Colorado alcohol sales: Keep local or go grocery?

Keep Colorado Local (KCL) is opposing the push to expand Colorado liquor laws that will allow full strength beer and wine sales in grocery and convenience stores.  KCL has stiff competition from large corporations, and has done a good job emphasizing a negative consequences upon local businesses. Selection and variety would decrease, privately owned stores would close, and thousands of jobs would be lost.

However, it has not explained how these consequences would come about. Let's take closer look at how an expanded liquor law will most likely play out (taking lessons from local florists, bakeries, delis, book stores, butchers and corner markets):

1.      It's all about the wine: Wine has the highest profit margin and is the financial foundation of most liquor stores. Grocery stores want it.  But, if grocery stores sold ONLY the best selling 30-50 SKUs of wine, which is equivalent to one small shelf at many liquor stores, then it takes those sales away from liquor stores (see #2).  This would be enough of a blow to the liquor stores that they must close their doors or adjust their prices on other products (i.e. raise prices on beer, liquor and mixers)…and this would just hurt them more

2.      It won't take much:  The sheer number of liquor stores helps keep the price of beer/wine/liquor down, while promising small margins. When grocery chains slash prices (see #3) by $10 per bottle of wine, or $4 per six pack of beer, even on only 30 products, liquor stores cannot compete and the margins evaporate.  Liquor stores losing just 30 products means customers losing hundreds or even thousands of choices

3.      Cheap prices now, gouging later:  Grocery stores have "loss leaders". This means that they buy a product from the manufacturer, say milk, at X cost, but sell it for less than X, thus losing money.  To make up this loss, other products are marked up way above their X cost.  Since grocery stores have tens of thousands of products, they can afford more "loss leaders".  Initially, wine prices at grocery stores will be "loss leaders" in order to undercut the competition (liquor stores).  This sounds great: Cheaper wine and beer. But when the competition closes its doors, grocery stores will have free rein to raise wine and beer prices to whatever they want (not to mention the number of competitors goes from hundreds to 10 or lower)

4.      Convenience is inconvenient: If you just want a 6 pack of beer, or a bottle of wine for a dinner party, do you really want to wade through the grocery store? While in Boston, I had to hunt for beer. Boston! I hated going to a grocery store just to pick up a 6 pack of Sam Adams or Harpoon. Does the grocery-store-system work in other states? A bit, but from my experience in Boston, San Diego, Portland OR, and Seattle, not as well as Colorado's system

5.      Nothing Personal: Not all liquor stores offer personal customer service, but many do. What's a good wine to pair with duck confit? Which beer would counter the stickiness of brie? The wine and beer worlds are complex, and to match your needs with a product requires knowledge of both. It is doubtful that grocery stores, much less convenience stores, will populate their stores with knowledgeable staff

6.      Integrity of product: Grocery stores wield awesome financial power and they can buy products en masse. Selling in bulk, distributors can decrease the number of stops their trucks make, which saves them time and money. But wine and beer are fragile products. An IPA has a shelf life of about 3 months if stored in a cooler. If stored warm, cut that time in half…at least.  Warm wine fairs a little better, but it still has a shelf life not comforted by backroom storage. Once products start to suffer to age, as we all do, their quality diminishes. Brewers and vintners know what their products should taste like and customers expect it

7.      Distribution crunch: The loss of multiple outlets might sound intriguing to the big distributors—fewer number of stops while selling the same amount of product to the bigger stores.  The trickle-down effect, however, is that the bigger stores buy in bulk (see #6) at cheaper rates, thus affecting the margin the distributor makes. Of course, by then they will have released several drivers and warehouse workers to cut the loss. They would also run into stiffer clients: Kroger, Wal Mart, Target and Safeway can battle them with their own distribution networks, political/financial capital and “other” influences.

Prediction: If this law passes, the beer scene in Colorado might suffer, or it might not. Given my experiences in Portland, Boston, San Diego and Eugene, I think chances of the former coming true is greater, but of course not certain. California and Oregon beer scenes are good, but not great—or at least not to their potential.

The important aspect is this: If this proposal becomes law, and if smaller stores close, then there is no going back. For better or worse, we would be stuck with the new system. No one in their right mind would open smaller stores after seeing small stores close, and grocery conglomerates would fight to keep it that way. The old saying comes into play here, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.  Is Colorado’s system really broken?

Personal story:

I did some snooping around Portland, OR the other week to check out the scene there.  I went to several Whole Foods, Belmont Station and a place called BEER.

Warm IPAs at Whole Foods

·        The Whole Foods selection was good, but not great. The storage was horrible: warm IPAs stacked everywhere and some bottles expose to heat, not to mention fluorescent lighting. The wine selection was equivalent to a small to medium sized store in Colorado. Traffic (car and human) was a headache

·        Belmont Station had better selection, but still had many beers warm. It was also a trek to get to

·        BEER was better with cold storage, but smaller selection than Belmont. Closer to downtown

·        Places like Belmont Station, BEER and BeerMongers also serve on-premise beer/cider. That is, they are part pub. I think without this feature, these places would fold. Not sure if Whole Foods allows on-premise sales…who would go there to have a beer anyway?

·        Plaid Pantry is a convenience store chain (private) with some beer selection. Was not a beer destination spot for me. It seems like these are default spots to find some craft beer when other places are too far away

·        Could not find MillerCoors and AB-InBev products at these locations. I was told that the distribution laws in Oregon are “quirky” and there’s a battle between AB-InBev and a smaller distributor over territories. This could affect sales of both AB-InBev and local beers.  Didn’t find a Fred Meyer (Kroger). I suppose living there I’d know more about where things are

·        Only saw one wine shop, and it was closed

·        Most selections of Oregon beer is in the bomber packaging. Few six pack offerings and I was told this is because the packaging options for breweries are limited

My conclusion from my trip (2^nd time in Portland) is that the Oregon…or Portland at least…beer scene is good, but not great.  It “works”, but I think is restricted.  Bottle shops are the preferred outlet, but even they are not as good as many Colorado stores in terms of selection and storage. It was certainly easier just to hit the breweries/tap rooms instead of bottle shops and Whole Foods. 

Cheers and Beers

New Mediation Network for Breweries

Just unveiled, a national brewery network to help with those pesky trademarks!
Brewery Mediation Network

 National Craft Brewery Mediation Service Debuts

Denver-based OvalOptions launches network to help craft brewers with trademark and other disputes

Denver, CO (April 21, 2015) On April 15^th, 2015 OvalOptions for Conflict Management launched its Brewery Mediation Network (BMN) service in areas nation-wide. The program helps connect craft breweries with local providers of mediation, facilitation and associated services to assist in resolving costly disputes, most noticeably those involving trademarks.

Breweries that contact the BMN are guided through a dispute roadmap, shaped by their unique situation, examining issues ranging from inter-brewery dispute to workplace tension. OvalOptions then suggests the most appropriate service and provider in their network and contact the other party. In certain instances, outside references may be given (e.g. legal advocacy).

Jason Gladfelter, co-owner of OvalOptions, conflict consultant and level 1 Cicerone, views trademark disputes as a threat to the industry’s image while inflicting economic damage. “Legal fees in trademark cases can cost tens of thousands of dollars and take six months or more to conclude. Mediation can produce an amicable solution in a timely manner at a fraction of the cost, which is divided between the parties.”

The BMN program is a contractual partnership between OvalOptions and local mediation providers across the country. Each provider and their services are vetted and evaluated by OvalOptions. “This brings together two collaborative industries—mediation and craft brewing—for the benefit of each”, Gladfelter says. “We hope the BMN helps local businesses help each other.”

---more---

About OvalOptions for Conflict Management:  Based in Denver, CO, OvalOptions is a consulting firm focused on mediation and other dispute resolution services operating in conjunction, parallel and outside the court system. OvalOptions helps clients find the most appropriate solutions for their situations, including, if necessary, referring to outside services. You can find them online at www.OvalOptions.com, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/ovaloptions or follow on Twitter: @BeerMediation.

For more information on the Brewery Mediation Network, visit www.OvalOptions.com/BMN or contact BMN@OvalOptions.com.

# # #

Running out of Names only a Symptom for Craft Brewers

Here's a link to my post about craft beer and branding

A Mediator and Jury Duty

I arrived at the courthouse at 8:20am. Jury selection began around 8:45 and at about 9:05 my jury number was called and I proceeded to meet the clerk in the hallway with the other called potential jurors; there were about 30 of us.  As we assembled the clerk informed us that this case was "unusual" and they walked to the designated court room.

In the court room we were handed a questionnaire to complete. It asked questions relating to the nature of the case, which was a medical malpractice suit.  The allegation was that a radiological doctor saw a spot on the plaintiff's liver during a scan, but said nothing about it.  Four years later the plaintiff was diagnosed with liver (and skin) cancer with a terminal prognosis.  The case would ask the jurors if the actions by the doctor were negligent and if that earlier scan would have prevented the terminal prognosis.  Pretty heavy stuff.

After we filled out the questionnaire we were excused to the hallway as the attorneys waded through our responses. This is the first of several opportunities the attorneys and judge have to excuse jurors. Some jurors indicated that they knew the plaintiff or defendant or legal counsel and were excused. At about 11:45 we re-entered the courtroom (a good 2 hours of waiting in the hall). I was one of 17 to sit in the juror box (seven would be decided as actual jurors) to be questioned by the judge and counsel.  The rest sat in the "spectator" section.  But as soon as we sat down, we were excused to lunch.

At 1:00pm we reconvened in the hallway, and at 1:15 entered the courtroom and sat in our assigned chairs. The judge spent 15 minutes explaining the role of juries and then asked eliminating questions: do we know the parties, attorneys or witnesses (a witness list of 40 names was provided).  He then informed us that he and counsel had done their best to streamline this case to make it as quick as possible: Two weeks. Yikes.

We were sworn to an oath (thankfully, no Bible) and were asked if we had extreme hardships.  Several hands flew up, including mine. While prepared to serve the average during of trials (3 days) and perhaps a week, two weeks away from my business and income would be difficult.  Others presented similar requests to mine, but seemed more "hardship" than mine.

The judge did not dismiss any hardship request from jury. His reason was logical: Each trial deserves a cross-section of the peer community.  Fair enough. The only one dismissed was a lady who didn't comprehend English to a satisfactory level. Now it was time for the plaintiff's attorney to question us.

Here is where it gets dicey. At this time the prospective jury pool represents a nice cross-section of the community…aside the fact that most were white, like 22 of the 23 left. Yet, it seemed that this was the time to whittle that cross-section down a bit further, and the prosecutor wasted no time. He reminded to answer honestly as he evoked the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.  They, the Founding Fathers, fought bravely for our Right to a fair trial by a jury of our peers.  Let the appeals to emotion begin!

He proceeded to tell us his job: to persuade us to find for his client. For truth…

As if we didn't understand what "terminal illness" meant, he spelled it out for us. How could we possibly not find for the plaintiff?  He went down the line of jurors and asked each one questions framed from our responses on the questionnaire:

·        Does your being a doctor influence your partiality?

·        Your friend died last week of liver cancer, would that affect your decision?

·        You had a biopsy that was "lost" by the medical staff, would that affect your impartiality?

·        …and so on

Ostensibly the prosecutor was vetting for an impartial jury. He stated the case in one sentence:  "Could any one of you (us) not blame the doctor who did not follow the standard protocol in medical procedures?"  Of course, it must be that simple.

He asked the group if anyone had a problem with lawsuits.  My hand shot up, and I was told he would get to the mediator later (it was good natured and people chuckled).  Once he got to me, my questions were few, mostly because I was second to last to be questioned and the 45 minutes allotted for the prosecutor was ending.

After a break, it was the defense's turn.

The defense attorney started asking us as at random. I think she had specific questions of the two doctors and the lady who had 2 grandchildren in Chicago (and how she would react to them getting cancer). Ugh.  After that, she abandoned the randomness and went down the line in opposite direction from the prosecutor. I was second.

"Why do I have a problem with lawsuits" was her first question. With others, she asked for a little bit about them. Not me. So, I answered honestly and openly: Some lawsuits are appropriate, but most are not. "They are win/loss, black/white, zero-sum contests that reward who wins a debate and does not determine the right or best solution. Whether the defense or prosecution wins, it won't cure the defendant nor explore possibilities why this situation happened".  As a mediator, I told her, it was my job to address the problem(s) and interests of parties, and to represent the process. She tried to praise my job by saying, "that's great and since you strive for compromise…"  I stopped her there and corrected her, "collaboration. Compromise is a lose/lose outcome".  The jurors chuckled and she moved on.

I was asked if I had a problem with attorneys.  I said not personally or professionally, but that some tactics frustrate me.  Had I become partial to one side or the other based on tactics used already? Yes, I said. The prosecutor appealed to emotion several times. I saw this as a manipulative tactic and a signal of weakness of facts on the part of his case. She (defense attorney) asked if I could keep emotion out of my decision, and I say I could if counsel could keep it out of their presentations.  I told her that my partiality was to facts, not to persuasion.

This case was about money: How much should the plaintiff receive to cover expenses and loss of income. This is understandable and I wondered how much of that money (if awarded) would the plaintiff receive after court and attorney fees.

We took a break. When we came back, the judge dismissed the two doctors on grounds of…not sure.

While the judge may have wanted a good cross-section of our community, it was foggy that he did not and clear that counsel certainly did not want it. The quest in finding an "impartial" jury is glamorous, but is ultimately a canard and charade. Counsel wants jurors partial to their side. Each side was allowed to dismiss 5 jurors. It looked like a fantasy football draft session. Each side huddled with their party and clients. The bailiff passed back and forth between parties a sheet with the jurors' names. Each side would cross one name off, pass it to the other side, and so on.

The jury was selected: 4 women (the plaintiff and defendant are women) and 2 men (one who's daughter in law has breast cancer). I was one of the last to be dismissed.

My perception the current court system was not improved by this experience. I think the judicial system in the U.S. is the best, but is being manipulated by a litigious society spurred along by legal counsel.  This case should not take two weeks.  Forty witnesses are not needed; show of force and scare tactics are the motivations for this volume witnesses (38 of the 40 were doctors).  The jury consists of no one with medical experience or knowledge, this is left up to the witnesses. I would assume some witnesses will be brought in to counter other witnesses.  This is doctor versus doctor, with the people deciding who is right having no clue. So if the jury has no clue or tools to determine which medical professionals are right, all they are left with is emotion and their own partiality.

I feel sorry for both parties and the jury.

Cider: It's Not Beer

Now, I have nothing against hard cider (i.e. cider with alcohol).  It can be delicious and comes in many variations. Cider (apple, pear, pineapple…) can be refreshing and paired nicely with food.As a sub-market of the adult beverage industry, it is booming. And that is good to see.   I hold no ill will towards cider millers. More power to them, and I hope they enjoy success.  But, cider is not beer. Not even close.

Hard Cider is riding the coattails of craft beer and its incredible boom. I see ciders at beer fests, beer magazines and just about everywhere one finds beer. Why? Cider is not beer.  It is not brewed and more closely (very closely) resembles wine: Fruit is crushed into juice, which is fermented then blended and packaged. Beer has many more steps that (should) adhere to precise scientific measurements.  The only commonalities they have are alcohol, liquid and packaging.

Big deal, right? Wrong…well, somewhat wrong.  In the grand scheme of things it is no big deal. But the constant integration of cider with craft beer blurs the line separating craft beer and cider. Too many times customers ask me for cider-beer.  Never heard of it, guy, sorry. It also minimizes the efforts, techniques, skill and art of brewing beer, which are widely misunderstood (or unknown) anyway. Brewers are the most underappreciated artisans of the adult beverage industry, mostly due to the complicated and specific production cycle of their craft and the depth of knowledge of chemistry it requires.  Plus, the massive effect a minor miscalculation or error can have on the product. In other words, it takes precision, patience, vigilance and integrity.

(Recently, I was at a beer festival that had several cider companies showcasing their products. I boycotted them at first, but decided that was kind of dumb.  Strange thing, though, when I asked about the pear cider as to what kind of pear juice did it contain--Bosc, Bartlett, D'Anjou…. The reply from the owner of the company did not know!!  Say….what??)

It's also a personal matter to me.  As the beer buyer at Grapes and Grains in Denver, I have worked with the owner to expand the craft beer choices for our customers. Ten years ago, it seemed each color had its own door; silver for Coors Light, gold for Coors Banquet, blue for Bud Light, red for Budweiser, white for Miller Lite, gold/black for MGD. Then separate doors for these companies' respective "premium brands" (Michelob, Blue Moon, Natural Light…).  The bottom line was that 3 brewers commanded 7+ doors, and there was little difference in flavor among them.

Today, we can see our progress in expanding beer choices from, say 6, to well over 100 brews. This wasn't easy. Bud, Miller and Coors (BMC) surely did not want to give up their spaces, nor their color coded displays.  They bullied, manipulated, lied and tried to strong-arm us into ordering for their benefit. But we persisted and now boast a very nice array of Colorado breweries, who themselves worked hard to arrive on our shelves…only to see shelf space dwindle a bit to make room for cider.

KKAAAAHHNNN!

While sometimes delicious (and often too sweet), cider can be a great beverage. But it's not beer or cider-beer or beer-cider.  If cider producers want consumers (and others) to appreciate their product, then perhaps they should develop their own identity. It can only help them.

Craft Beer Defies Definitions

Is it that Craft Beer as an industry has changed and thus changed the meaning of craft beer itself? Or, was what craft beer meant hard to define in the first place?  Does it need a definition? What effect does a definition have on the industry anyway? (*cough*  taxes  *cough*)

America loves to categorize things, including beer styles.  Take IPAs: American, east coast, west coast, no coast, English, double, imperial, triple, even IPA & 1/2.  It is one thing to label a beer so as to convey what it might taste like, but too much definition (or use of vague terms) serves only  to confuse matters. It seems we want the label on the bottle to tell us what to taste, instead of us taking chances and finding out for ourselves. Perhaps this is American as well…but that's another topic.

The Brewers Association has changed, or altered, its definition of Craft Beer several times. The reasons they have done so have been mentioned elsewhere and speculated just about everywhere. What defines craft beer? Ingredients, volume, ownership, origin?  One plausible reason that has not really been touched upon, as far as I can tell, is that defining craft beer may just go against craft beer's essence. Well, perhaps to a point.  But craft beer existed before its definition. How it started is where the essence lays: motivation for brewing beer.

The pioneers of the craft beer scene started brewing beer because they were not satisfied with the beer selections at the time. They thought beer could be better and decided to make their own. While making a profit was (probably) part of the equation, it wasn't the prime motivation. These brewers wanted to make and drink great tasting beer. This desire, and the beer they produced, defined craft beer.

Of course, motivation is difficult to quantify in the first place, but additionally arduous these days in that craft beer is selling quite well, which brings in profits, which in turn muddies the motivational waters.   Is a certain brewery making beer for sheer profit or great taste? Again, hard to determine at most levels. It seems fair to say, though, that acquisition of breweries feeds the desire to obtain profits and less about improving (or ensuring) quality.

To make matters even more unclear is the expense needed to open a brewery. And add to that the inspections, zoning, legal and social red tape a prospective brewery must navigate prior to first lighting of the kettle.  Brewing is a business after all, and money finds itself in the middle of it all. How it affects the craft of brewing differs among breweries.

This is a delicate balance in the craft beer world today; craft against business. Breweries face difficult decision making processes further complicated with multiple voices in the room. Do they sell an under-par beer with off flavors to make up for the cost of brewing it? Or do they dump it to maintain quality?  Either way it is an easy decision on one hand, and the wrong decision on the other.  But that decision could reinforce the craft essence or cast some doubt.

What would those craft beer pioneers have done?

Oligarchy in the USA

A recent study published by some Princeton and Northwestern University professors finds that the U.S. is under an oligarchy of the very rich (the richest 10%) of the population. In general terms, if the top 10% do not agree with a policy, then it is likely to change even though a majority of the other 90% agrees with it. Same goes with policy change; if the majority of Americans want such change, they are unlikely to get it if the top tier do not want said change. The very rich rule the country.

Shocking?  Not to me or many other people. And it would be difficult to refute this study as such observation is fairly obvious notwithstanding the research, which only adds an affirmation. But after pondering this "news" I've come up with a couple of observations:

It's suppose to be that way

What might be shocking is that this country was founded to support an oligarchy. Upon ratification of the Constitution, only white, male, adult property owners were allowed to vote. This, in some estimation, counted only 10-16% of the total population. Not only was the voice of the majority unheard, it would not have even counted. Today, votes are secondary to influence, and those with the most influence own most of the wealth. Back then property was top value; today it is money.

Maybe oligarchy is better

Even though the majority may disagree with the top 10%, it does not mean that agree with each other. With over 100 million voting voices (presumably), how could they ever agree on anything? How would anyone hear such a multitude of opinions, wants, needs, theories, etc? We scoff at Congress when it is gridlocked.  Imagine the whole country in such a state.  At least in an oligarchy decisions are made by those with huge "voices" and vested interests.  Which leads to…

The majority has no clue

By allowing only a certain section of society to vote (white, male landowners) the government was relying on the vested interests of those voters. In other words, since they have something to lose, these voters were assumed to have knowledge of policies, policy changes, issues, and laws. In this sense they were the educated bunch. They knew what they were doing.  It is a extremely farfetched idea to assume today's voters know (i.e. understand) much about anything in governance, policy, foreign relations, law or anything connected with the issues of the day. Do we really want a country based around the whim of an ignorant public? The Founding Fathers said no, and they were no dummies.

It can change

All of this does not make oligarchy the correct form of rule, and those oligarchs have no wish to change it. We cannot rely on them to suddenly change their attitudes and put their interests secondary to the majority. It would be incorrect and unreasonable for the majority to think and expect this. Change must come from the majority, and it won't be easy.  First, know the opponent. Who are these oligarchs? On what is their power based? What is their reach (i.e. what do they own)? We give them their power, either by purchasing their products and services, or believing their propaganda.

Second, think for yourself. Just because something was on MSNBC or FoxNews does not make it true or important. Finding truth and relevance is not easy. It requires critical thinking skills that are not taught unless we seek it out (that is, it's not in public education curricula). Even then, it is tough to put emotions aside and think with reason. Mistakes will happen, we must learn from them.

Third, the majority must educate itself, at least to some degree, on issues, events and policies. Sitting in front of the TV watching Duck Dynasty or Real Housewives of wherever is antithetical to this goal. The top 10% enjoy seeing their mindless shows capturing the attention of the majority, thus keeping them uninformed of their surroundings. Yet, education is not easy. It does take time and energy to search through the propaganda to find realities, but they do exist (note: not in television lineups we see every day. FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, etc only entertain and do not inform).

Fourth, do not expect politicians to do…anything. They use buzzwords to excite emotions, from which they trust a vote to follow. Since the majority do not generally think and instead react on emotions, this is the best way for politicians to garner votes. They will say (and have said) anything to swing emotions (votes) their way: Flip flop, charged language, accusations, sidestepping questions, and issue warnings.

These are not easy to follow, but it is happening. Today's world is so much more faster than that of 200 years ago. But this government is of the people, by the people and for the people. It is up to the people to sustain it.

Expect disappointment

It is important to note the difference between an unjust law and an unpopular one. Some policies will not agree with a good number of people. We will not receive everything we want, but we will get some things. In a sense, the people of the United States are a team. They live with each other and interact on a daily basis.  We must be magnanimous in our victories and forgiving in our defeats. We are not the enemy of ourselves. We should not gloat or hold grudges, if only for the simple reason that one day it could be us on the short end of the stick, and who would protect us then? We enjoy the highs and endure the lows together; this is the power of the U.S. We can take it back…if we really want to.

The Problem Big Beer Faces

Brewing is an ancient art, dating back thousands of years of human civilization. It was used in bartering, as currency, to purify water and as a social lubricant. It is, and has been, everywhere in daily life as part of the community. It should come as no surprise, then, that brewing can be big business as illustrated by the sheer numbers of production from the largest breweries.  Bases on such numbers it would seem that these breweries’ beers are revered and loved by all. This is not the case and 20 years ago the big breweries paid no mind to detractors. With over 95% of the beer market, why would they?   

However, that 95% is no more. The Brewers Association envisions that by 2020, what made up that other 5% (namely craft breweries) will increase to 20%, thus decreasing the value of the aforementioned largest breweries, who are now taking notice. It seems their reaction has two main tactics: buy up craft breweries, and/or produce beers similar to those of craft breweries. The first is straightforward. Goose Island Brewing out of Chicago sold to AB-InBev a few years ago, much to the chagrin of craft beer lovers. Many saw this as a giant, international corporate conglomerate bullying the small, local family business into submission—not the best image to have for large corporations, even though it is not accurate.

The other tactic is a bit cloudier. Instead of straight up producing and offering other types of beer, some large breweries create smaller breweries, which then produce such beer. This avoids the stigma associated with the big breweries created by the first option. It seems creating a smaller brewery, using a different name, and producing different types of beer is preferred to just buying a smaller brewery.  Perhaps this is the better way to go…at least in the short term.

Here is the problem: deception lasts only so long before it comes back to bite. The second option addresses a symptom of big brewers’ perception, not what produces this perception.  While the first option, buying smaller breweries, comes with push-back, at least it is honest and open. Maybe this is by default as it is difficult to hide a multi-million dollar deal.  Still, the public is not deceived, either in reality or (importantly) through perception.  The creation of smaller, otherwise named breweries is not only deceptive, it is willful intent to deceive. What the public calls “lying”, and this betrays any relationship and significantly damages trust.

From there, it does not really matter how the beer is produced or even if it is high quality.  The public has a tendency to shun those who have betrayed them.  While America is a forgiving country and allows for mistakes, it has little tolerance for those who manipulate its patience, sympathy and embrace of small business.  As the voices of craft beer lovers gets louder, so too will their cries of foul play of Big Beer. This is starting to happen and an example of the counter-reaction from Big Beer is more deception...without lying.  The prime example is the new Miller Fortune, labeled as an “undistilled beer” (every beer is undistilled) and a “spirited lager”, clearly (and intentionally) aimed at the whiskey market.  Do they really want to deceive those consumers as well?

In the mean time, craft beer drinkers will continue to expose Big Beer whenever they can, shun Big Beer and tell others to follow suit. However, just as America has no acceptance of deception, it still is forgiving. An apology, a real one, followed by acts of conciliation (more than “gestures”) can go a long way. It remains to be seen if Big Beer comprehends this, accepts it, and follows through. The bottom line is that the animosity towards Big Beer is not aimed at the Beer (although that is where the fallout lands), but at the Big—not the product of Big Beer, but Big Beers’ treatment and value of relationships.

End of Hyperboles…?

The recent government shutdown has people shaking their heads in disbelief over the dysfunction of their elected representatives. Washington seems not to be able to tie one shoe, let alone both, in order to step onto the political dance floor, which itself is a giant mess.

So who is to blame for this shutdown? The GOP is taking the brunt of the blame. The House of Representatives, under republic control, cannot pass along to the Senate, democrat controlled, a bill that leaves the Affordable Care Act (ACA) alone.  This is the "Obamacare" law that the Supreme Court deemed as constitutionally lawful. Yet, some want to repeal, limit or severely damage this law--namely the "tea party" wing of the GOP.  This wing has effectively infected the rest of the GOP, branding them as crybabies, ideological crusaders, and greedy assholes. It seems this label is not too far off the mark.

The democrats are happy to go  along with blaming the GOP, but they have some criticism to endure. Their plan to "keep the government open" is a quick fix bandage to pass along a budget crisis down the line.  They also refuse to negotiate with the GOP on anything so long as the latter threatens ACA--but this is a good refusal, although it may sound intransigent. The democrats could just sit tight and let the GOP crumble to its foundation. Perhaps this is what is needed.

Yet the blame should not stop there. As we all know, Congress is an elected body so it follows that those who elected it take some blame as well.  Maybe more should take more blame than others, but as a collective, this is the voters' fault. Call is mis-education, ignorance, laziness or entrenched traditional voting practices, but make no mistake, the electorate is dysfunctional.  The foundation of this dysfunction is the hyperbole.

If you think republicans are conservative big business, and democrats are liberal hippies, then you are part of the problem. Nothing ceases and prohibits dialogue faster and longer than hyperbolic categorizations.  To identify others, even yourself, as liberal, conservative, libertarian, communist, etc, then you are just feeding to this overall dysfunction.

There are two main problems with political hyperboles. One is that they are shortcuts around critical thinking, which affects more than the political arena.  Assuming knowledge of individuals (beliefs, actions, motivations, desires, thinking, tendencies, etc) based is dangerous and just plain wrong. As a scene in Good Will Hunting illustrates, no one can know the depths of a person (orphan in the case in the movie) from reading a book (Oliver Twist).  Hyperboles go beyond a stereotype and find the extreme examples to apply to others, making the assumptions that much more worse.

The other main problem is how this hyperbolic thinking is used by those in, or seeking, public office. Hyperboles are strongly held mainly because they are so extreme. If you're against something, and that something is so awful, then your resolution against it is stronger than it would be if that something were not so extreme.  For example, it's not enough to be against the United States, but it is rather easy and noble to be against the Great Satan. It does not take much persuasion (or thinking) to be against pure evil. This is the strength of hyperboles, and politicians know this. They will use this hyperbolic, electorate dysfunction to win elections. They prey upon the effects of hyperbole, namely the fears of what might happen if the hyperbolic assumptions were true and in office. Do we really want Satan in government? No, of course not.  This is just an example, but it illustrates to strong sense of opposition to such a thought.

Yet the electorate eats this up.  They do not want a tyrannical government, groups of armed gangs, moronic officials, or child-eating corporate monsters alive and well in the U.S. So they vote against them, even though they do not exist.  The government shutdown is just one effect of this hyperbolic, extreme "non-thinking".  It is the fault of Republicans, Democrats, and the People of the United States.

Next election cycle, don't jump to conclusions. Do a little research. And ignore the hyperboles the candidates through back at you. 

The Emotes of Senator McCain: Fuel to the Fire

In response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Op-Ed in the New York Times, Senator McCain went to Pravda to voice his opinion on the matter. Some have called McCain’s response “scathing” while a few see it as “stupid”.  I agree with the latter.

President Putin constructed his Op-Ed as an argument to deter the American people from supporting military aggression on Syria for its (alleged and highly probable) use of chemical weapons. It was a nice piece of writing even if it was not logically sound. Yet he ended his argument with a personal opinion on the American people, which served no purpose other than to elevate himself by lowering others. Of course, this last paragraph received the most attention, which is another consequence of the president’s mistake; taking readers elsewhere than his argument.

And here is where we find Senator McCain, ensconced in Putin’s last paragraph. McCain’s Op-Ed in Pravda (why Pravda??) serves only two purposes: to exacerbate a personal defensive reaction to Putin’s last paragraph, and to add fuel to the diplomatic fire between the U.S. and Russia.  In short, McCain’s piece was just that—a piece of ….

Not only did McCain ignore everything else in Putin’s Op-Ed, he also intentionally and unequivocally interfered with Russian internal affairs. It may be a nice high school debate tactic to focus on one aspect of an opponent’s argument in an effort to trump the whole argument, but in college this will not work, let alone international diplomacy. McCain did nothing to address the glaring holes in Putin’s argument, but instead underscored Putin’s statement that Americans (McCain included) think their exceptional when they really are not. The exceptional thing to do was to ignore that jab and concentrate on the issue at hand: SYRIA! 

As if that were not enough, McCain took it upon himself to scathe Russian internal affairs—namely Putin, Putin’s governing, Russia’s political system, and it’s mediocre international status. Where did this come from? Nowhere did President Putin mention anything of the sort about America in his Op-Ed. This is out of left—er, right—field. At the simplest level this is akin to calling Putin a poopy-face, at the more complex level, like international diplomacy, this can be seen as an attempt to usurp the presidency of Russia. Which is it?  Even if there is a middle ground, political gumption persuades people to pounce on whatever weakness they see. It should surprise no one if Putin counters with more intensity. The situation did not need fuel, and McCain was only too happy, or at least incompetent, to provide it.

So what is the lesson here? McCain simply let his emotions overwhelm his reason.  This is common with humans; we all have done it and probably still do it from time to time. Yet, McCain is a senator with responsibilities to his electorate and the country. Attacking Putin and the Russian system, at least, serves neither. To make matters worse, this response was not spontaneous.  McCain had days to think over his response, put it in writing, read over it, and could have ultimately scrapped it.

Emotions are difficult to manage and perhaps more difficult to understand. Actions predicated on emotions are rarely appropriate and often harmful. They do not aim to address, diffuse, solve or ponder a situation, but in this case to attack a perceived offense. What about Syria?  Apparently McCain’s attention fixates on how one person views Americans in a very general way, and ignores the deaths of 100,000 people.  Too bad. McCain needed more time to cool his jets, just like we all do sometimes.

Response to President Putin’s Op-Ed

(draft)

Dear Mr. President,

Your recent article published by the New York Times received much attention internationally and within the U.S., its targeted audience. It is a bit refreshing to see a political leader speak to the public.

Typical of American journalism and political dysfunction, much of attention focuses on the last paragraph of the article. You know the one, about American exceptionalism.  And since this is where the attention is, let me deal with that last.

Let me start by saying I am confused as to what the violence in Syria aims to accomplish.  You say it is a "conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country”, but then say “Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern”.  So, this is not a strictly internal conflict. It would seem naïve to think other countries do not have a stake in this conflict and/or the outcome. International actors are involved, not just mercenaries and not just the United States. Events in Syria can, probably will, affect the international community no matter which side triumphs, if that is an appropriate term. In the 21^st century, no internal conflict is strictly internal. Word gets out, influence spreads, interests shift and the world is involved, directly or indirectly.

So what do Syrians want? This civil war has raged so long and so violently that the opposition’s goal is foggy to us, and possibly to themselves. Nevertheless, a key component of their goal seems to be the removal from power of the Assad regime. Questions abound as to what would happen next if that does happen, or even if it does not. What happens when peace avails, no matter how long from now that may be? You mentioned there was not clear opposition and terrorist groups comprise some part of the anit-Assad movement. What happens if these forces seek retribution on Russia for incorporating a diplomatic pause or, hopefully, resolution?  How would Russia respond to terrorist plots against it planned outside of Russia?  This presents a slippery slope.

Let me touch upon the rule of law, which is crucial, but to follow it strictly because it “is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not” is an important point. I am sure many people would disagree: Jews of 1930s/40s Europe, African slaves of the Americas, or Cambodians in the late 1970s. People have a right to oppose laws that are bad, wrong, counterproductive, impediments, or just plain evil (all of which are subjective, which strengthens the complexities). Only dictators impose Absolute Rule of laws.  Whether the laws of and within Syria are any of these is not up to us to decide, though it is apparent that people of Syria have. Whether good or bad, human actions do not fit neatly into written laws, religious or otherwise.

Perhaps this highlights a difference between Russia and the U.S. that underlies the lack of communication between them, much to our dismay. For the most part, we tend to ponder the role of law, while in Russia the rule of law is, apparently, paramount. Gun control in the U.S. is a hot debate (although it shouldn't be “debated”) and laws respective to this are interpreted, challenged, altered, vetoed and re-written seemingly monthly. We have laws backed by reason; it is not uncommon for unreasonable or outdated laws to be ignored or removed (e.g. honking a car horn as you enter town to warn the horses). Unfortunately, Reason seems to be on vacation lately and extreme, almost fanatical, positions spring up in America on just about all issues. I see this in the international community as well, perhaps emboldened by U.S. unilateralism, or through international apathy. But the key issue remains: authority has no power unless it is vetted.

The use of chemical weapons violates international law—but so, too, would attacking a sovereign nation without provocation or U.N. Security Council approval.  A conundrum no matter who actually release the chemical weapons, which is probably close to impossible to prove.  Ignoring their use because of this possibility is easy; dealing with it is much more difficult.  Thankfully, Russia interjected in the predicament involving Syria and chemical weapons.  A needed pause, and hopefully a peaceful advantage is within reach.  This should include open dialogue, as you espouse, with the international community, including Syria.  Yet the international community does not have a monopoly on dialogue. Syrian internal dialogue is needed, as I am sure the government and opposition have disagreements. Realization of this dialogue is slim, but with great effort and commitment, it can be done. 

The United Nations was set up to assist in international peace, if not harmony. Yet it was built upon the ashes of World War II as you noted, but the world is much different now. Yes, international communication and bipartisanship is still important, but so, too, is internal violence: War is still war, it knows no boundaries. You agree, at least to a point.  I urge you, and others, to use the auspices and spirit of the U.N. to help resolve the Syrian conflict. Yes, it is an internal matter. It is also true that it is not merely internal. Perhaps it is time to have another look at international laws, the role of the U.N., the responsibility of nations, and the influence of militaries, all of which rely upon the Reason, Compassion and Education of human beings.

Ok, now to the last paragraph.  You are right about Exceptionalism; it can be dangerous. We can go back to 1930s Europe again to highlight this fact.   As for the average American, exceptionalism is less common that it used to be. There is nothing exceptional about endless bickering, embraced ignorance or endless finger pointing. The American public has, for the most part, lost its way. There was hope that the Age of Information would bring people, communities and nations together, no matter how different they, or their policies, may be.  Sadly, this has not turned out to be the case. Not yet anyway. We continue to slack on responsibility, empathy and listening.

You are also wrong. America has flaws, true, just like any other country.  Where America is exceptional resides in what America is built upon. It is the most culturally, racially and religiously diverse nation in the world, and we do not fight…much. While it is human nature is to focus on differences, Americans tend to (but not always, to be sure) find similarities among them and with others. Not only do we abhor human rights violations, even our own, but we strive to do something about it, which is not always easy, popular or internationally legal. The responsibility America puts upon itself is burdensome, but we carry on, insisting on Peace, Liberty and Freedom.  Sometimes our leaders (political and religious) prey upon such capacity and lead us astray. It takes effort to bring back our Founding Fathers’ resilience and wisdom, but we insist on it. Their ideals and principles shape our society. As such, our impulse, our gut reaction, is to, at least, question authoritarian offenses, and to fight atrocities.  Effectiveness of air strikes, not the motivation, against Syria is the main impediment.  This is the core of America, and that is exceptional.

Review: Hoppin Frog's D.O.R.I.S. the Destroyer stout

NOTE: 2012 bottle, about 1 year old

I've come to like the stouts from the Frog people, so this one was just beggin to be drank.

Pours a very deep ruby color, just about black. Nice off tan head, a bit soapy, some rockiness. Hops probably faded a bit on this one, but head retention was pretty nice.

Aroma is deep chocolate, soft and rich. Some sharp hints of coffee and toffee, roasted malt and black plum

Flavor is subtle in a way, and strong. The softness fantastic if a bit faded. Cocoa, molasses, leather, dark plum, coffee, toffee and hint of licorice. Very nice, hides the abv like a Wizard of Oz curtain.

Very nice beer, probably good i waited a year, I bet it was hot younger

A Brewers Only Dialogue

It's right around the corner. This biggest beer festival in the Western Hemisphere (I think): The Great American Beer Festival.  During the week of October 6-13 Denver, CO will be brimming with craft brewers from around the country, and beer enthusiasts from around the world.  Over 600 breweries bring multiple beers for three days, four sessions of beer sampling all in one place. Quite the experience, to say the least.  But that ain't it.  Denver has a fantastic craft beer scene, not to mention geographic scenery. There are many "smaller" events that take place during that week, most of these are special tappings or tasting parties. Falling Rock Tap House, Freshcraft and the Rackhouse usually have awesome events.

And while these events focus on enjoying great, sometimes rare, beer, this year there is another event that separates itself from the others.  The Great American Brewers Dialogue (GABD) will kick off its first installment on October 9th.  With so many craft breweries and their staff in town, it makes sense to try to gather them in one (or several) places to engage in group discussion about their industry. Rarely do brewers et al find free time to exchange ideas and talk about problems or obstacles they face. The GABD is a chance for them to air these out.

Since there are so many brewers in town, several locations will host these discussions simultaneously: Prost Brewing, Strange Brewing and Vine Street Pub are lined up now as hosts, with more to be added if the number of attendees pours in beyond venue capacity.

What makes this different than just a collection of brewers in one places is the addition of professional facilitators from OvalOptions for Conflict Management to help guide the groups through dialogue. These facilitators utilize methods to improve discussions, brainstorm, keep everyone engaged, and discover possible solutions to problems.  So now we have brewers gathered in one (or 3) place, where they can (re)connect with each other, focus on certain topics for discussion (each group decides their own topics), and professionals to help unpack and address concerns. Sounds like a good deal, even better since it is FREE!

It is only open to brewers and brewery staff to keep discussions open and confidential. Like everybody, brewers are reluctant to advertise problems they face. The GABD provides a safe space.  This should be fun and interesting!

Crooked Stave's Nightmare on Brett Leopold Bros Brrl Review

This one was tapped about 5 minutes before I got to the barrel room. Serendipitous it seems. 

Pours very dark brown, murky, almost black. Like a nightmare. Except it's pretty close to heaven. Large off white/tan foam, some rockiness. Head settles to a thick collar. Nice lacing. Rich, but a bit too frothy for a Baltic porter. Who cares, really? Besides the rating 

Aroma is full of stuff. Chocolate, leather, caramel, char, vanilla, faint florals, spice and some woodiness. Sour for sure. The aromas don't really come through until the first sip 

And yowza, that's a great first sip. Up front blast of sour dark cherries, then pure sour stuff with some funk spice. But the ending and finish are great. Chocolate, smooth caramel (like a Werther's candy), rich yet faint butterscotch just under the surface, vanilla, leather, blackberry...and on and on.

Served at cellar temperature as it hadn't cooled down since being tapped. Fine with me. Dammit, Jim, that's good

I can see this one as an introductory sour beer. Yes, it's powerful. Yes, it's complex. The sourness is intense, but the way it leaves and gives way to the other flavors is just shy of super duper. 

Firestone-Walker Pivo Hoppy Pils Review

Ehhh...not sure why this is listed as a German Pilsener since pivo is Czech. Yet the Saphir hops are German, but not noble, although they replace a noble. Confusing, but I'm rating it as a Pivo

Looks great. Light straw golden, good white head. Settles to a thin film. 

Aroma is hop forward, and more than just a little. The light biscuit malt is present in the background. 

A good tasting beer, a bit too much hops for a pivo pils. Still, it isn't overpowering. Spice and grassiness are at low levels. Malt is very thin. Nothing bad with this beer and would rate it higher if hops were tamer.

Pretty close the Czech pivos but a bit heavier and thicker.  A bit more hops that had more intensity than the Saaz. Not quite as clean, but good nonetheless

Who Did the Terrorist Defeat: FoxNews or Sam Adams?

Recently, some FoxNews "commentators" revealed their thoughts about the recent Boston Beer Company television commercial.  I have several issues with this piece of "news".

These people attack Boston Beer Company for complying with industry standards about advertising, which prohibit any religious themes. Their verbal attack is enhanced by their sheer lack of intelligence and thought. First, "the terrorists have won" comment is so absurd that this guy must be joking, right? Maybe a bit, but he's at least upset about the omission of "god" or "creator" from the commercial. Let's see, who would be upset about someone else not giving props to god, that such omission would be "outrageous"? Perhaps a religious zealot.  Most certainly not a brewer. And are there any terrorists who are not religious zealots?? If anyone would be more likely to succumb to the mindset of terrorism it is this guy at FoxNews.

Of course, he doesn't stop there.  He ponders the notion that Boston Beer Co. is targeting the modern day Tea Party group....somehow.  This is not a coherent thought at all, just a random splat of paranoia. Another log in the fireplace that cooks fear and insecurity within about half the voting population. Apparently he forgets that a monarch in Colonial times was "god appointed" and that this very same Declaration of Independence seeks such from an English king.  (And let's skip that pesky freedom of religion thing in the Constitution, a document that FoxNews sets aside when it doesn't comply with their "thoughts", but is the basis of all other arguments they attempt)

Then they go on to attack the "bogus" "beer code guideline committee" as overriding the authority of the Declaration of Independence. Um, what?? The Declaration of Independence has no legal authority whatsoever (they're conflating it with the Constitution--which they ignore this time), and is a statement of...well...independence.  Apparently freedom of speech isn't something FoxNews cares to embrace.

But all this ignores Prohibition.  You know, that Constitutional amendment that outlawed alcohol (and beer), which was brought about through religious protests. The remnants of Prohibition are still around today--noticeably here in the Beer Institute's advertising code.  So, get this, because of religious zealots, beer advertisers are asked to NOT use religion or religious themes. The Beer Institute acquiesces to the sensitivity of the pious. Except, other religious zealots at FoxNews admonish the Beer Institute and Boston Beer for adhering to this agreement. While the former zealots ask someone not do something, the latter zealots want to force someone to do something.

So it boils down to this: based on industry standards of conduct formed to protect religious sensitivities, a television commercial does not mention any type of divine being, and the creators of said commercial are scorned for doing so by religious zealots who claim that other religious zealots have won. Seems the religious zealots have something in common.

Craft Beer Saturation: Lesson Learned, Lesson Followed?

A recent article from Time Magazine online mentioned some concerns over the rapid growth of the craft brewing industry. While this article barely scratches the surface of the concerns mentioned (it doesn't even touch others), it focuses on the associated industries' ability to accommodate this growth. Restaurants, bars and retail stores are finding it difficult to provide space for these new breweries and their new beers. As such, competition among craft breweries for this limited space is intensifying. Some see this competition as a very strong adversary to not only the continued growth of craft brewing, but its chances of sustaining its current status. In other words, after the Big Bang comes the Big Crunch.

This is not a surprising or unrealistic prognosis. Craft brewing saw a Big Crunch in the 1990s, so there's ostensibly no reason to foresee it not to happen again. Except there are several. One is that after the 1990s Big Crunch, say the last 10-15 years, the big breweries (Anheuser-Busch, Miller, Coors) refocused their targets on each other, allowing the few craft breweries who survived to build strong foundations.  Breweries like Sierra Nevada, New Belgium and the largest craft brewer, Boston Beer Company, helped cultivate a resurgence of craft beer.  Under cover from the giant breweries' gaze elsewhere, small breweries crept back into the market, and this time they assessed what went wrong before to apply what they learned today.

The main lesson was that direct competition with the financial capital of big breweries is suicide. No need to attract attention from Bud, Miller, and Coors beating themselves up. Which is another point: the big breweries consolidated.  Miller, Coors and Molson merged (for lack of a better term), AB was bought by In-Bev, which just acquired Group Modelo. Meanwhile, the craft beer lover was not to be forgotten. The Internet plays a big role here as well.  Beer lovers took to cyberspace to advocate for better beer.  Websites like BeerAdvocate and Ratebeer are consumer driven, contain open forums and information on beer, beer styles, beer events and beer…you name it. The need for advertising through Super Bowl commercials, billboards and sporting event sponsorships became fleeting, and therefore big money was not the dominant weapon it once was.

While other factors differentiate today's craft brewing boom from the 1990s, the focus now is on how to keep it up, and to keep at bay the Big Crunch. Back then the competition was for tap handles and cooler doors, and this is still a part of the scene.  Yet it's not the whole picture. Perhaps the most unique characteristic of today's craft beer scene is the scene itself.

The size of breweries opening up today is relatively tiny. One brewery will not make a dent on the national share of the beer sales market. Places like Denver Beer Co and Hogshead Brewery reside in small buildings, like old auto mechanic garages, where their consumer base spans less than a square mile.  Restaurant tap handles and retail shelf space are not their primary concern. It is a different business plan than the big breweries and the craft breweries of the 1990s. Craft breweries are becoming the neighborhood hangout, which harkens back to Colonial days.

This is what can prevent a Big Crunch, if many craft brewers stay extremely local. If money is poured into competing for limited space, then big money can be lost.  Attention should be, first, on the beer.  Good beer will lure people in and persuade them to stay.  Next should be customer service (well, you need a tasting room first). Making people feel like friends, or guests, rather than customers is not a secret, but it isn't all that easy to do. Skills in personal interaction are rare in today's social media world, yet are vital to small business.  So, the people have come to drink great beer, and they're staying…what else can they do at these small breweries?

The brewery is not just a drinking hole; it's a gathering place for everybody, although only adults can enjoy the beer.  Atmosphere is important--otherwise people would just stay home.  Music, volume, space, table arrangement, outside seating, etc all affect the brewery. Some places provide board games, others have periodic group meetings. Accommodating designated drivers, children, pets and tourists have little to do with beer…but everything to do with a neighborhood brewery.

And this is working: These places are busy. Sometimes breweries cannot keep production ahead of consumption; there is more demand than supply. That's a good business recipe, yet it shouldn't be a sign for breweries to expand and start distribution. While a particular neighborhood is familiar with their brewery, many others are not, and to make them aware takes money and time.  Both of which are needed in the original location to maintain great beer, customer service and atmosphere. If they do this, then they have established a strong opposition to any Big Crunch that may occur.

Some believe that the lack of retail and tap space will hurt craft brewing, and this may be true for breweries looking for space.  But revenue does not have to come from distribution; on premise tasting rooms are becoming neighborhood hot spots.  While this may not provide short term profits, it can lead to long term, established success. People want to gather, mingle, talk, play and meet.  The neighborhood brewery is the perfect place, away from the labyrinth of distribution. With so many neighborhoods in the U.S. saturation is a long way off.

Would Our Founding Fathers Approve of US?

A recent article on CNN briefly outlined a Gallup poll asked people if they think the Founding Fathers would or would not view the current U.S. in a favorable light.  Basically, the poll, or rather its analyses, suggests that political affiliation has an effect on responses. Since a Democrat is in the White House, it seems Republicans think that the Founding Fathers would disapprove of our current situation.  It's not hard to imagine the responses of democrats if a republican were in the White House.

But would the Founding Fathers disapprove based on political party affiliation?  While there were some heated animosity between political parties in the late 1700s, I doubt the Founding Fathers would judge the country based on which party seated the president. One of the greatest aspects of the founding of this country was the ability for its founders to disagree in a "proper" way.

To illustrate what I mean, let's look at today's political scene. Who would argue that it is not a mess?  There is so much animosity, enmity and polarization that any effort of progress, learning, discovery and innovation is thwarted just as it begins. Today's politicians, and the American public at large, do not know how to disagree in a way that enables discussion, progress and problem solving that the Founding Fathers held as a foundation to Democracy and enlightenment.

Back then, people gathered to discuss topics large and small.  Perhaps that shared a pint of beer in the process.  If they could not gather in person, handwritten letters were sent, which sometimes took months to complete a correspondence.  As such, it was important to choose words deliberately to make a point, question or observation crystal clear to the reader. Thought was put into every sentence spoken and written, as well as heard or read.

And I think this is the main reason why our country's founders would vehemently disapprove of their country today. Mindless bickering, baseless accusations, and the sheer inability and refusal of some people to honestly listen to others. The zero-sum attitude of modern politicians and many voters is not healthy for any society, especially not for one as diverse as the modern United States of America.  We need to get back to face-to-face discussion, to listen intently to others--not to pick apart a statement, but to learn, entertain open dialogue, to add thought to instant communication, and to realize that diversity means that nobody will get all they want.  

Beer Review: Firestone Walker Pale 31

This is a really nice, quaffable beer. Session? Yes. It's easy drinking with just the right amount of bite to demand notice, but not a tongue scraper. It looks delicious; off golden, clear pour with a huge white fluffy head. Spotty lacing.

Open aroma of floral and citrus with some light cracker underneath.
Flavors are light but powerful. Citrus zest blends well with the floral perfume-ness and the cracker brings it together nicely.

A bit light on the malt for a APA. This is almost like a light IPA. Very drinkable. Really liked this one.

Most of the beers that comprise my beer cellar are large bottles, 750ml or larger. Sometimes after work I want a beer that isn't a monster as far as size, flavor and booze.  Pale 31 fits this bill, but that doesn't make it a non-flavorful beer.  It's a great after work beer that tastes good and won't require a lot of time to drink.