Beer Friday: Homebrewing, a True Story in Bipartisanship
Filed Under Beer, Porchy | Comments Off
Barber Conable (R-NY) Beer Hero on the Right
When writing about politics we too often fail to take note of the very real effects that certain policies have on our lives, some of them in ways that we find remarkably important despite not having deep moral, religious, or metaphysical undertones. I think the nice, straight line drawn between homebrew policy and the current microbrew industry by this article is a great example of what I’m talking about.
During Prohibition it was illegal to manufacture, sell, or transport liquor of any sort, which of course included beer as well as wine and hard spirits. After the 21st Amendment was ratified, effectively ending Prohibition many state laws remained on the books. Moreover a lot of addendum legislation remained at the federal level. Among those was a ban on brewing beer at home.
But several rogue groups popped up to spread the gospel of homebrewing, some of them in defiance of laws that, if enforced, would have sent them to prison. Freaking prison!
Jimmy Carter changed all that*. Well, that’s the story we normally get.
Which is why I like this article in Reason. This bill didn’t spring fully armored from the head of Jimmy Carter but rather was the work, first of a dedicated group of citizens, and then moderately committed members of the House and the Senate. Jimmy Carter signed the bill they created and molded. The emphasis here on the upstart nobodies is an important part of this story that we need to hear about more.
President Jimmy Carter, Beer Hero on the Left
As a result of a few thousand hobbyists we now have Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, Dog Fish Head King Midas, Schlafly’s fine ales, Bell’s Two Hearted and just hundreds on hundreds of delicious beer. An entire industry employing thousands has sprung up and its wake every man kind find his beer. And if he can’t, he’s free to pick up a recipe book to figure out how to make it.
* Homebrewers are rabid about their hobby and this fact is a source of much discord amongst homebrewing disciples. Conservative homebrewers hate to admit that Jimmy freaking Carter signed the bill that allowed for homebrewing. Liberal homebrewers mostly just cackle at how much it infuriates their conservative cohorts. Since the legislation in question was actually sponsored by Barber Conable (R-NY) conservatives should have some of their angst assuaged.
Beer Friday: Beer Pong Herpes
Filed Under Beer, Porchy | 3 Comments
On or before February 22nd a story went out to various media outlets claiming that “unprotected beer pong” had led to a 230% increase in cases of Herpes Simplex I amongst America’s 18-22 y.o. demographic. As a result, said the story, Arizona State University had implemented a policy where they were giving out clean beer pong cups to freshmen living in dorms akin to a needle exchange.
There was even a quote from the president of ASU. The CDC offered alternative recommendations on ways to avoid herpes like using water in the cups and sipping from individual beers. It also recommended Flip Cup as an alternative game to play. “Drinkers,” recommended the CDC, “should utilize the ‘waterfall’ method of drinking.”
Unlike MSNBC, NBC-Los Angeles, and several college newspapers I was incredulous enough to head to the CDC website to get an actual confirmation on the story–and I’m not even a “reporter,” and that was before I noticed that the head of the study was the strangely appropriately named Cole DeSori (say it aloud if it doesn’t jump out at you).
This genius ran with the story even after she found out sites had been pulling it, likely because, as she put it,”it wasn’t based on fact.” Well, Lauren, don’t let that stop you from trying to scare people anyway even though your own personal experience has led you to note that the most you’ve ever gotten from beer pong is a cold.
Yeah, it’s bogus. No worries, champions. Although I did learn by perusing the cached sites of some college newspapers that some people call this game “Beirut.” Neat.
Beer Friday: Update from last week
Filed Under Beer, Porchy | Comments Off
Nobody in this house works this Friday which made this Thursday a little…special. Which means I drank a little more bourbon than I should have and I’m extra excited to start this week’s Beer Friday. I have a better and longer post planned but since I haven’t gone to bed yet, here’s an update on last week.
If you remember Oregon was about to debate an absolutely monstrous increase in the per-barrel excise tax on beer manufactured in Oregon. I think this is a horrible idea, as would any thinking person. That is not to say that I think that Oregon shouldn’t raise the excise tax. I recognize that alcohol abuse stresses societal bonds and I’m OK with the fact that those that participate in the Drinking Endeavor should own a higher burden of that cost. Since Oregon is near the bottom in collecting taxes for this purpose, I’m in favor of them normalizing toward the national mean (assuming they have problems with alcohol abuse commiserate with the national mean…a fact I do not know).
Some have argued that well-refined drinkers in Oregon who drink less of, and a higher quality of, brews would be paying a higher burden of the societal costs for those that abuse the cheapness of the lower quality stuff. But that doesn’t make any intuitive sense does it, since the law punishes quantity and not quality.
That’s a digression, but it speaks to why I’m not against a tax increase, per se. (I’ve been using “per se” so much recently on this blog you’d think I just learned it. Really it just means that we get stuck in patterns. Careful readers will note I haven’t used “on the other hand” in, like, three posts. Hurrah for me!)
Point is, this here linked story is a little followup. They say this is a 1900% increase (higher than what I said…I think I said 1800%). But more importantly they repeat this weird argument that the excise tax should be increased because it hasn’t been increased in X years. I still fail to see the reasoning after thinking on it for a week. As brewers make more beer they would pay more taxes. Why would the rate have to increase? Please note the emphasis on the imperative verb here. What is the necessity?
This story has a nice quote here too by Mr. Widmer, owner of the largest microbrew in the state where he admits a reasonable increase in excise is not unwarranted.
But still…1900%…that seems pretty steep. I have no doubt that those invested in increasing the tax are using this high number as a point of compromise, so that through the legislative process a more reasonable number is put forth, but even at that it’s unreasonably steep. We are, afterall, in the midst of one of the nation’s most pressing economic downturns. Maybe increasing taxation for anybody could stand to be reined in a little?
The story linked here makes it seem like this is some war between Addiction/Recovery advocates on one side and Restauranteurs and Brewers on the other side but that’s wrong in two ways.
First, neither the article here nor the article from last week offers any proof that the state’s addiction/recovery system needs additional assistance. It is likely that Oregon’s addiction/recovery institutions have always lacked adequate funding. It is also likely that in the last 32 years the need for such services has increased while at least one of its budget sources has remained stagnant, but no one seems willing to provide that data. Before wantonly increasing taxes, someone should offer a legitimate reason for such an increase, and I haven’t read it yet.
On the other side of this debate is this idea that the only people likely to be negatively effected by such an increase are the brewers (who would be directly taxed) and the restauranteurs (who would see a decline in sales as a result of higher tap and bottle prices). But that isn’t true either. Oregon has a large microbrew industry and higher taproom prices will result in a lower demand for their product. Lower demand will mean creating less supply which means lowering output…which means less workers in the brewery, less salesman, less truckers, less packers, less bottlers, less advertising folks, less beer girls in bars, less….whatever! It shrinks the industry which means less jobs all ’round. Beer industy experts have estimated at least 3000 jobs lost in Oregon.
Think what you will of beer workers (I think pretty highly of them) but they’re part of your drying up national economy. Maybe we can wait two years before exercising our moral high ground, eh?
The only thing that can be said in favor of this tax increase, is that, according to this story, is that this tax increase would address current budget shortfalls and would not, as I said earlier, become new spending. I haven’t, and will not, download the Oregon state budget to confirm any of this. Too lazy. Sorry.
I would like to note that the supposedly unbiased press is definitely in favor here of the increase. Not only do they focus on the dichotomy between the obvious good guys in the addiction/recovery sector vs the restauraneurs, they also emphasize the lack of increases in 32 years (without offering any evidence that an increase is warranted) and they emphasize the per bottle rate’s small increase as if that was s a defense of the tax in general. The idea that a smaller overall tax increase may be wholly acceptable never crosses their minds, let alone that the tax increase itself may be totally unwarranted.
Weird.
The Obama’s New Dog
Filed Under Barack Obama, Domestic Politics, Entertainment, In the News, Politics, Porchy | Comments Off
The Obama’s have chosen the once and future dog for America’s remake of the original Camelot. A Portuguese Water Dog–a breed recommended by Camelot I co-star Ted Kennedy.
I really wish that Obama had stuck to his original statement on this and had gotten a mutt ["like him"] because the propensity is to view breeds as something other than dogs and more like property. It also perpetuates a certain kind of aristocratic mindset about “good breeding” and leads to treating the various breeds as heterogeneous clones down to personality traits. Blech.
Nevertheless, I Obamiconned a generic Portuguese Water Dog because it seemed like the right thing to do.
And so I ask you…
Filed Under Big Ideas, Porchy | Comments Off
This is a space for pontificating. About politics.
And beer.
And sometimes movies.
But reading Concepts of Anxiety in the afternoons and talking about the relative merits of the second generation Romantic poets over coffee in mid-morning is wreaking havoc on my ability to do so.
But one thing that regularly cycles through my head is this idea that conservatives really think that what they’re doing is good for the country and that liberals really think that what they’re doing is good for the country. But either our knowledge of first principles is hazy or else those conversations are considered too dull for the newspapers and so they are ignored. What we get instead is a bunch of yelling and screaming over ideology that almost exactly mirrors each other. Liberals say that conservatives are pandering to a bunch of myopic and greedy businessmen while ignoring the long-term negative consequences of their policies. Conservatives say that liberals are pandering to a bunch of myopic and greedy welfare-staters while ignoring the long-term negative consequences of their actions.
I’ve read a lot and I’ve come to my own conclusions. I was raised in military home with a conservative patriarch at the helm and I feel that I’ve been convinced of the merits of liberalism by the arguments that have been made in its favor. I don’t think my conversion of Paul story is argumentative proof of liberalism by the way, but I only have my mind, and that where I come from. I only bring it up because I have no way of knowing if I would feel the same level of conviction if I was either raised liberal or if I currently held conservative views. And as a matter of fact, I do have some conservative views, especially on 2nd and 4th Amendment issues and on those topics I feel less confident that I’m right. They feel like holdovers of my upbringing and not particularly well thought out. I feel like the doubts I have about my remaining conservative views actually validates the strengths of the arguments that moved me leftward.
But every now and then I run across an argument that sets up familiar propositions and yet comes to a conservative conclusion that seems to follow as well as the liberal conclusion to the same argument. I’m not offering examples, or linking to the story that did it today, because I don’t want a conversation on why that particular argument is wrong or faulty or whatever.
But I read an article today that seemed to take for granted that conservatism is the ideology of the middle class. The author seemed to believe it and he seemed to take for granted that his (conservative) audience believed it as well. The article, to the best of my reading, was written entirely in good faith, without political ulterior motives–it wasn’t written to bad mouth liberalism; it wasn’t written to rally the troops. It was just a tossed off and unanalyzed presupposition within the body of an altogether different argument.
I’ve run across this before and I never cease to be taken off-guard by it.
How is it that both conservatives and liberals can claim this in good faith? We (as in “we liberals”) have very nice charts and graphs to prove that Democratic presidents have consistently narrowed the gap between rich and poor. Others that prove that middle class wages have risen more under Democratic presidencies and policies. Others that prove that Democrats have been better at eliminating middle class tax burdens.
That progressive policies have empowered workers through unions. That progressives have leveled the political playing field by including a wider swath of the American public in civic life. Progressives have educated more people and raised the level of education for the lower and middle classes. That levels of poverty shrink under progressive policies. That liberal policies actually created a middle class where there wasn’t one before.
If conservatives make this argument in good faith, can someone please direct me to their evidence? Seriously. I have to know.
keep looking »