Originally founded in Roanoke, Virginia in 1890, the Virginia Brewing Company went through some ups and downs, before finally closing in 1958. Except for its final years, when it was known as Mountain Brewing, it was always Virginia Brewing. It then lay dormant and the brand name unused until 1987, when the name was used again by a microbrewery in Virginia Beach

According to a New York Times article from September 1988, the brewery was “a venture begun by Johnathan S. Miller, the deputy assistant for management and administration at the White House who resigned in May 1987 after it was reported that he had cashed some traveler’s checks for Oliver L. North.” There’s also a short review of the old place by a Chicago brewer, Jim Hodge. His review is mostly positive, his biggest complaint being the size of the place, which he describes as follows. “I would caution those wishing to follow in my footsteps that the bar at Virginia Brewing is tiny; it has a total of 6 seats and don’t be surprised if you have to stand while drinking there.” Although he also mentioned they served all their beer in frosted mugs. He reports they had six of their own beers on tap, of which he sampled a “kolsch, an IPA, an ESB, a smoked ale called ‘the Brown Bomber’, and their Halloween pumpkin ale.” The brewer may have been Wolfgang Roth, reportedly from Bavaria. That incarnation of Virginia Brewing appears to have lasted until 1992.

Fast forward another sixteen years and a rumor that began two years ago is getting closer to reality. A press release recently indicated that a grand opening is imminent at the “ZeroPak complex in Winchester, Virginia. The celebration will feature craft beers, barbecue, and live music as the microbrewery welcomes the public to its new brewhall and event space.” They’ve also hired a brewer — always a good sign for a brewery — “John Hovermale, Jr., previously of Harpoon Brewery in Windsor, Vermont.” He’s also apparently a native of Winchester, which makes this job also a homecoming for Hovermale.

From the press release:

“I was intrigued by how this one town’s brewery was so much a part of the community and vice versa,” Hovermale says. “After returning from Europe I attended the Siebel Institute of Technology, where I studied brewing. After paying my dues working in the cellar of a brewery in Biloxi, I joined Harpoon. Now I’ve come full-circle, brewing beer in my hometown.”

It’s nice to see the new owners trying to tie the modern project to the historical brewery of the same name. There’s also some additional history at Rusty Cans, from their June 2006 newsletter.

The original brewery in Roanoke, date unknown.

Early labels from Virginia Brewing Co.

I stumbled upon what sounds like an interesting read, even without the beer angle. The book is Unmarketable by Anne Elizabeth Moore. In it, she apparently examines underground marketing. The full title, which perhaps gives more clues, is Unmarketable: Brandalism, Copyfighting, Mocketing, and the Erosion of Integrity.

From the publisher’s website:

For years the do-it-yourself (DIY)/punk underground has worked against the logic of mass production and creative uniformity, disseminating radical ideas and directly making and trading goods and services. But what happens when the underground becomes just another market? What happens when the very tools that the artists and activists have used to build word of mouth are co-opted by corporate America? What happens to cultural resistance when it becomes just another marketing platform?

Unmarketable examines the corrosive effects of corporate infiltration of the underground. Activist and author Anne Elizabeth Moore takes a critical look at the savvy advertising agencies, corporate marketing teams, and branding experts who use DIY techniques to reach a youth market—and at members of the underground who have helped forward corporate agendas through their own artistic, and occasionally activist, projects.

Sounds interesting enough, and Mother Jones gives it a decent review. But what initially caught my attention was a reference to Pabst Blue Ribbon in the review at the wonderful Powell’s book store in Portland, Oregon.

From the Powell’s review:

Since the early 1970s, sales of Pabst Blue Ribbon beer had plummeted steadily. Then, in 2002, the beer became the beverage of choice in hipster haunts everywhere. Sales rose 5.4% that year, followed by a 9.4% increase in supermarket sales in the first quarter of 2003. Marketwatchers initially scratched their heads at this sudden and inexplicable uptick. The beer hadn’t been actively advertised in years, but that’s precisely what worked in its favor. With ads from the competition (typical T&A showcases, burping frogs, and the ubiquitous catchphrase “Wassup?”) as foils, PBR was automatically imbued with an anti-corporate aura that couldn’t be bought.

Except that it was.

Interesting. Conventional wisdom has always been that retro hipsters latched onto PBR because of its anti-hipness and that Pabst was as surprised as everybody else by it’s sudden surge in sales. If, in fact, Pabst launched a quiet underground campaign that’s a much different, and some might say, sinister picture. I think I may have to see if my library has a copy of that.

This is only slightly off topic, another one of my little tangents, if you will. This is a transcript of a small part of my favorite stand-up comedian’s rant on marketing and advertising. Naturally, it’s better if you see him pacing the stage and yelling into the microphone, but you can still get the gist of his point about underground marketing. It is available on DVD (under the title Bill Hicks Live) and I certainly encourage everyone who doesn’t know his work to watch it. But be warned, he pulls no punches and isn’t to everyone’s taste. I saw him at least a dozen times before his death in 1994. At every single show at least one person, and usually more, got up and walked out in the middle. And not because he wasn’t funny, but because he challenged people to think in ways that made a lot of them quite uncomfortable.

Advertising and Marketing

From Revelations, as written and performed by Bill Hicks at the Dominion Theatre in London, England in 1991.

By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing… kill yourself. No, no, no it’s just a little thought. I’m just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they’ll take root - I don’t know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself. Seriously though, if you are, do. Aaah, no really, there’s no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan’s little helpers. Okay - kill yourself - seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously. No this is not a joke, you’re going, “there’s going to be a joke coming,” there’s no fucking joke coming. You are Satan’s spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. It’s the only way to save your fucking soul, kill yourself. Planting seeds. I know all the marketing people are going, “he’s doing a joke… there’s no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a Yank friend - I don’t care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking makinations. Machi… Whatever, you know what I mean.

I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, “Oh, you know what Bill’s doing, he’s going for that anti-marketing dollar. That’s a good market, he’s very smart.” Oh man, I am not doing that. You fucking evil scumbags! “Ooh, you know what Bill’s doing now, he’s going for the righteous indignation dollar. That’s a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We’ve done research - huge market. He’s doing a good thing.” Godammit, I’m not doing that, you scum-bags! Quit putting a godamm dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet! “Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market, Bill’s very bright to do that.” God, I’m just caught in a fucking web. “Ooh the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market - look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar…” How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don’t you?” “What didya do today honey?” “Oh, we made ah, we made ah arsenic a childhood food now, goodnight.” [snores] “Yeah we just said you know is your baby really too loud? You know,” [snores] “Yeah, you know the mums will love it.” [snores] Sleep like fucking children, don’t ya, this is your world isn’t it?

A maddeningly sparse article in Denmark’s Copenhagen Post today reports that a thesis done by a graduate student at the University of Copenhagen seems to suggest that “[o]rganic beer production emits substantially more greenhouse gases than ordinary beer.” The study’s author, Jakob Majcher, compared CO² emissions between conventional brewing and organic brewing and found that organic beer production produced 12% more. As far as I knew, the only difference between organic and non-organic beer was the ingredients used. I don’t know of any real differences in the “process” of brewing organic beer, so I’m somewhat stumped as to what might account for his findings. There’s almost no details about how he he did his study, just his declaration of the results, which is more than a little frustrating.

There is what looks to be a slightly more thorough, or at least longer, article at Information DK. Unfortunately, it’s in Danish and none of the popular web translators offer Danish. The only one I could find, InterTran, provides a translation that is almost unreadable. Hopefully, this will get picked up by English-language news outlets and we can figure out what’s really going on.

+

Pyramid Brewing and Magic Hat announced today that they will merge, pursuant to a letter of intent. According to the terms of the agreement, Magic Hat will acquire Pyramid in an all-cash offer and then the two will merge.

From the press release:

The proposed transaction is subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive merger agreement. The merger agreement will provide for a first-step tender offer for outstanding Pyramid shares by an acquisition entity wholly owned by Magic Hat, to be conditioned upon the acquisition of at least 66 2/3% of the outstanding shares of Pyramid. The tender offer, if consummated, will be followed by a merger of Magic Hat’s acquisition entity with and into Pyramid. The proposed transaction is also subject to the satisfactory completion of a due diligence review by Magic Hat of the business, financial and legal affairs of Pyramid, and receipt of necessary consents and approvals of regulatory agencies and third parties.

The closing of the proposed transaction, subject to the conditions referred to above, is anticipated to occur not later than August 31, 2008. The board of directors of Pyramid has approved the transactions contemplated by the Letter of Intent.

“The combination of these two well established, high profile craft breweries will be very complementary given our respective brand portfolios and the geographies in which we predominantly operate. Additionally, there will be a number of important benefits for Pyramid to be part of a private company versus continuing to operate as a stand alone public entity. This consolidation makes both good strategic and financial sense and is well timed, particularly as the beer industry’s competitive dynamics continue to intensify,” said Pyramid CEO Scott Barnum. “The Company will continue to have offices in Seattle, its historical home, and will seek opportunities to capitalize on the enhanced assets and capabilities of the new combined entity,” he added.

Martin Kelly, CEO of Magic Hat said, “We have a great deal of respect for Pyramid’s brand heritage, award-winning beers and its dedicated employees, and look forward to consummating this transaction, which provides both strategic and financial benefits both to Pyramid’s and Magic Hat’s stakeholders.”

Hmm, not sure what to make of this yet. I’m not generally a fan of small companies becoming bigger through merger, but who knows. There’s certainly no market overlap between the two, so perhaps it will beneficial for both. We’ll have to wait and see.

After initially posting this, an industry insider friend of mine opined offline that he knew that Alan Newman, the owner of Magic Hat, had been looking for a way to get his brands to the left coast. Pyramid has a excellent distribution network which would be very beneficial to Magic Hat in reaching stores shelves out here. Both brands do pretty well in their own markets and so perhaps there is a mutual benefit. As my friend put it, it’s “a real make-sense deal.”

Alan over at A Good Beer Blog has a post today entitled More On That Code Of Conduct Idea, itself prompted by something written by Andy Crouch at his Beer Scribe website, called Media Draft: Anheuser Busch, Paid Travel, and the Ethics of Beer Writers…. Start with Andy’s thoughts and then read what Alan responded with before launching into what’s below here. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

This is clearly an issue that’s not going away. Not everybody seems able to agree on what is acceptable behavior for a beer writer and as with most things involving morals and ethics, there really aren’t any hard and fast rules that can be applied to every situation. There can be guiding principles, of course, but they have to conform to the day to day working realities, otherwise they’re meaningless. Ethics is defined, according to my OED, as “the moral principles governing or influencing conduct.”

To me this debate is important because I had an idea last year to start up another Beer Writers Guild to replace the North American Guild of Beer Writers. This time around, I felt the right way to do it was to have a guild that was by writers, for writers, so I enlisted as founding members the help of five colleagues to get us off the ground: Stephen Beaumont, Lew Bryson, Stan Hieronymus, Lisa Morrison and Lucy Saunders. The idea was to set things up and then invite all of our fellow writers to join us. We’re all pretty busy, of course, and things have been moving forward, but at a snail’s pace due, at least in part, to my own lack of spare time to work on the project.

One of the things I noticed early on, talking amongst the six of us (and other writers as well) was that it is very difficult to agree on what rules of conduct should be set out for the group. Some wanted almost no rules, others some loose standards and I suspect from talking with Andy more generally about this in Germany that he would lean toward having some very rigid rules, possibly involving a prohibition or disclosure of any received from a brewery or beer company. The way he explained his position to me in Bavaria has softened somewhat in his recent blog post, but I still felt the same frustration when I read “[a]re you absolutely convinced the person wasn’t influenced by the free plane ride, shuttles, hotel room, day trips, beer, meals, and other activities?” (Full Disclosure: we had this conversation at an Anheuser-Busch beer dinner during an all-expense paid trip to Bavaria sponsored by the Bavarian Brewers Federation, an Agricultural Trade organization whose exact name now escapes me, and others.) I tried to persuade Andy then that his position was too rigid and unrealistic given that beer writing doesn’t really make anyone a comfortable living all by itself, but I don’t think I got very far.

In Andy’s post he quotes Ray Daniels from his own disclosure of paid travel, suggesting that if anyone had a problem with that, they didn’t really understand the reality of writing about beer for a living, as follows. “If you think that beer writing pays enough for anyone to bring you this kind of information without brewer support then your perception of the beer world is twisted like some M.C. Escher block print. Either that or Mad Cow disease has finally become manifest in America. In either case, you need to have a beer, read the piece and then decide for yourself what you actually think. Jumps to conclusion, knee jerk reactions and other un-pondered perspectives need not apply.” Amen, brother, and I credit Andy for sharing that perspective, too.

But as Ray so cogently points out, beer writing doesn’t pay the bills, for most of us it’s a labor of love. No one I know actually makes a living writing “only” about beer. Even ones that come close, Beaumont for example, also write about travel, food and spirits (and he also has a restaurant). Michael Jackson (who we know accepted travel and such) also wrote about whisky, and in fact was better known for that in his native England. It’s simply too narrow a topic to sustain a cadre of writers all by itself. So that means it’s utterly impossible for anyone to live up to a standard where no one ever accepts anything and also can make a living. To me, it’s academic ivory tower thinking that ignores reality. It may look good on paper or as a theory, but out in the trenches it just doesn’t work.

And I can’t help but think that trying to discredit everyone who does accept freebies does no one any favors, either? If everybody does from time to time accept a press junket or a free beer dinner, who then is left above the fray? I hate to suggest that something is acceptable just because everybody is doing it, but perhaps everybody’s doing it because it already is acceptable? Under such circumstances, to not ever accept would put a writer at a disadvantage in terms of stories he or she has access to. No one has ever insisted what I write about, only that I am encouraged to write about the experience.

At what point do we draw the line? Most would agree receiving samples to review is acceptable. But what about a case? And what about press credentials for attending events? I just got back from the Craft Brewers Conference in San Diego. As a member of the press, I could attend any number of seminars that brewers had to pay for, and I’m pretty sure they weren’t cheap. Should I have had to pay my way to every event, to avoid the appearance of bias or being compromised in my opinion? As media credentials are also a time-honored tradition for getting news coverage, should they likewise be thrown out, too, since they might bias the journalist? My point simply is where does it end? Where do you draw the line between the legitimate and the unethical? And who gets to decide? Has getting into movies before they’re released for free made movie reviewers unable to pan a horrible flick? When I was a record buyer for the now defunct Record Bar chain, headquartered in North Carolina, a record label flew me to Chicago for the weekend to see a new band whose record they wanted me to buy. The band sucked and so did the record. They wanted end caps; I think I put in one record per high volume store. Was I influenced by the fact that they flew me to the windy city? Not one iota. I had a job to do, which was to make the best buying decision based on how many I believed the chain of record stores I worked for could sell. That’s no different from being a professional journalist. I believe I can separate the job from the perks. I’m an adult. That’s what the job requires. If I muck it up enough times, saying something bad is good, my readers will stop paying any attention to me. If I’m continually out of step with popular opinion, I’ll stop getting writing assignments.

So what to do? My wife, who’s an attorney like Andy Crouch, picks up the tab for me and my two children. In exchange, I take care of the kids and do stuff around the house, which is where I work from. In my writing, I personally don’t ask for anything beyond a sample I may need. I pay my own way almost all of the time, and on my taxes show a loss every year with more expenses than income from beer writing, primarily because of the high cost of air travel. I hope that will improve and change, but for now that’s the way it is. If someone offers me a sample, a t-shirt or yet another keychain, I will often graciously accept. If someone invites me on a trip or to a dinner, etc., if I’m available I will also generally accept. I take the position that I won’t ask for something, but if offered I will usually accept, provided there are no obvious expectations created that I find personally troubling. To hear Crouch talk about it, I may as well not bother writing about it because apparently I’ve sold my soul to the devil of bias, especially if I don’t follow his requirement that all disclosures must be in full and up front. Perhaps every beer writer should just start every article they write with a standard boilerplate disclosure, that will sure make for some entertaining copy guaranteed to really draw in the reader. I know in his blog post, Andy’s just raising the question and saying it’s something to be aware of and watch out for, but since I already know where he falls on the debate and what even raising it says, I think we can move past that to what he’s really suggesting, which is that he strongly dislikes the practice and appears suspect of anyone not walking the road as elevated as his own.

But unless you’re independently wealthy, why say no? Why create an ethical standard that only the wealthy can adhere to, especially when no one else is terribly concerned about it? According to Lew Bryson, Crouch told him “if you can’t afford to write about beer, you should do something else.” The full quote, from a comment posted on the Appellation Beer Blog is as follows.

I think I’ve been pretty clear that I acknowledge not having to make this entire leap due to an outside, full time job. And I’ve acknowledged that said full-time job allows me the fiscal freedom to follow a certain set of guidelines that I have described here and elsewhere. To those who say they cannot make a full-time living without crossing some ethical lines, I’m sorry to say, you should not be writing full time. Just as a lawyer (to take my trade) who cannot fiscally operate a solo practice without breaching a few conflict of interest rules should get a different job (either with a larger firm, a non-profit, or out of the legal trade). I think it’s better practice to write part-time and get a second or different job rather than cross certain standardized ethical guidelines in order to make an extra few bucks.

As Andy himself admits, his law practice far outweighs his beer writing in terms of income. Knowing that, how can that statement not be taken as class politics? Here’s what’s wrong with what he’s saying, at least in my opinion. Crouch suggests that a lawyer who can’t make a living, shouldn’t be a lawyer. I’m okay with that statement, since there are numerous examples of lawyers able to make a comfortable living. There are many, many people and organizations willing to pay substantial sums for legal services. Can the same be said for writing about beer? Of course not, and for that simple reason I don’t think you can compare the two. The occupational opportunities are vast indeed, especially when set side by side with that of beer writing. Even with the in roads made over the past few decades, the profession of beer writer is a struggling one with no clear career path, specific schools or recruiters waiting to snap one up. There is nobody that’s making a living writing full time only about beer. Give me one name of someone, anyone, who makes a living, decent or otherwise, ONLY writing about beer, with either no additional topics or a second or day job? Stumped? Me, too. That’s because there aren’t any. Even if you could find one, somewhere, that still suggests it’s a very difficult thing to achieve, impossible or nearly so. Beer writing simply is not a well-paid job. No one’s clamoring to get into the field as their ticket to fame and fortune. And quite frankly, this inflexible prohibition on accepting things would also deal one more blow to people writing about beer. It would make it much harder for new writers to enter the field or for part time writers to be able to compete with the more established among us. And that, I believe, would be bad for not only the writing community, but for the industry itself. There’s room for many more voices to talk about better beer. We should be making it easier for beer writers, not more difficult.

I really don’t want to sound insulting (and Andy I’m really not trying to be) but it seems easy to take such a black and white position with regard to accepting free trips and the like, when you already have a decent income that allows you to afford to pay your own way, and I acknowledge that you’ve said so. But it just feels a little like class superiority. I really don’t think that’s your intention, but I can’t help but hear this voice in the back of my head every time this argument comes up, saying “why don’t those commoners know their place, this profession is for reserved for those of breeding.” When you try to impose your ethics on the rest of us, suggesting no one can accept something of value as a part of doing their job, despite your acknowledgment that it’s a time-honored tradition (albeit one you disagree with), it’s like you think you get to decide who can actually DO that job by making rules very few people can afford to live up to, and I don’t think that’s realistic or, quite honestly, very fair. When you say writing about beer can only be done by those that can afford it, pip pip, you need to be wearing a monocle and top hat. The poor need not apply. That just fries my lower middle-class upbringing into a frenzy.

Andy, I think I can speak for the six of us in saying we hope you’ll be a part of the new Beer Writers Guild (once we get our shit together) but I can guarantee you that our code of conduct will not include a prohibition on accepting travel or other items of value, nor will we require a specific type of disclosure for any article we write. I believe that has to be a decision made by each individual writer. Perhaps you’ll think that will make our fledgling group a nonstarter from the get go, but I would argue that there are more important issues to tackle than a practice as common as the press junket, such as raising the quality of writing and getting us all better pay, more work and contracts that are more fair. That will go a long way toward creating an environment where beer writers could actually make a decent living. As Lew puts it, “give me fair pay for my work, and let the readers be a bit more demanding, and you’ll GET quality writing, and ethical writing.”

The Pink Boots Society, the organization of women in beer founded by Teri Fahrendorf, held their first meeting during the recent Craft Brewers Conference on April 19. Teri used to be in charge of brewing operations for the Steelhead chain of brewpubs, but left that job to travel around the country, a journey which she documented as the Road Brewer. Around the same time, she started the Pink Boots Society to be a group of women brewers and related beer occupations that would advocate for women in the industry.

16 women brewers & cellarwomen attended the first meeting, as listed below in no particular order.

Teri Fahrendorf (Formerly Steelhead Brewery), Laura Ulrich (Stone Brewing), Jessica Gilman (Stone Brewing), Alysha Heck (Orlando Brewing), Barbara Gerovac (Red Car Brewery), Emily Thomas (Santa Cruz Mountain Brewing), Erin Glass (Formerly New Belgium, now with the Brewers Association), Hayley Meagher (Rock Bottom - Long Beach), Maribeth Raines (Great Beer Company), Michelle Lowney (Formerly Phantom Canyon, now a Consultant in Canada), Jamie Martin (Dells Brewing), Tonya Cornett (Bend Brewing), Denise Jones (Moylan’s), Laurie Wright Matthews (Island Brewing), Carol Stoudt (Stoudt Brewing), Alyson Tomlin (R & B Brewing).

The Craft Brewers Conference, this year held in San Diego, officially began last Thursday — as it always does — with all the Brewers Association members assembled in a large hall for the “Welcome and Keynote Address.” During this time, they also present three awards important within the craft beer industry.

After opening remarks from BA President Charlie Papazian, Tom Nickel gave the history of San Diego, the area’s beer community, along with tips on what to see and do in the city.

Dr. Michael Lewis, from U.C. Davis, received one of the three awards.

As did Vinnie Cilurzo, from Russian River Brewing.

For more information and photos from this year’s first day of the Craft Brewers Conference, visit the photo gallery.
 

For the second time in four years, the annual Craft Brewers Conference again descended on San Diego, California. It was an opportunity for beer people from around the world to get together and interact, learn and, of course, have a great time.

The tightknit San Diego brewing community went out of thier way to make everyone feel welcome. Tomme Arthur, from Port Brewing and The Lost Abbey, and his lovely daughter Sydney, greeted people from far and wide at the Brewers Reception hosted by Stone Brewing.

It was an opportunity for friends from around the world to see one another again, often for the first time since GABF.

For many more photos from the day before this year’s Craft Brewers Conference, visit the photo gallery.
 

A California state legislator, Jim Beall, Jr. of San Jose, is proposing a bill that will raise the taxes on beer a staggering $1.80 per six-pack or 30-cents a bottle, which amounts to over a 1400% increase! In addition, the tax on draft beer would be an additional $90 per keg, almost doubling their cost. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. This is his first term in the state assembly so perhaps he’s trying to make a name for himself. Any bill of this type needs a two-thirds majority to pass (doubtful at best) and then also, “because it’s a constitutional amendment, it would have to be approved by voters.” I’d be surprised to see voters agree to have the price of beer raised by that much. But even so, it’s worth looking at the propaganda behind Beall’s rationale, as it seems to come directly from the neo-prohibtionist playbook.

Mike Fox Sr., from the San Jose beer distributor M.E. Fox, said “Beall’s heart is in the right place” because he’s “dedicated in areas of health.” That’s far more credit than I’m willing to give him. As Dan Gordon puts it, far more realistically, “[w]e would all be looking for jobs.” Beall is trying to raise money for our beleaguered state which has had serious budget problems for several years, but he’s forgetting that putting the beer industry out of business isn’t going to do the state any favors economically. The California brewing industry in 2007 directly contributed $10,952,775,208 to our economy and another $8,136,322,492 by suppliers plus $5,557,441,516 in induced impact. That’s a total of $24,646,539,216 that beer contributes to our state economy. You can see the breakdowns of these figures at Beer Serves America.

Before I get into the apparent reasons he’s proposing this nonsense, I want to point out that he’s not seeking to raise the tax on wine or spirits, just beer. So it’s hard to swallow his rationale when he says the following, which are taken from a report by NBC Channel 11, in the Bay Area, and also in the Contra Costa Times.

“The fallout from alcohol consumption costs Californians nearly $36 billion a year in increased health costs, crime, lost productivity and injuries from accidents and abuse,” Beall said. “It’s time for the beer industry to help us with the staggering burden it has helped to create.”

Even if I assume that “alcohol consumption” has created this budget problem (and not our politicians who mismanaged it), beer is not all alcohol and should not be the only one punished. And even if I assume beer is culpable, not all beer drinkers are. Most are responsible drinkers who drink in moderation. Why should everyone be punished with higher prices because a few people can’t handle addiction or other associated problems. Those problems may be real, but why should I pay for someone who can’t be responsible if I can manage to be? Punish the people who actually do cause the problem, don’t use a shotgun approach and punish the responsible and irresponsible alike. If we had universal health care like the rest of the civilized world, this wouldn’t even be an issue.

“Beer is the alcohol of choice for under-age drinkers,” Beall said. “Research tells us that kids who begin drinking before they are 15 are more prone to become alcoholics. They are also more susceptible to alcohol-related problems such as vehicle accidents and assaults later in life than people who wait until they are 21 or older to take their first drink.”

It’s the choice of underage drinkers because it’s more available. Beer outsells other alcoholic beverages by at least four to one, in some cases more than that. So it’s more an issue of what’s around more than anything else. Plus, when I was a kid many of my friend’s parents kept their more expensive booze locked up in a liquor cabinet making it much harder to get at, whereas beer was in the refrigerator. I doubt things have changed all that much, suggesting one more reason that beer is easier to find. Then there’s our refusal to educate our youth about alcohol, including the insulting fact that in many places parents are even forbidden to teach their own children about alcohol.

Beall also likens the beer tax to that of cigarettes, which is fairly high, saying. “The people who use alcohol should pay for part of the cost to society, just like we’ve accepted that concept with tobacco.” But not everyone who drinks costs society anything. In fact, the majority of people are moderate drinkers who do so responsibly. Problem drinkers who may exact a cost to society are a small minority of all drinkers. Beyond that, tobacco itself is a danger to a smoker’s health and to those he or she smokes around, it has been proven scientifically to be an unhealthy product. Beer, by contrast, has been shown to have many health benefits and the vast majority of beer drinkers therefore receive health benefits from their moderate alcohol consumption.

Beall said the money would “force those responsible for the problem to pay for it.”

This statement really galls me. I’m not responsible for the problem. Virtually everyone I know, whether in the beer industry or not, isn’t responsible for the problem. I’m no more responsible for another person’s inability to show restraint than a teetotaler. So why should I and all the other responsible drinkers be “forced to pay for it” as Beall so cavalierly says.

Beall claimed the tax could make beer harder for teens to obtain because of higher prices.

Beall’s office cited a National Academy of Science study on under-age drinking that recommended a raise in taxes on beer to curb consumption by teen-agers who, as a group, are highly price-conscious.

Bullshit. I, and every other adult, should have to pay more for beer because law enforcement can’t stop underage drinking? How is that in any way fair? Everyone should pay higher prices on the off chance that minors can’t afford it? That is so far off the deep end of reasonable logic that it’s stunning. I’m price conscious, too, but I guess I don’t count in Beall’s world view.

If he really cared about underage health, or about everyone paying their “fair share” of any damage they cause, then why isn’t he trying to tax McDonald’s, Burger King and the other fast food joints? Why isn’t he trying to raise the tax on Big Macs and Whoppers? They’re making our youth obese and unhealthy, exacting a terrible cost now and in a future where as obese adults, they’ll continue to be a burden on our dysfunctional healthcare system. I could go on and on like this. Soda is unhealthy for kids and adults alike, but schools put soda machines in cafeterias, hallways and even classrooms.

Beer corporations continue to rake in profits. The United States’ largest brewer, Anheuser-Busch, reported a net income of $2.1 billion in 2007, nearly 8 percent above the previous year; Molson Coors reported $507 million in revenue after taxes.

He’s talking here about three, maybe four corporations, only two of which actually brew beer in California. That leaves over 1400 breweries nationwide that are most definitely NOT raking in big profits. But apparently he’s willing to wage war against over 1400 small and medium-size businesses in order to impact three he doesn’t like.

Not to mention that this couldn’t come at a worse time for the brewing industry, when there is a shortage of key ingredients, notably hops and barley, and prices have skyrocketed over the last year. Most breweries already raised their prices around January, some of them significantly. But I’m willing to bet Beall already knows that. Kicking someone when they’re down, that’s a bully’s trick in my opinion.

He never says so, but all of Beall’s tortured arguments smack of anti-alcohol propaganda. Whether he’s somehow tied to the neo-prohibitionists, or merely been influenced by their rhetoric, is unclear. The biography on his campaign website offers no clues beyond his interest in the health care system. To me, all he’s done is show how unreasonable the self-righteous can be. He must really hate beer and the people who make, distribute and sell it, because how else to explain his proposal to put an entire industry out of business.

Last summer, Labatt USA moved its headquarters from Connecticut to Buffalo, New York. The Associated Press is reporting that Labatt USA has now added a buffalo to their beer label to reflect their new business location. “Labatt USA President Glen Walter hand-delivered a case of the newly labeled beer to Mayor Byron Brown Thursday. In exchange, Brown proclaimed Thursday ‘Labatt USA Day.’” I can’t find an image of the new label anywhere, but I’m curious to see what it looks like. Is it a blue buffalo?

According to a news radio station in Seattle, Washington, KOMO Radio, farmers in the Yakima area have responded to the rising price of hops and are pulling out other crops to plant hop rhizomes this year. From the report:

Growers are feverishly reconditioning yards and adding new land at an unheard-of pace. Growers are receiving multiple-year contracts with prices front-loaded to help them shoulder the estimated $6,000-per-acre cost to plant yards and also upgrade equipment.

I presume the acres mentioned in this report are in addition to the 6,000 of high alphas that was announced in January at the hop growers convention.

Ralph Olson, general manager of grower-owned HopUnion of Yakima, a buyer who deals primarily with smaller craft brewers, thinks the figure may be closer to 8,000 acres by the time all is said and done. That would be a jump of nearly 25 percent in acreage in one year.

That would suggest an additional 2,000 acres, of which hopefully at least some will be aroma hops. There’s been a lot of speculation but no one’s been sure what would happen this year. Now that spring is upon us and it’s time to start planting, it’s looking like more hops are being planted than previously expected. If that trend continues in other places where hops are traditionally grown then that’s very good news indeed.

This year’s American Craft Beer Week will be held May 12-18. The focus this time around will be to “celebrate brewers’ community citizenship.” In 2007, craft breweries gave combined donations of more than $20 million to various charities and worthy causes.

From the press release:

“In addition to being recognized for making world-class beer, independent craft brewers are amazing community citizens,” said Julia Herz, a spokesperson for the Brewers Association. ‘Craft brewers are an integral part of many communities’ charitable efforts. They donate to everything from fire departments, disaster relief efforts, local events, educational fundraisers and so much more.

Changed to a weeklong event in 2006, the inaugural American Craft Beer Week was recognized by the U.S. Congress with House Resolution 753. The week has continued to attract interest and support from beer enthusiasts and the media. In 2007, more than 150 brewers registered their community celebrations at the American Craft Beer Week website.

Also new, SAVOR: An American Craft Beer and Food Experience (May 16-17) will be held to commemorate American Craft Beer Week in Washington D.C. The event will showcase craft beer and food pairings with participation from 48 independent craft brewers. SAVOR signifies food and beverage lovers increasing interest and knowledge of beer and food pairings.

Breweries around the country will be hosting events throughout the week to celebrate American craft beer. To find out what’s going on your local area, you can look up events by state.