep golden in color, that's appropriate, but getting toward the brown and mahogany hues generally carries with it more malt character than I want in my DIPA.

Why does this matter? It doesn't. Not one bit. Just thought I'd share my thoughts on the subject.

While I'm at it. Have I mentioned my loathsome attitude toward the idea of having an Imperial IPA as a name for a style? You can throw Double IPA in there too. I still have no idea why our wonderful US brewers aren't pushing to have a style of their own, something that respects their ingenuity and our tastes/ingredients. IPA, of course, carries with it a heritage from the Old World, a heritage that is rich and beautiful. I don't have any troubles with having an American IPA, after all it began as a beer made with the same basic ingredients and ratios of the English versions, only using American hops and ingredients. It's my opinion that the Double/Imperial versions have absolutely nothing to do with this heritage. Of course, choosing a name for the style would be a battle, but I've liked Cascade Strong Pale (more to do with the region than the hop), American Strong Hopped Pale Ale, something that is as American as the beers themselves.

Now, it should be noted I have less issue with the term "double" than I do "imperial". I just can't wrap my head around what this really means to anyone! What Imperial court are we making this beer for? When did the US jump on the 'imperial' bandwagon and... why? I can only assume that people didn't really understand the history behind the naming of "Russian Imperial Stout", assuming it was imperial because it was big? Baffling. Simply baffling. Then of course, the idea that a brewer's double IPA isn't actually twice the ABV, IBU or price as their 'regular' IPA leaves me wondering about 'double'. In fact, it should be required that if a brewer has a double IPA and an IPA, the 'double' should seriously just be twice the grain bill and hopping - exactly twice the amount. Of course, I'd expect to pay double the amount for that too, right?

Yeah, it's a slow day and these are the things that pop into my cramped brain. Thanks for playing.

Why Leave the Telling to Everyone Else

If you're a fan of Ani DiFranco, you'll know that lyric. It isn't really a life-guiding statement for me, but more and more it seems like a good idea. Why? I don't fully know, but it just seems necessary - and not just for beer. Reading a few blogs today got me thinking...

First, there was Jay's bit on Cognitive Branding, which was really about another story, but as Jay tends to do, it all made sense in the end. The premise had a lot to do with A-B's marketing success, or what makes their marketing a success - specifically related to Super Bowl ads.

The other post was by Lew as he passed on a story about Don Russell and his overall contribution to Philly's beer scene. I read the piece and learned a few things about Don, being a younger guy in the beer blogging/writing world there's a lot I still have to learn about those I casually know (or know of). You can also add to this pile of thoughtful contemplation yesterday's post by Lew encouraging all to check out Pete Brown's Blog, which I have now and then, but without any real dedication.

Anyway, where am I?

There are great beer writers out there, and beer bloggers who warrant the attention they get. Each with their own drum to beat, stories and information to pass on. They're not leaving the telling to anyone else, and we're the better for it! Imagine a world where all our beer knowledge came from A-B ads, or where everything we know of food comes from restaurant chains. We're inundated with crap, everywhere we turn there's misinformation, half-truths and "spin" - retelling stories in a way that meets an agenda. I guess you don't really have to imagine too hard if you were around before this maturing anti-industrial culture - which I hear pre-dates the internet!

The world needs your story everyday, and that doesn't mean we need your words on another blog (necessarily). You don't need to be the fool nobody wants to be around, but each of us (I'm assuming a bit about the PBN audience) has something to say when it comes to beer, food, life. Why leave the telling to the Industrial Brewers, or even Jay, Stan, Lew, Pete or anyone else for that matter? Here's a few things you can do to find your voice.

• Ask restaurant managers why they don't have a local craft beer on tap. Be polite, but direct. Restaurants around the country have wine lists designed to impress, with a beer corner for those who just gotta have a beer - you know, the corner with B/C/M. In these places you won't find Ernest and Julio Blush wine, so why do they insist on carrying the industrial swill that does little for the community, offers little flavor and doesn't really go well with the 20 dollar plate you're going to enjoy? Ask, challenge, engage.
• Do the same with grocers, corner shops and office parties. Too many grocers carry "what sells" when it comes to beer, but again carrying wines galore. Challenge that notion a bit, again as diplomatically as you can. Best selling wine in the US is something like Franzia or E&J Gallo, nothing any wine person would be proud to serve at dinner or to friends. Point that out, tell them that just like higher-end wines you expect to see beers of variety, character and depth. If it's a good buyer, they'll listen. Face it, they've really got little to lose and often welcome the suggestions - and your word may mean a whole lot more than the same exact words coming from the brewery reps that get paid to make face-time with this guy.
• Don't be a dick. This may seem counter to what I mentioned above, but you'll earn little points in a real life situation if you make a scene, belittle anyone for their taste in beer or disrespect someone for not catering to your consumer needs. I've witnessed too many 'beer geeks' rail on a guy who is just out to have a good time, or servers who have no control over what's on a menu. Oh, and telling someone they're going to lose your business is just silly, boycotting an establishment rarely gets anything done except make folks happy to see you walk away. While telling your story, remember who you're talking to and who you represent.
  
• Oh, if you don't like that last line, know that when you speak for better beer, you do represent a community of beer enthusiasts, the better beer industry and people who have the same end goals as you do (we all want the better beers on the shelf, on the menu). In a way I'd call us ambassadors. If you're out only to represent yourself, well that's your thing. Maybe you only want to see the beer you want because you want it - and I suppose that's fine. But for me I speak because I assume the only beer-sense someone has is what they've seen on TV. Trust me, I have enough good beer at home to live a merry beer-rich life. I know that the fine brewers of the world don't have the marketing budgets the industrial brewers have, so I see myself as their way to communicate to people outside their brewery.
  

Now, I know that not everyone is really cut out for this sort of advocacy - and trust me when I say that is more than OK. I just know that many of you have the ability, and even the desire to speak up sometimes when you feel it's necessary. For those in the latter group, I ask again - Why leave the telling to everyone else?

About the Image: No explaining that one, it wasn't anything close to what I was looking for, but seemed only mildly inappropriate for this post.

January 16: A Sobering Day to Remember

January 16th, 1920: Prohibition Begins

I read an interesting piece in Playboy recently about "Sex in America", looking at how far we, as a nation, have come in the last 40-odd years. The story talked about TV families, like Lucy and Ricky, who loved eachother, but from separate beds. Then, there was the Brady's, snuggling together in a shared bed. Now, today, well you know.

I was thinking about that piece and how it relates to alcohol, more specifically - beer. 88 years ago, it became illegal to buy and consume alcohol in the USA. Clearly we have come a long way, but have we arrived to a place we should be comfortable with? I don't think so. Yes, the craft-beer resurgence is nothing short of fantastic for those of us who enjoy a good beer, but it seems we still rely on the industry's apologists to defend our enjoyment.

To drive this point home there was an interesting thread on Beer Advocate asking how beer enthusiasts "feel" when they talk about their beer consumption. It seemed that the vast majority of people replying to the subject were responsible consumers, having one or two beers a day; however, an alarming number of people seemed uneasy sharing their beer habit with others - those who wouldn't understand. Why is that?

Odd, isn't it? In 2008 America will celebrate, albeit quietly, the 75th anniversary of Prohibition's repeal, but how far have we come? In contrasting the comfort of our societies views on sex on TV (as PB pointed out, we see openly gay relationships, divorced, out of wedlock relations, flirts and - well, you watch TV), I find it a rare sight to see open drinking on network shows - with the exception of Medium, which seems to have a scene in every show with the husband/wife enjoying a beer in their home. Are we really more comfortable with sex than we are with alcohol? My gut says no, but my ears and eyes wonder. With shock jocks given free reign to talk about the sexual gossip of the day, it seems they only get in trouble when they 'promote' alcohol and tobacco. Sure, we saw the church rise up when Janet Jackson's nipple popped out on national TV, but that seemed to not really materialize into anything substantive. On the other hand, beer and spirits are watched carefully for any adverts that may attract underage drinkers.

Now, let me back up a minute here. As a person exposed to the church of America, I know there's just as much moral concern with regards to sexual morality - I feel, however, that the people of the church realize that they can't legislate sexual morality. That said, there's still a contingency who believes "regulating" alcohol is a good way to curve its consumption. In many ways I think that's why the church is opposed to the morning after pill, not to get into religion/sex/alcohol too much.

In fact, if you listen carefully to the arguments surrounding sexual deviance in the US (their words), you'll often hear off-based associations with alcohol - creating correlations where there ought not be. As pointed out here earlier, and by Jay this week, there are organizations out there asserting that alcohol consumption leads to rape, abuse and overall societal dysfunctions. Yes, right now they're an annoying voice in the wilderness, but the voices are heard and the assumptions felt by those of us who legally and ethically enjoy our alcohol.

80 years ago the same arguments were made, the same off-based associations with society's ills and alcohol. While we don't see an overt push to ban alcohol entirely, there are movements afoot that are aimed at curtailing your beer consumption - mainly in the form of tax increases and legislation that makes it more difficult to buy your beer. Yes, we have come a long way in 80 years, but don't forget that we still must make our case to the powers that be. For me, that signals we've still got a ways to go.

Striking While the Iron is Hot

I read about this over at Brew Blog, although we've been hearing rumors about this for some time. A-B appears poised to follow Blue Moon (Coors) lead in the craft beer market with a Belgian White of their own - Shock Top. They don't mention when this beer will be released, but just judging by the label (right) I'd guess this is a late Spring to early Summer release.

So, that's the news portion for the morning. What follows is random musings about timing and the industry overall.

Is this the perfect time for A-B to do this? Yes. If you're a shareholder for the company, this is great news I would think. Beer prices are rising in the craft beer market, that's no shock. What's more, there are a ton of new (newish) labels out there. You see this every time you walk down a beer aisle in a grocery store. I can't help but imagine that with their strangle hold on distribution in the US, A-B is poised to put their crafts in every market. Your local bar with 4 Macros and 2 Micros... well, it isn't a stretch to think you'll lose one of the micro's in place A-B's product. Reps will push it, signage will be provided and the incentives overall to switch will speak loudly to bar owners.

I saw this a couple years ago in Northern California with Bare-Knuckle stout (another A-B craft). Bars in my area all of a sudden had this new stout nobody had heard of, posters were on the walls and glassware was provided for those willing to try this new beer. In one bar, in Auburn, the Bare Knuckle replaced a regional micro brewed stout. Who will they go after with Shock Top? I actually can't help but think they're going after Blue Moon, but I also can't help but think that more than a handful of publicans will drop regionals like Great White or even national brands like Widmer.

Will it work? I think it will, to a certain degree. I don't have the stats to back me up here, but I have a feeling that many of those buying craft beers don't have any sort of strong loyalty to micro brewers as a whole. I was talking with a beer buyer for a great store in Souther Oregon last week and he was amazed at how many 20-somethings were buying craft beer nowadays. What was more amazing to him was that a majority (his word) would walk up and buy a 22-ounce craft-beer and with the other hand buy a 12-pack of PBR. That doesn't mean much of anything, except that I believe such buying habits benefit A-B.

Will it hurt the Craft Beer Movement? No, I don't think so. If anything, I suppose shelf space in chain grocers and convenient stores will opt to carry the A-B products. Beyond that (and don't get me wrong, that's not a small thing) I think we'll still be able to support the movement in specialty stores and on-premise sales. This could potentially slow growth for budding brewers, but as a whole I see the industry continuing to grow in double digits this year.

So, in conclusion, here's a summary of what I was trying to say. I think this is good for A-B because:

- A plethora of brands exists, and A-B is a trusted name for most beer buyers. When I did business consulting I used to tell companies if they had more than 5 goals, they didn't have any goals. I think this works for choice too, with a whole lot of buyers. Overwhelmed with variety, not wanting to make the 'wrong' choice, it's just easier to buy from a name you trust.
- Rising prices in craft beer (and macros, but buy smaller margins) means something for so many people out there now, worried about employment, debt and interest rates...
- A-B understands more about buying habits than most of us care to admit.

I Am Not a Criminal

I have a job that demands I ship beer from point A to point B on a consistent basis, but laws and rules in the private sector don't allow shipment of beer for folks like me. In fact, as I learned today, they don't allow for shipment of beer by most anybody. Stay with me, this could be a rough ride.

Today I went to FedEx to ship beers to the office to be photographed. I brought in a single box to the office and began to fill the out the paperwork when I was asked what was inside the box. Knowing I can't ship beer I told the lady behind the counter I was shipping 'stuff', I can't really remember if I said "yeast samples" or "books" or "cds"... but it wasn't 'beer'. [The beers weren't rattling, there was nothing to provoke the following actions of the help.] She proceeded to open the box of beer, revealing the true contents for her and others to see. A gassed, she explained how what I was doing was against state and federal laws and could wind me in jail for 10 years or a fine of 25k dollars. I tried to explain that these weren't for consumption and that they weren't being illegally sold or moved. To no avail, I was busted, flagged and 'let off with a warning' (a phrase I remember a cop telling me in my adolescence).

To say I left there upset would be a gross understatement, I was embarrassed, mad and bordering on tears of frustration for the way they made me feel. Sadly, the more I thought about this the more angry I became, realizing that I had been made a criminal by laws that have little more purpose, rules that aren't for governing so much as they're for controlling. How is it that I can be of legal age and rightfully in possession of this product, yet unable to ship it to another individual who is of age and in all ways 'legal'? What gives?

In my steaming anger I called FedEx to figure out a few things. Now keep in mind here that I wasn't calling to complain, my call was to simply ask "how" I could send beer legally from point A to point B. According to these guys, I can't. "I can't ship alcohol in this country, legally?" I asked the help on the phone. "Rules state you can ship wine, but only from the winery to licensed vendor" was her answer, followed by "beer and other hard alcohol is not allowed". I quizzed bit at this point, blood boiling and mind collapsing. "So, can a winery ship sparkling wine", thinking perhaps they had fears of carbonated alcohol in bottles, thus the rules banning beer. "Yes, as long as it is wine", she replied. This next question was just me being a dick, I know. "What about champagne?" She answered, "No, I don't think that's allowed either."

Not even getting to the lack of help offered at this point, I'll just say that I find it hard to imagine that we can't ship beer legally in this country. I was, at this point, dumbfounded. I didn't know what to say, what I could do, so I just kept talking, trying to find a way to get my job - they way I make my living now - done.

As I type this, many hours later, I can't recall exactly how I got transferred to the Hazardous Materials Dept of FedEx, but I did. "If you really wanted to, you could burn beer" the new voice on the phone explained, telling me why exactly beer wasn't allowed. "Actually, no you can't. It's a different kind of alcohol." I replied, at this point quite calm and collected (I admit, at this point I knew I was getting nowhere and that I wasn't going to change anything - I just don't give up that easily). The guy seemed genuinely pleased to hear you can't burn beer, saying something along the lines of "then it isn't a hazardous material, let me transfer you to someone who can help you." Thus, he did.

"International Delivery, my name is [blank], how can I help you" was my greeting from helpful voice number three. Again, I told her that I had to ship beer from point A to point be, for work, and needed to figure out how I can legally do this. Clearly my brain's collapse was in full effect now because I don't even remember how this call ended, except that apparently shipping beer in the US is a cross between smuggling heroine and c4 explosives to toddlers. I know I have sputtered more swear words tonight than I have in a really long time, I simply cannot express in any better way the way I feel right now, except to say "fuck!".

How can this be? I know you know tips and tricks to get around this, but what does that say? We have rules in the books that make you, me and others like us (tens of thousands at least) criminals! I am not a drug dealer. I don't distribute child porn. I don't even sell cheap Viagra. So, why then do I need to sneak around like a common criminal to send a few beers to my office in Phoenix, just so they can be photographed? Why?!

Yes, there are bigger problems in the world today and in the whole big scheme of life, this is but a drop in a very large bucket. However, I feel ashamed, violated and uneasy about the next time I ship a beer to work - let alone the idea of trying to pass on to a friend across the country a gift of thanks or genuine appreciation. Congress, if you're worried about your tax revenue, I'll fill out a form and probably accept a tax for this privilege. There must be a way this can work, there's just no good reason it can't, right? Our current three-tier system won't really allow a compromise or deal with brewers around the country, so why not do SOMETHING that makes sense for all parties involved?

I ship a lot of beer, have for a while now. This is the second time a package has been opened and I've been made to feel this way. I can't help but wonder what would happen if some nimrod really had it out for folk like me, how far would they press and would they stop at anything less than the 10 year 25k punishment, or is this a perpetual slap on the wrist in a lame effort to enforce laws that simply don't make sense?

The Bane of Better Beer

As an unofficial charter of Pacific Brew News I say that I am about 'promoting' craft beer, which is one reason you'll not find poor reviews on this site or our podcast (for the most part). However, there is a subject I've been trying to ignore for far too long now, something I just didn't know how to approach.

The Turnkey Brewpub is a concept that is taking off here in Northern California. In fact, here in my home city of Roseville there are at least three such operations: Main Street Brewing; Owl Club and La Provence. These are a varied mix of establishments, ranging from high-end dining to the dirtiest bar in town. They've all installed 'micro breweries' in the last five years or so and each of them makes the most god-awful excuses for beer you'd imagine. Sadly, a couple places seem to attract large audiences of misguided and misinformed beer enthusiasts. I have so much distaste for these establishments, even though two of them serve otherwise good beers on tap. I'd love to rail on these owners a bit, and perhaps I will, but my harshest views are reserved for those selling this crap.

To begin, let's look at the sales pitch:

• No over-priced brewpub system
• No large floorspace needed
• No grain storage or grinding
• No spent grains to get rid of
• And Most Important-No Brewmaster!
  Just Real Profits For Your brewpub

No over-priced brewpub system... that's rich! These cheap-o uni-tanks only run you 36-82k, depending one how cheap you care to be. Of course, if you use their ingredients and their methods, you can make and serve beer that only costs you 30 cents a pint!

Does this list piss you off as much as it does me? No spent grains to get rid of... how nice, I wonder if Vinnie at Russian River knows of this? Oh, wait, no Brewmaster either... we'll keep that a secret from him for today at least. Just real profits... without the hassle and fuss of actually having to brew beer at your new brewery.

I've dubbed these systems "dump and stir", based on the fact the only thing you need to do is open the bucket-o-powder, dump it in the magic beer maker and let is sit for five days. After this time you too can dupe your customers with cheap beer with good profit margins. I hate these. If I see them in a bar, my stomach turns. I wish I could round every last one of them up and throw them off the Bay Bridge. But, sadly, it appears they're here to stay and the only thing I can do is bitch and bellyache.

BACKGROUND

It doesn't take a math wiz to figure out why these systems are popping up all over Northern California, they're going for a 'brewery' license that allows restaurant owners to sell beer, wine AND spirits for far less money than the traditional liquor licenses we know well. I've tried to find the exact license for this online, but haven't had any luck. However, I've talked with owners for two facilities that have confirmed the installation of these systems was directly linked to a license that would allow them to bring in hard alcohol. The tanks take up nominal space and require absolutely no background with the process of brewing. Essentially, if you can make Kool-Aid you can make 'beer' on these monstrosities.

Somehow all this seems appealing to those who are out to make a buck, damn the fact that they're back-handing the world of true micro-brewers that work and sweat their asses off to make a real beer with real flavor.

WHY I CARE

I've been to these places too many times, seen young beer drinkers get their first 'craft beer' for two bucks and immediately long for the Coors they gave up for this. It embarrasses me to hear about a new 'craft brewer' in my city from eager and naive drinkers who are mainly happy a craft beer is the same price (often cheaper) than their favorite macro-beer. It embarrasses me more when I hear from the barkeeps how the place makes their own beer and that they can make all types of beer - "light and dark".

If you've not had the pleasure of sampling one of these beers, I can tell you they all pretty much taste of green apples, have no body and nothing going on for them. One may be yellow and the next a darker shade of yellow (I've yet to see one that I'd actually call brown). I have been asked to look at a couple of these to see how I can improve the products, and without an actual ability to boil water or (often) control the fermentation temperatures, the folks are just SOL.

Of course, you and I both know the deal here and we can get angry together at what we see, but what about those whose only beer knowledge comes from a TV ad? What about the patrons who we all know, those we frequently encourage to just try a craft beer? You think their first impression of the industry and beers we love will be glowing, or even better than shitty? I don't, and I can't really convey how that makes me feel.

SO WHAT?

I don't have the answer. I fear any complaints to the state would only trigger more dumbass inspections or retooling of the permit process - and that isn't good for anyone. I don't begrudge anyone the right to make a buck, after all, but where is the line in all this from an ethics perspective? I assume the owners know they're making crap (and selling crap), so perhaps ethics isn't an issue they'll care too much about. I don't have an answer, so I guess I've only got complaints. Sorry, sort of hate to be that way.

If you're considering opening a joint, or know someone who is, please steer clear of this practice. About the only place I could appreciate this system would be Taco Bell, or maybe KFC. To seriously believe you're buying a brewery with this is nothing short of absurd.

Two Bars and a Bit of Booze

Last night my wife, Tracy, had a "social" with her classmates at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management, which seems to be a quarterly event for the school and typically features pretty drinks and well mannered establishments. This night saw us arrive, for my first time, to Sacramento's Hangar 17, a hip industrial place in mid-town that features dimly lit tables, a long-ass bar, good finger foods and lots of flat-screen TVs. Sadly, the place had an awful beer selection, so I chose to enjoy the only decent offering of the 20+ bottles offered - Black Butte Porter. Luckily, I had been beer shopping earlier in the day so there was a Hopsickle that came in handy shortly after the BBP was consumed.

Not shockingly the management wasn't pleased with me bringing in a beer of my own and for a few minutes there was some tension until I finally convinced him I'd be 'more than happy' to pay a 'corkage' fee for the opportunity to drink a beer I would enjoy while there. I guess I don't get this, never have. I don't want to be a dick, but I also know my tastes and would rather have a good time with friends and a beer I love - rather than settling for something different. Wine folks seem to have a free pass on this, they frequently bring wine in to establishments and pay the nominal corkage fee while nobody bats an eye, and it is frustrating to have to justify this same practice with better beer.

What is more frustrating to me, however, is the fact that far too many 'up-scale' places skimp out on beer options. I honestly can't comprehend this! I've been to good beer bars and paid the price for a really good bottle of beer, just like I have done with wine or a well made mixed drink. I'm going out, after all. If I was all that worried about a few bucks, I'd stay home. Mark the beer up, I am not going to worry about it in a place and situation like this. Sell me a Belgian Dubbel or American IPA for 8 bucks, or provide a Lambic for 20 - that won't hurt or offend me and it may just encourage me to come back again. But to offer a vast selection of high-end booze and fine wines to compliment a horrid beer selection (no, quantity doesn't impress me when all your imports and American lagers all taste the same) is absurd. By the way, I blame the distributors and reps for this one. Case sales drive the reps business and they're focus is, perhaps rightfully, on the grocers and markets of the community. There is nobody going to a proprietor of fine dining and selling them on the value of better beer. Want to talk margins? I don't think offering a top-notch beer selection will hurt you in that area. Sorry.

Anyway, the place was nice (really, it was a great time) and we were there for several hours enjoying the Kings game (they lost to the Clippers), a seemingly endless supply of appetizers (all good) and good company. I eventually moved from my beer obsession to a top shelf margarita and the night never sucked.

From here a group of students decided to go and check out the 'new bar' in town, Whiskey Wild on Q and 21st. This is where life got interesting. Walking in to this swank 20-something hangout you're immediately impressed by the line of ladies on the bar in some odd and awkward attempt to relive Coyote Ugly. Immediately feeling sad for them and their obvious unease at this part of their job, I wasn't sure this place and me would work too well together - it was crowded, it was loud and I just wasn't convinced they'd have a drink for me. I was wrong.

Turns out there's three sections to this bar, thankfully. The front features ladies with low-cut shirts and men with low hanging pants, each trying to act as if nobody notices anybody and nobody cares (man, I'm so happy not to be in that life anymore). The back bar is quieter, seemingly made for the 30-something crowd I am now part of, with couples and groups of friends all gathered around enjoying conversations and good drinks (more on that soon). Finally, there's an outdoor patio that was underutilized on this cold night in Sacramento, a place of solace for me as I regained some hearing in my blasted ears.

Then, there's the drinks. Turns out this place has some pretty high end whiskey and tequila and a very impressive offering of bottled beer. Now, I know I don't know what constitutes a good whiskey or a fine tequila, so my assumptions are based on price and my own limited experience. For whiskey, it was a bit of a surprise to see Bookers available for sipping or adding to top shelf drinks, and that wasn't cheap. However, at this point my interest was back to beer - which surprised no one.

A bottle of Full Sail Session? Good start. Alaskan IPA on tap? Even better. Green Flash's West Coast IPA in a bottle, better yet. Now, I only ordered the West Coast IPA, mainly because I didn't want to overdo a fun night with friends, but it was good to know that a place like this didn't forget about the good beers of the world. Oh, just so you know, there was a lot more beer and many more good options to choose from.

How was the night? For my tastes, I don't plan on hitting Hangar 17 anytime soon, but Whiskey Wild could be a good place to meet friends on nights when quiet and calm are not on the menu, but good times and good drinks are.

MD and the Spririt of Giving

You're likely growing weary of the pleas to be generous this time of year, but this message may just be something you won't mind doing. Modern Drunkard has an old story, called 40 Things, with a list of things the cool drunkard will do before moving on. Two of them you might try to cross off your list this holiday season.

10.) Extravagantly overtip a bartender.
The next time a bartender is especially kind or proficient, lay a massive tip on her. I mean, massive. You must be relatively sober or they’ll discount the act as drunken foolishness. Say something smooth like, “You’re the best of your kind,” drop the bomb, and—this is important—walk out of the bar without another word. With this single act of unexpected generosity, you will restore a bartender’s faith in humanity and give your own self-image a healthy boost.

I bet many of you have plans to visit a place or two that serves alcohol this time of year, maybe this is a good time to cross this off the list of things to do.

This next piece has a story to go along with it from our local news personalities.

26.) Give a hobo twenty bucks.
Make him promise he’s going to spend it on hooch. It won’t be a hard sell. Twenty bucks is the price of a crappy shirt to you, to our alley brethren it’s a gift from the gods.

Just before Thanksgiving a Sacramento "morning news" TV personality gave a case of beer to a homeless person, which drew venomous attacks from those who thought it was mean, cruel, demeaning or otherwise tasteless. One such attacker was noted to say something along the lines that it was probably alcohol that led the the person's plight.

As someone who has a bit of experience working with this population, I don't think there's any harm in the generous giving of booze to someone on the street. I mean, we give gifts of beer and wine to those we love, how much more charitable is it to pass on this same gift to someone we don't know? Just a thought. I mean, what else were you going to do with that 20 bucks?

The '40 Things' list is a good, fun read for a dreary Tuesday afternoon. If you choose to pursue a life that sees you happily crossing off everything on the list, I hope you are a good writer because the adventures could prove to be fun reading.

Christians Relaxed on Beer? Not So Fast

Well, this piece of news is certainly a bit off-beat, but beer-blog appropriate.  According to a Christian Net poll, a whopping 51% of Christians surveyed believe drinking beer is not "wrong".  Now, I'm no mathematician here, but does this mean that 49% of Christians polled believe, as the question is stated, it is "wrong for a Christian to consume beer."  Evidently, according to the Christian News Wire, 38% of those surveyed did, in fact, believe that drinking beer was "wrong". 

Wow!  Now, I know many of you read (and you should) Jay Brooks' Brookston Beer Bulletin, which at times seems fanatical, but is certainly necessary reading for those who appreciate not only a good beer, but the right to enjoy a good beer.  Jay has often bemoaned the Neo-Prohibitionists around the world and, quite often, I catch myself thinking 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 form of control on my consumption.

Many of you know that I was a pastor in a very large Christian church some years back, so I think I have a pretty good handle on the people who took this survey - they're the noisy and nosy few who like to muck up things in the name of compassion.  I don't believe that 38% of all Christians share this feeling about beer.  Instead, 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.

Innovation: I Don't Get It

So, a friend emails me a story about the new European IPA by Greene King, called St Edmunds. The story was obviously structured from a press release, talking about the cool new 'system' that would let consumer choose if their beer would be "Northern" (with head) or "Southern" (without head). OK... that's odd. So, being naturally curious, I check out the Greene King press release to learn more about this magical system that can pour a beer with head or without, depending on my mood. Ugh.

Why, oh why, do large brewers insist on cheapening the beer experience? Is it that hard to pour a beer with head, or to pour one without? Oh, wait, it gets better! Turns out their marketing the headless beer as a CASK version! From the same keg, nonetheless! Oh dear.

What we have achieved is the holy territory - an ale that’s as easy to drink as a lager, with the premium cues of Guinness and the provenance of cask.

That's Justin Adams, who has the job of Director of Brewing and Brands for Greene King. I really don't even know what Justin was saying there, but I suppose it sounds good to someone.

This is from a Press Release

Greene King, the brewery, is piloting a new premium chilled cask beer called St Edmunds to target men and women who are exploring new beers other than lager.

The new chilled beer, served below six degrees Celsius, is being rolled out across 100 selected pubs in south east England over a three month trial period from November.

Got to love that, eh? Another "chilled" beer hits the market. Want more?

Greene King managing director Justin Adams said the new product aimed to reinvigorate the declining casked ale market by creating an ale with a “gold, fresh, crisp finish” and “provide a great consumer experience by giving more theatre”.

More theater (sp), that's just what I'm looking for in a beer... right up there with a gold finish.

When will this madness end? I find it hard to believe that we, as human beings, continue to fall for the newest "innovation" in brewing, especially when the innovations have nothing to do with brewing! In fact, the best innovation I've seen in years in this industry is the Merlin kettle I saw at New Belgium! Stop creating high tech labels, pseudo cask ale and beer dispensers that promise to be the coldest in town! They're not that cool, and 99% of your innovations are junk in 18 months or less.

Please, for the love of beer, focus your creativity on the product (beer), its history and overall quality. To do anything less serves only to cheapen the beverage you claim to be all about.

Sacramento's Bad Idea

Let's talk politics a bit, shall we? The City of Sacramento is considering a new fee required for anyone who sells alcohol within their city limits - $1,000 per year, regardless of size or permit type. This is over and above all other State licenses and permits, including the $800 ABC fees that are supposed to be used for things like education and what-not. $1,000 dollars a year! Think about that for a few seconds, does it make sense to you? It doesn't for me. Here's a few reasons why.

First, I don't understand why. The ABC fees business owners pay the state already help fund programs designed to educate kids on the 'dangers of alcohol' - oh, if only they'd learn about the dangers of the crap they eat and drink everyday at school. And, more than doubling the ABC fee is nothing short of excessive for small business owners and I really can't see how a City of Sacramento's size and makeup can justify it.

The Sacramento Bee has this wonderful quote too:

Councilman Steve Cohn said the city has a growing problem with establishments serving minors or becoming an eyesore in their neighborhood. He said a new permit would that make it easier for city investigators to put nuisance establishments out of business.

Uh... hold on a minute. How, exactly, will charging business owners help improve run down liquor stores? Should we charge more taxes to old churches who don't care for their buildings or grounds? What about that old, run-down Mexican restaurant I love so much - the one that doesn't sell beer? That sentiment from a Councilman is nothing short of absurd.

Here's the gist of the story:

The city of Sacramento is considering requiring all 925 businesses that sell alcohol in town -- bars, liquor stores, neighborhood marts and supermarkets -- to obtain a special license. The city would use fees from the permit -- $1,000 for each establishment, regardless of size -- to fund annual inspections and an educational outreach program targeting underage drinking and drunken driving.

Details about how the ordinance would work and what it would do remain sketchy. City staffers are drafting the measure with input from business owners, although some say the city has been slow in asking their opinion. A proposal is expected to go before the City Council's law and legislation committee in the next couple of months. The full council must approve the measure for it to take effect.

"If it's revenue that helps kids stay out of trouble and helps reduce injuries because of drunken driving or doing something stupid, then it's definitely a good thing," said police spokesman Matt Young.

Now, I read this and see one of two things. First, I wonder if there's a prohibitionist mentality here, a city council and police department who look at the troubles of a community and blindly say alcohol is the problem. I think of this and push it out of my mind for a more likely scenario, option two. I can't help but think there is ONE group this law will benefit: mega-stores and grocery chains, those who sell nothing but national brands of questionable quality.

"Over the years, everything goes up -- whether it's workman's comp or utilities, all the insurance. But politicians don't look at big picture," he said. "For the mom and pop stores, fees like this are making it a tough go."

I don't know. I just know I think this is nothing short of a bad idea. Again from the Bee:

Joe Robillard, an administrator in the Sacramento office of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control unit, said Oakland, Los Angeles and other cities have passed similar alcohol ordinances with "mixed results."

I'd sure like to know more about these 'mixed' results. I don't like the idea of City or other governments imposing what is essentially a new tax, but calling it a "fee" instead. That just seems wrong.

Other items of concern here are some of the comments made by locals about the issue

Well, if they don't want to pay an alcohol fee then STOP SELLING THE CRAP IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Either way we look at it, alcohol is a problem and how is this society going to prevent more deaths, more people getting thrown in jail for alcohol related accidents, and more deaths/illnesses due to alcohol consumption.

People need to wake up and understand that alcohol is considered by MANY experts to be the absolute worst drug available. Partly because it is widely sold and socially acceptable.

We all know that Prohibition didn't work the first time, partly because society at the time wasn't weaned off of it.

I think they should limit the number of places that alcohol is sold to only liquor stores where one HAS to be 21 just to walk into the store and only have so many stores allowed. Then you tax it and have the taxes go to various programs to help people get off of it. Also, raise fines/sentencing for DUIs.

We need more activities that don't promote alcohol and advertising needs to stop. (Out of sight, out of mind.)

And then there's this...

Who cares? Raising money for alcohol education for todays youth is priceless in itself. Ask the store owners who have children as opposed to the ones who do not and you will probably get a very different answer on the topic. Selling a potentially dangerous substance comes with financial responsibilities as well.

And this guy...

it's a constant bombardment of alcohol consumption; directing us to imagine the wonderful life we can have if you drink this or that. Truth is that going out is a pain becasue of all the drunks. I am not talking about the transients in the streets, but rather the 3 piece suits(male and female) sitting at the next booh, counter, seats in most venues throughout Sacramento. I went to a function at Fairy Tale Town once and they were serving wine! A childrens amuzement park and they were serving alcohol....geez!

Finally...

for those that think that alcohol is OK to have in this society, go read about alcoholism, go to AA meetings and listen to other people's stories. What about the rights of the people that DON'T want to be exposed to alcohol, alcoholics, and drunken drivers? What about the children that DON'T have a say so in this matter?

Here is a little test. for those that drink, go on a vacation somewhere where there is no alcohol, no advertising and no one drinking. Kind of a like a retreat into the mountains. then when your done with that month long retreat, then notice how much bombardment of alcohol advertising, alcoholics, drunken drivers, etc. etc. then see if that doesn't change your mind.

I would LOVE to be able to walk into a nice restaurant where there aren't any alcohol beverage signs, no bottles in sight and no one in the place drinking so I can enjoy my meal without listening to drunks.

Again, hard to believe the Capital City of our Nation's biggest economy seems hell-bent on hurting small businesses and creating pseudo taxes, selling it to the public out of nothing but fear. If you live in Sacramento, I'd suggest picking up the phone now and calling your city reps, let them know what you think.

2007 Hop Harvest

While hop harvest is only half over now, there are reports of poor yields that are discouraging many beer lovers. I've looked around a bit and think I've learned things aren't as bad as some are saying. Yes, it is still early and there are certainly some farms that have suffered a tough year, as is the nature of farming.

Through all the reading I've been able to do, I'm left a little mystified. On one hand, this season's harvest appears to be decent. On the other had, there's some major concern on behalf of brewers out there. I suspect this comes down to a supply and demand issue, as it is clear our brewer population is growing faster than the hop farm acreage.

On the plus side, there's a heart warming story of a harvest in the UK.

As the harvest draws to a close and summer drifts towards autumn, Mr Redsell thinks that it has generally been a good crop. He said the pungent flowers enjoyed the mild weather which has been a feature of 2007.

The hop gardens are being quickly stripped of the thick green vines that have come to symbolise Kent as much as our oast houses or white cliffs. The wooden poles will stand in stark rows through the winter, before the young plants are strung up again in the spring and the whole process restarts.

The Prague Daily Monitor isn't so hopeful.

Czech hop growers expect a yield of 0.94-0.98 tonnes per hectare this year, down from 1.01 tonnes in 2006, Bohumil Pazler from the Czech Hop Growers Union told reporters Friday.

Hop harvest should drop to 5,100-5,300 tonnes in 2007 from 5,453 tonnes a year earlier. This year's harvest was affected by weather extremes, above all irregular rainfall, Pazler said.

The USDA's report suggests a very slight increase in American hop yields over last year's harvest:

            Hops:  Area Harvested, Yield, and Production by State and
     United States, 2005-2006 and Forecasted August 1, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:   Area Harvested    :       Yield       :          Production
State:-------------------------------------------------------------------------
:   2006   :   2007   :  2006   :  2007   :  2005   :   2006   :   2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:  ----- Acres -----     ---- Pounds ---   -------- 1,000 Pounds --------
:
ID    :   2,797      3,106     1,613     1,400    5,390.9    4,510.4    4,348.4
OR    :   5,036      5,177     1,757     1,720    8,054.0    8,848.5    8,904.4
WA    :  21,532     22,749     2,058     2,080   39,469.6   44,312.9   47,317.9
US    :  29,365     31,032     1,964     1,952  52,914.5 57,671.8  60,570.7

In all, I think a lot of the concern may be specific to Europe, but I have been wrong before. Add to these decent yield expectations by the USDA the fact that a percentage of 2006 went up in smoke, and I think we should be OK here in the US.

Supporting this thought is the letter made public by Hopsteiner late in August. In fact, Hopsteiner's 2007 Global Hop crop estimate suggest an increase in production over last year.

Then, to finish off the day, Probrewer has a thread that's a bit disheartening. This is what Ralph Olson has to say:

"The hop world is upside down. In the future we see the possibility of brewers shutting down for lack of hops."

For US hops 2007 is looking like an average crop, but not a bumper crop.

Slovenia (grower of Styrians) lost at least 1/3 and possibly as much as 1/2 of their crop to a hailstorm.

The Czech crop is down 25% this year. Estimated alphas on Czech Saaz from the 2007 crop are 2.7 2.9.

The German crop is average at best with earlier aroma hops coming in below normal (such as Hallertau Mittelfruh).

New Zealand and Australia crops this year (which arrived in the US in June and July) were normal.

England is almost out of the hop business. Their acreage of 2,400 in 2006 (down from 17,000 in 1976) represents 2 percent of the worldwide acreage.

World acreage:
1986: 215,600
1992: 236,000
2006: 123,000

Sure, not all is good, but the more I look into things the less discouraged I think we all need to be in the short term. For those looking forward a year to two, it is clear there is cause for concern.

This is a horrible, horrible video someone posted on YouTube, looking a an entire field of hops basically destroyed in Europe. Looks like the weather got the the better of them.

Ten Things That Bug Me - 9/07 Edition

I'm in a good mood, sitting here enjoying the Niners and Carndinals open up Monday Night Football for the season. However, I have realized there are things in my life that bug me, things that are beer related, things I figured I'd share. Feel free to add your complaints, even if to say you hate when people complain online.

1. Wheat Beer vs Hefeweizen - I'm not an authority on this, but Hefeweizens and Wheat Beers aren't the same. Hefeweizens are beers with banana and clove presence, cloudy appearance, not just unfiltered, but cloudy from the low flocculating yeast - the yeast in this come from Bavaria. Wheat Beers are generally clear, often with an American twang. Oh, and if you have a clear beer from Bavaria, its called a Crystal-weizen.
2. Stouts are not strong, heavy beers. Too many times I've been with friends or bar-friends who tell me they don't like Guinness because it is too heavy. Too heavy? This is one of the lightest import beers you'll find on the market, and in no way strong. Yes, if you order a Russian Imperial Stout or a Foreign Stout, then this all doesn't matter. I just don't know a lot of people who know what those beers are.
3. More alcohol doesn't make a better beer. If you're reading this, you probably agree (I have certain assumption about my audience, forgive me). Oh, big beers are almost always fun in some way, but often seem disjointed, messy, hastily put together and with one thing in mind - getting the drinker schnockered. Sadly, some of the most well regarded craft beers on the market fall into this category, but I don't like dragging anyone in the mud. Afterall, these are my gripes, not yours.
4. More hops doesn't make a better beer. Yes, I love a good IPA. In fact, I probably love them more than I convey in our show or site. However, too often it seems that lots of hops are added to marginal beers to distract my senses from realizing just how marginal the beer is.
5. Imperials... oh God I hate Imperials. Not the beer, but the name itself. An Imperial American IPA should embarrass anyone. [OK, this one could get rocky, as this is one of my most major gripes. You ready?]
   We all know that the Russian Imperial Stout was originally made in England for shipment to Russia, for the Imperial Court. I appreciate wanting to pay homage to styles of historical importance, but an Imperial IPA has absolutely NOTHING in common with the RIS. It just seems lazy. Oh, and I also hate the word Double in front of our American beer styles. Folks, lets face it now, the Imperial IPA is in no way related to the IPA - the one brewed in England for transport to India. I challenge you, the good brewers of this country, to begin paying some homage to your own creativity, our own ingredients and a taste that is truly all-American (and don't even get me started on the BJCP styles in this regard).
   Seriously, calling our decidedly American high hopped beers 'IPAs' is just odd. I've thought (and griped) about this for years, and even have a few examples for what the style can be called.
   - Cascade Pale Ale, not because of the Cascade hop, but because of the region our hops come from - the Cascades.
   - California Pale Ale, mainly because all we know about the American IPA began with Sierra Nevada, Anchor and New Albion - and yes, I know Bridgeport belongs up here too.
   - Pacific Pale Ale, basically intended to capture the whole west coast.
   - West Coast Pale, same logic as above
6. Labels can be funny, or cute, but if they are they must have an equal level of detail about the beer itself. I like reading the marketing stuff, really, but am most interested in the OG, Hops and Malts used, Final Gravity, ABV, etc.
7. Big Craft Brewers aren't inferior craft brewers. I don't want to hear you gripe to me, or anyone else, that Sierra Nevada, Sam Adams or New Belgium "aren't that good". Give me a break. You think Fat Tire, SN Pale, SA Boston Lager are 'bad beers'? Then you're a beer snob, not a beer geek. Snobs know more than anyone else, geeks are eager to learn. Don't be a snob.
8. Support your local brewers, please. I know a handful of local beer enthusiasts that pride themselves on their procurement abilities, showing off their newest shipments from far away, or their latest scores from the beer store. Strangely though, I don't ever see them proud of our local, wonderful brewers. Of course, the people who are good at procuring are likely the same people who like the hoppiest, biggest and most powerful beers out there.
9. Share your beer. You don't have to share it with me, but you should share your spoils with those who you think might appreciate it. No, don't go out and give your beer to the closest Bud fan in effort of conversion (the verse about pearls before swine comes to mind), but also understand that everything in life is better shared. I don't know 'what' Jesus would drink, but I'm pretty sure he'd share.
   
10. Respect your brewers. This is specifically geared to the homebrewers of the world. Don't walk into a brewery and tell any brewer what is 'wrong' with their beer. It isn't your place and you don't know that much, I promise. You don't have to kiss ass or lie, but if you don't like a beer, change the subject, thank them the beer or just shut up. Now, I talk amongst my friends quite often about the beers I drink, and often discuss my own feelings about a beer with these friends. But to tell a pro brewer that they should have added more hops, more alcohol, Pilsner Malt over American 2-Row... that just ain't my place - or yours.

With that last one there is some hesitation. Afterall, I rate beers here numerically and respect many others who do as well. But I don't do this to "judge", and I don't think you'll find a lot of overt 'fault finding' in my writings. Additionally, I hope you understand that I have no delusions of grandeur, I know I'm not the authority for all things beer.

Well, that's ten things that bug me tonight. I'll have to work on balancing this post with a top ten list of things that I like about beer and beer enthusiasts.

Craft Beer is Booming... But Will It Bust?

I was just coming into my legal drinking age at the end of the Craft Beer Boom & Bust of the 1990's, so I won't offer an 'expert' opinion here. I am enjoying the boom of craft beer now and have heard similarities between now and then pointed out by those who seemed to have been burned a bit by the 90's fallout. From where I sit, I simply can't imagine the industry collapsing, unless there are unforeseen national economic issues that create larger problems than a plateauing craft beer industry. Today, it seems, the American palate expects more from their food and drink - just look at the cheese or bread aisle of your local grocer to see this evidenced. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

The Miller "Brew Blog" recently raised this question of fallout in the craft beer world, also concluding that a repeat of the 90's is highly unlikely.

No one can predict the future. But plenty of indicators suggest craft beer’s run is more sustainable this time around. Here’s why:

1. Craft beers are generally of higher consistency and quality than they were in the 1990s.

2. The trading-up and customization trends are more broad-based now than it was then.

3. The operators are better. During the last runup, a lot of amateurs and speculators got into the business in hopes of making a quick fortune. That’s not the case this time – at least for now. They’ve also learned from the lessons of the 1990s.

“The companies that are here today are better than they were in the 1990s,” says Gary Fish, president of Deschutes Brewery.

Here's hoping craft beer's success over the last few years doesn't attract those looking to get rich quick, or those who would compromise the quality we enjoy today.

Legal Drinking Age

MSNBC has this story about a small movement afoot to lower the legal drinking limit to 18 throughout the USA. Apparently, according to the article, there is huge opposition to this - "77 percent of Americans opposed lowering the drinking age to 18." Now, I can't believe that huge a percentage is opposed to legalizing alcohol for adults, but then again I don't know why anyone is opposed to letting adults drink alcohol.

Assuming that the 77% figure is right, it is clear that the legal drinking age throughout the country won't be lowered anytime soon. I am OK with that. Really. So long as we then make it illegal for anyone under 21 to serve in our military, on our streets as police, or fire fighters. As long as those under 21 aren't allowed to have a gun, teach our kids or work as an EMT. In fact, under 21? You shouldn't be allowed to work on ships, in mines, at refineries or around dangerous chemicals - like gasoline. After all, we're only trying to protect you.

Unreasonable? Yes, I think it is too. Let adults be adults, or redefine what age our citizens become "Legal" adults. Lower the drinking age already.

Ten People Who Shaped the US Beer Scene

Clearly this could get out of hand, the listing of influencial beers, brewers, people, cities, logos, ingredients, magazines, clubs and whatever. That said, Stan over Appelation Beer started the discussion with the 10 Beers that Changed America, which sparked some debate. Today, Jeff at Beervana lists Oregon's Influential Ten. I commented that his list made no mention of Fred (number 3 on my list) and then realized... why not do a list so you all can tell me what I missed? So, with that in mind, I offer a list of 10-ish PEOPLE who have shaped the modern American beer scene.

Fire Away!

1) Fritz Maytag - For obvious reasons he must top the list. Upon buying the struggling Anchor brewing he spearheaded the brewery's turnaround and making it the prize of craft brewing in America.

2) Jack McAuliffe - Owner of the now defunct New Albion Brewing, once located in Sonoma (their sign now adornes the wall of Russian River Brewing). Beer geeks will know the name, but in case you miss this significance, this was the first modern 'micro brewery' in the US. They weren't around when I discovered beer, but I have heard up and down reviews on what they once made - but there is no doubting the importance this place had in the US.

3) Fred Eckhardt - The first beer column writer published in modern times, beginning in early 1980's. His first columns were published in The Oregonian and his writings inspired many of the readers to start asking for better beer - if not make their own. Fred's first beer article was published in 1969, 10 years before making beer at home was even legal. Oh, and Hair of the Dog's "Fred" is named after the guy... how cool is that?

4) Charlie Papazian - Another no-brainer pick, but Charlie's book, "The Complete Joy of Homebrewing" was inspirational to many beer lovers who would become home brewers... who would become brew masters. In addition, Charlie has continued fighting the good beer fight with his works with the American Brewers Association.

5) Bert Grant - You won't find a first or second generation brewer in the US (those who have been brewing 15-25 years) who doesn't want to give this man credit... who am I to disagree? Sadly, all I know about Bert is what I've read about the man - and it has all be very good.

6) Garrett Oliver - Getting to the 'iffy' picks, I am putting Mr Oliver on the list for what he is doing now with his passionate pursuit to change people's perception of beer, specifically with regards to food and beer pairing. Personally, I think he's the most articulate brewer/writer out there and his writings are among the most approachable out there.

7) Jim Koch - Boston Beer Co does so much to promote craft beer. Yes, they're promoting their own beers, but they are the only beer commercials to combat the B/M/C ads that saturate my TV. He is on this list mostly for his seemingly larger-than-life personality.

8) Ken Grossman - For two words: Pale Ale. Talk about spawning a revolution! And today he's not found brewing too often, but leading the way for sustainable business practices and social responsibility.

9) Tie because I can't tell them apart... Vinnie Cilurzo & Sam Caglione - It seems that these two are pushing two different envelopes with equal success and a wonderful friendship. Vinnie is becoming somewhat legendary for his work with sour beers and wine barrel aging - not to mention some of the best IPAs in the country. Sam... well, Sam seems to be doing whatever he wants, and doing it well - and has been featured on TV spots highlighting beer more than once for his works. Together, these two are creating a solid reputation for beers across the country.

10) With respect to Jeff Alworth's piece on "Oregon's Influencial Ten", I'll let this one remain empty. I know I am missing some obvious people and for that I apologize. I would like to see Dave Alexander, owner of Brickskeller, or Dave Keen of Toronado, Don Younger of Horse Brass - someone who makes the beer bar a great place to be today, those who have redefined what a Beer Bar can be.

Not Listed:
- John Maier of Rogue - I really wanted him to be here, but... he's not. I can't even tell you why.
- Greg Koch of Stone - Couldn't do it - I think he is deserving, but I can't pump anyone off the list.
- Tomme Arthur? Help me out here - who has had the greatest influence on barrel aging beers in the US? Todd Ashman was floated once as a pioneer while he was at Flossmore Station, but I honestly don't know enough to know how wrong I am. I mentioned Tomme for what he is doing now and the success he is having - along with the legend he seems to be creating - but that could be off base.
- The Alstrom brothers at Beer Advocate - Love the site or hate it, BA is huge right now. I hope they figure out their magazine endeavor, those who talk to me (thanks mom) just aren't in love with it like they'd hoped to be.
- Homer Simpson - and I am partially serious here. Can you name another "family TV show" who has a beer drinking father? Better yet, can you think of a family show that was on when The Simpsons first aired that had so much beer throughout the show? I can't.

A note about Rick Sellers
I am admittedly a student of the American Beer Scene at this stage of my life. I hope to someday be able to pass on the history of our modern brewing to as many people as possible, with the respect and passion those who are doing that now have in their writing and daily lives. I am pretty young (30 is the new 27, right?) still and know I have quite a ways to go before I'll call myself an expert. There are, however, experts I greatly admire who also have great beer blogs - Jay at Brookston Beer Bulletin, Lew Bryson at Seen through a Glass, Stan Hieronymus at Appelation Beer in particular. These guys spark my beer loving imagination and challenge me to dig deeper into my library of beer knowledge - or expand it I should say. I guess this little piece is a note of appreciation to the better beer writers in the country today, those who have seen and experienced more than me. Thanks guys.
- Rick