During the course of the World Cup (sponsored by Budweiser), I’d seen a multitude of Bud Light commercials.  The commercials are certainly ubiquitous, some are a little funny, others are amateurish and others are flat out stupid.  The funny part is, they assume the low-brow intelligence and humor of people who support their beer.

Admittedly, this is a rant and I’m characterizing the commercials a certain way but I’m attempting to create some actual humor and criticism of the product via the commercials themselves.  Essentially, I’m breaking-down the commercials and making fun of them.  If you are interested, read on.  Also, I’ll have the reader note that if they are bothered by the characterization of Bud Light drinkers as idiots, then perhaps it should be taken up with Bud itself.

Two commercials are particularly filling my mind.  Maybe those of you reading this have seen the commercials…here is the first.   The first involves a plane wreck on an island.  In the commercial, a woman finds the airplane’s radio and offers hope to the people of the plane crash. Essentially, she tells the other island members that she thinks this will get them off the island.  Right as she is wrapping up her good news, another person states that he has located the plane’s beverage storage and, guess what, it’s full of Bud Light.  At this point in the procession, people decide to abandon the hope of rescue for the hope of a few beers apiece (perhaps it’s the hope of re-hydration with water).  So, what’s the implication?

It appears that these morons are so shortsighted that a few free beers is better than rescue.  Aside from being cheapskates, don’t they realize that they can buy much more of their crappy product once their not under the oppression of death?  I get the implication.  The beer is so good that one would abandon the prospect of rescue for it.  However, what possible auspices would cause the denial of life for a vapid brew.  Furthermore, the idea of the commercial is counter-intuitive to the idea of consuming responsibly…something the brewer is eager to promote.  Instead, the party animals on the island forsake rescue because they love pounding them back so much.  I can almost hear the conch blowing in the distance.

As you have no doubt heard, BrewDog has now made the world’s strongest beer at 32% ABV.  Of course, if naysayers would have it, it’s not technically beer at all.  More on that in a moment.  My real problem is not with intelligent dialogue on the topic, it is with dismissive and percile logic used on posts like the one that has elicited my response. The amount of assumptions and lack of thorough intelligence is singularly lopsided as far as this gent is concerned.  Roger Protz is apparently the world’s leading beer authority and a very intelligent fellow, but what he wrote will not do and is not enough to convince anybody who is not already of his disposition.  If you are going to attempt to destroy the merits of what someone has accomplished, at least do it in a thoroughgoing manner.  This brings me to what I’m going to do now: I’m fighting fire with fire.

Roger Protz has written about BrewDog’s latest beer, denigrating its reputation and calling the brewers bonkers, calling it not a beer at all, etc.  Here is one of my assumptions: the reason he thinks it’s not a beer may something to do with the fact that he’s a CAMRA member (nothing against CAMRA).  Okay, I’m not going to leave it there.

Why Bother at All?

As a pre-curser to what I’m going to say, I want to state that building a good argument takes time.  My father taught me (rightly) at an early age that if you are going to do something, it’s only worth doing if it’s done right.  Argumentation is much the same way.  A short post, which is written only to put something up and appeal only to those who agree with you is okay if you are not being contrary.  If you are, then more effort is required.

I could have written the same post that Protz did in ten minutes.  Why?  Because it is dismissive and amateurishly un-thorough for someone who has written 17 books.  Make me a believer is all I’m saying.  As a result, I can only address what he has written in his post, even though I know that there is much more to what he had to say than meets the eye.  Unfortunately, the article is what it is, and I’m addressing that.

Assumptions and Insults:

First, I want to talking about his assumptions and the insults that he uses to build his argument. The first point (if it can be called that) Protz makes is that BrewDog has an over-inflated ego and naked ambition.  I’ll dignify the comment even if it isn’t worth it.

Who argues this way?  Starting an argument with an insult seems a bit like two children on the playground.  Name calling?  That’s how you’re addressing BrewDog’s latest beer?  Oh!  They’re doing it because of ego and ambition…I guess that is enough to destroy their achievement.  Oddly enough, Protz’s argument is somewhat of an inclusio in this respect (namely, he starts and ends with this same concept of mudslinging).  Not only so, but they’ve surpassed/outdone (to use American parlance) their former ego-mania, a.k.a., you thought they were ego-maniacs before.  Obviously, Protz believes that other people also already make this assumption and that he is preaching to the choir, so to speak.

One could employ the same sort of rationale that Protz does and call writing 17 books, etc., as nakedly ambitious.  Of course, one would be wrong in this assumption; I believe it’s passion that drives him.  Could the same not be true of BrewDog?  Maybe it’s an ego-maniac who assumes that he doesn’t have to “make a case” because of his great reputation as an authority on beer.

Let’s assume that BrewDog is ambitious and ego-maniacal.  So what?  What does this have to do with the achievement?  The assumption seems to be that since they are ego-maniacs, this discounts what they’ve accomplished.  Is ambition to succeed an inherently bad thing?  If so, does this necessitate that someone is also an ego-manic?  Defiance, maybe…but doesn’t that seem to be the point behind the name?  (More on that in a second…)

My point is that name calling does nothing but fortify people who already share the same disposition, partially because they share the same myopathy.  I was really hoping for BrewDog to send out a response along the lines of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” to really heat up this profound debate.  Instead, they merely relegate themselves to the likes of quoting John Locke (major figure for American democratic ideology) on their site.

Next, BrewDog chose, deliberately, according to Protz, to launch the beer on the day that Parliament was reviewing laws that were specifically applicable to 32% “beer.”  First off, I was unaware that there are “non-deliberate” ways of choosing.  Do we really need to know that a choice is deliberate?

Protz’s ostensible point is that he sees the move as intentionally defiant.  Which is it?  Are they defiant by releasing this beer or are they ego-maniacs?  Maybe he believes that it’s simply a case where the ego-mania is substantiated by the act.  I think it’s not defiance he sees at work, but rather ego-mania because he seems to miss the point of the name entirely.

I’m grossly unfamiliar with English culture and politics.  Is it possible that Roger Protz is even more so? How does he miss the point of BrewDog’s latest beer’s name?  By way of dismissive insult, he essentially accuses them of smoking some of the good stuff to come up with this name, implying that they are pot-headed miscreants.  This does two things.  The association of alcohol/alcoholism (the real unspoken narrative within which this article is written) gives the spurious impression that to side with these, “the wild buckaroos” (an apparent insult via American attitudes), is to side with pot-headed booze hounds…yes, the BrewDog pun is intentional.  Rubbish!  Stuff-and-nonsense! Bullocks!  See, I can do it, too.

Tactical Nuclear Penguin is as intentional in its name as it is in its release date.  How is it that he either misses or doesn’t take this into account?  The “tactical nuke” appears to be aimed directly at the ridiculousness of the British Parliamentary procedure as it relates to legislation against beer.  Since when has protest been equated with nonsense?  I suppose Protz didn’t consider this simply because nonsense seems to be his modus operandi…there is an insult worth making.  Like I’ve said, most of this is not worth really dignifying, but I suppose I’m a little petty.  Now to the beer itself.

It’s not beer at all?  According to Protz, brewer’s yeast can only go to 12 or 13 degrees.  He can’t mean Plato; I know he simply can’t mean that.  I’m assuming, an inference I have to attribute either to language barrier or lack of information about his usage, that he must be talking about percentage alcohol.  Maybe there is a law in England that I don’t know that restricts calling something a beer if it’s over 13 degrees Plato…but I can only assume that he must mean alcohol percentage.  Still, this is incomprehensible to me.

At home, on my crude brewing equipment, I’ve attained 14% ABV with ease.  I used Trappist Yeast and added no nutrients to my brew.  Also, I used ambient air, which is far less soluble than pure oxygen. Thus, I had none of the advantages that, say, a brewer has.  Is he seriously trying to tell me that I simply imagined this?  There is a difference between theory/what you read and practice.

Let’s assume for one minute, as crazy as it sounds, that breweries can exceed what I’ve done.  For instance, let’s say I didn’t use the world’s most alcohol tolerant yeast (in fact, I didn’t).  Some brewer’s yeasts are capable of, let’s say, 15 or 16% in terms of thresholds.  Let’s further assume that yeast rousing, nutrient addition, oxygen solubility and brewer expertise play significant factors.  Based on this, I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to assume that a brewer could achieve 17 or 18%.  In fact, White Labs makes a super ale yeast, ironically from England, that will ferment up to 25%.

Since BrewDog’s info is proprietary, it’s hard to know how they do it.  What I do know is that it’s ale yeast.  Who knows what someone might achieve through the use of ale yeast?  Point is that the water is a bit muddy in this respect.  Whatever the case may be, what Protz said is unfounded.  So, let’s say the lower end that might be achieved is 17-18% and the high end is 25-26%.  Now it’s starting to appear plausible.

That’s only X amount, you might say.  Either way, when it comes down to it, BrewDog could not have gotten their beer all the way to 32% ABV by simply brewing it, hence the need for freezing/freeze distilling/eisbocking, call it what you will.

It is entirely possible to gain another 2-5% ABV by freezing beer.  Alcohol, especially higher levels, takes longer (and lower temps) to freeze than water.  Essentially, taking the water out once it is frozen raises viscosity, ABV, and concentrates (a very important word) the alcohol to higher levels.  Who is going to argue that taking water out makes it less of beer?  Isn’t it water to alcohol ratios (sugar being included here) that make a beer stronger or weaker?  If one argues that eisbock isn’t beer (I’m not saying that this is what Protz is doing), then what is?  Tell me the magical percentage of water one must have to make something a legitimate beer.  If you can’t, then don’t detract.  Saying that doing this procedure somehow makes it less of a beer is ludicrous. Maybe fruit juice concentrate is not actually juice until water is added.  How about we add water to BrewDog’s beer?  Can we call it beer then?

Alcohol fortification seems to be the most legitimate sticking point on which to hang one’s hat.  They did pick up alcohol from those barrels of whiskey (which is made of grains, water, and yeast by the way).  So, I guess you might not call it a beer based on that.  Problem is that we call all sorts of barrel-aged beers by that name all the time.  To be consistent, we ought to avoid calling all of them beers in the proper sense of the word.  It seems to me that this semantic problem really comes in when you start the discussion about the world’s strongest beer–then we become particular about what to call it.  I guess we could call it the world’s strongest barrel-aged beer.  Would that appease?  Probably not.

(It’s interesting to note that the real difference between distilling and eisbocking is simply one of ethanol purity.  In eisbock making, the ethanol stays in the original substance and the water is removed.  In distilling only the ethanol is captured, leaving the rest behind.)

The whole discussion seems moot on several points, namely, calling the Tactical Nuclear Penguin beer.  The only sense that it is not beer is the couple of percent ABV from the barrels.  So, what should be the denouement?  BrewDog makes the world’s strongest beer that is 90% beer, 70% of that being regular beer, 20% being eisbock beer, and 10% being added ethanol?  Whatever you might call their creation, I call it beer.

(Thanks for sticking with this article, I felt the expatiation was a necessity, because the beeriness of this beer is in dispute.)

My question to Mr. Protz is, how do you know they used champagne yeast or wine yeast?  I don’t. Perhaps you have the code to this Nuclear program.  Here is yet another assumption that this beer simply can’t beer based on the definitions by which Protz is playing.

If that isn’t enough, he goes on to talk about the issue of sensibility (now he’s using sense…interesting).  He quotes James Watts as saying that BrewDog is pushing the boundaries, an interesting admission in the face of Mr. Protz’s argumentation over the fact that this isn’t a beer, or at least not a conventional one.  In an attempt to turn the phase on its head, Protz once again, boringly so, appeals to his trusty insulting insinuations: “Indeed, and it’s also pushing beyond breaking point what sensible beer writers and connoisseurs will take from this bunch of ego-maniacs.”

Is that so?  A.k.a., if you don’t agree with me, you are not a sensible beer writer or connoisseur.  Since he is a recognized authority, he must be right.  Classic argument from authority fallacy stuff at work here.  I suppose some of us simply aren’t sensible, then.  What else is one to conclude from this fellow?  Furthermore, the presumption that he is speaking on behalf of all “sensible” beer connoisseurs and writers goes beyond hilarity.  Who sounds like the ego-maniac now?

Finally, we get to the pith and marrow of what Mr. Protz is really about: “Those of us who attempt to paint an image of beer as a fine drink enjoyed in moderation by sensible people have the ground cut from beneath our feet by BrewDog, which just plays in to the hands of the yellow press, ever anxious to give beer a bad name.”

I see.  Now it’s about the good name of beer.  I didn’t realize that we should always act based on perception.  Status quo is the name of the game, my good little soldiers.  The implication of the first line is that BrewDog is attempting to paint a low brow drink to be swilled down.  Protz is apparently part of the good guy grouping whereas BrewDog falls into the bad guy camp.  Again with the implication that sensible people wouldn’t drink a beer like this.  So, BrewDog is cutting the ground from beneath the feet of the beer saviors, are they?  Hogwash.  How so?  Who says people have to drink this beer excessively or in an isolated manner?  Who says those purchasing the bottle are, or must of necessity, be drinking it excessively?  This same sort of logic would probably have Scotch consumed only from airplane size bottles.

So, the “yellow press” is ever anxious to give beer a bad name?  Isn’t this an interesting self-defeating statement?  Think about it.  If they are ever anxious to give beer a bad name, doesn’t it follow that they will ever find ways to do it?  I’m sure they really talk up the merit of 3.8% beers, don’t they?  The point is that those who look for something to degrade about beer will find it, no matter what beer is in view.  It’s more interesting to me that Mr. Protz joins in on the head hunting.

Now he justifies himself by saying that it is not the norm for him to agree with the Alcohol Concern.  That may be true, but it is not re-assuring because it’s a slippery slope, partly because I’m now wondering what is the cutoff of good sense, as far as Mr. Protz is concerned.  Can I drink a beer that is below the 30% threshhold?  How about 20%?  The last thing I want to do is to appear un-sensible.

I’ve already mentioned Protz’s inclusio of insult, but it is worth noting that Protz once again appeals to his trusty weapon to deal with the issue at hand.  He quotes Jack Law as basically saying those guys act like babies.  Very compelling stuff, Mr. Protz.  Then comes the remainder of Mr. Law’s argument, which Protz endorses, namely, “He added that the fact that the beer, priced at £30 a bottle, had achieved a new record was not admirable. ‘It’s a product with a lot of alcohol in it, that’s all. To dress it up as anything else is cynical.’”

What shall we call Scotch, since we are taking on new ideas about what is legitimate for certain alcohol thresholds?  I don’t feel cynical when I call a strong beer a beer, do you?  Frankly, there are few people here whose attitudes seem cynical, and they can be found in Protz’s article.  By the way, it’s interesting to note that in the U.K., beer is taxed based on alcohol percentages and not a flat barrel rate like in the U.S., so who might be to blame so far as the price is concerned?

So, what is this stuff all about?  Ostensibly, there are some major drinking problems in the U.K. and Scotland in particular.  Because of this, there has been a lot of lobbying and parlimentary hullaballoo over the topic.  Given that the government is now deciding for the people what is too strong a beer or a drink, BrewDog seems to have challenged the notion up to its threshold.  I suppose the previous challenge wasn’t enough.  Honestly, are beer drinkers going to pay $60 for a bottle of beer just to get drunk?  Are beer lovers really the problem?  My guess is that the answer to that question is no.

I want to state without equivocation that what I’ve written is not a personal attack on Mr. Protz.  He is a well respected member of the beer community.  However, sloppy and dismissive writing and logic are always of paramount concern to me when I read such nonsense.  My article is not so much an argument against Protz as it is an ardent defense of BrewDog and craft brewing in general.  Plus, I figure that my ardent defense of this particular beer might ingratiate us to BrewDog enough for them to send a couple bottles my way.  If they can’t ship it here, they can fly me there.  I’m okay with that.

In all seriousness, if you’ve read this article and know how to get one of these beers my way, I’d love to taste it.  I’m always keenly interested in beers like these.  Why?  Because while it is true that good craft beer is made from grains, water, yeast and hops, it is also made of that all-natural ingredient of adventurous iconoclasm–a fact my Protz has seemed to have forgot.

I’ve recently grown weary of my attempts to find anything out about some particular yeast strains. For instance, I recently tried to investigate wlp655 (White Lab’s Sour Mix).  White Lab basically repeats on their website the information that is on their tube, which is frustrating.  Almost every site that I searched pretty much quoted the White Lab site.  Don’t get me wrong, White Labs makes good yeast, but the functionality and resourcefulness of their website stinks.  As for their chart, I know that people might think that looking at it would be helpful.  Yet, even the information on that is fairly limited.

The other way to find out about the yeast performance is to search through a Cambridge University student’s doctoral dissertation on a particular yeast strain.  Believe me when I say that I know the research is invaluable to getting a better understand of yeast, beer, etc.  But sifting through that information to find out a respiration period of a yeast is time consuming.  I guess I’m simply grousing about the problem, right?  Wrong!

This is where this series comes in.  Here is what I plan to do from now on when I brew: I’m going to name the yeast and company that I’m using, how long it took until I started seeing fermentation, what sort of performance I got out of the yeast, and possibly mention the basic gravities and alcohol ranges within which I worked.  Of course, style and taste qualities will be included in my assessment.  In addition, methodology will be a part of the equation. Sorry, I probably won’t include most of the recipes (although I might occasionally include one).  I’ve gotten fed up with not being able to find this stuff in many places, so I’m doing something about it.

Am I an expert on yeast behavior?  No.  I’m just looking to help the reader know what happened in my case, get some feedback from them, and help others know what to expect.  I’m not going to write on something I’ve not used.  This will be a highly subjective understanding of what I’m seeing…but sometimes experience is the best teacher.

My greatest hope is that I can make someone else feel better about what and how their yeast is doing.

***WARNING*** this is a rant.

Do you ever attend beer events?  If you have been to one, you will probably know exactly what I’m talking about.  If you haven’t, prepare yourself to eventually meet some of the people I’m about to describe.

What the hell is wrong with people?  Seriously!  Like many others, I’d been planning to attend the Black Tuesday festivities for some time.  All is well and good.  Through personal correspondance, website information, and personal admonition, it was pretty easy to ascertain that Patrick and company did not want visitors to show up to the brewery until 4:30 or after.  It was courtesy to their neighbors that ilicitated the request from the Bruery.  But some people are simply habitual line steppers…literally (but more on that in a moment).  Sometimes the thing that makes beerfests, events, and occasions horrible is the people that show up to them.

As an aside, I’m willing to grant that the Bruery might have been able to organize the event a little better. They may even admit this proposition themselves.  Of course, it is rare that the first go at something achieves the end in mind.  So, I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Patrick and staff; they did an excellent job in spite of the circumstances.  Did they think Black Tuesday would attain the level of popularity that it did?  I don’t think so.  But Beer Advocate has a way of changing things.  Who knows, maybe some of the members (I’m not talking about the brothers or even many of the respectable members) will recommend Coffee Stout Oak-Aged Gasoline as the next big thing (I’m not bashing Black Tuesday in any way).  Either way, I don’t think Patrick and crew expected the turn out that they got.  And therefore, their yields were nowhere near what the demand required.

There were those who could not help but trample the wishes of the Bruery and show up a few minutes (or hours) early.  They camped in their tents, cars, and parking lots in order to get what they wanted, despite the best hopes that the Bruery had.  After all, he wasn’t talking about you anyway…he must have meant someone else.  The “I’m the exception to the rule” mentality is sometimes too pervasive to stop.

My real problem isn’t with those people, as big of jerks as they are.  My real problem with the event was Mr. “I’ll pretend to talk to you until cutting in line is a seamless transition” guy.  What a jerk.  Did I get some Black Tuesday?  Yes, I did.  But what about the guy who was the cut off?  I saw at least 30 people cut the line in order to join the line that they did not wait to form.  It’s not enough for some to come early, complicity with their friends; to cut is too much.  Oh, to have immunity from the penal system for a few moments in time.  Simply said, these people are absolutely deplorable.  Not only do they not arrive on time for the event, they have the gall to jump in front of people who put in the effort to score some of this coveted beer.

Honestly, the last 30 people in line were the real losers in this deal.  The sense of kinship and fun that Nate and I had at Dark Lord Day serves as a stark contrast to the crashing feel that Black Tuesday had for many people (especially the “no Black Tuesday for you” crowd).  Meanwhile, the eBay prices for this hot commodity are soaring.

One unfortunate facet of the Black Tuesday event was the fact that people could not consume a beer or two while waiting in the five hour (at the very back) line, due to Calfornia’s liquor laws.  This is one more contrast that serves to sharply define this night from other beer events.  Again, this is no fault of the brewer; it’s a state and a grounds issue.  They simply don’t have the setting to allow drinking around the facility.

Please do not take this as an attempt to excoriate the Bruery in any way; they are a great group of hard working, beer loving, and innovative minded people.  They graciously brought cheese, chocolate truffles, and water around, too.  My beef is with some of the true jerks that showed up, in true jerk form, to what might have been a fun (albeit slightly unorganized) event.

When I did my interview with the Bruery, I brought a bottle of Dark Lord to taste side by side with Black Tuesday.  When we tasted the beers side by side, Patrick stated, and I think accurately, that he felt pretty good about Black Tuesday.  He is surely correct about the beer.

As far as the day goes, I think Black Tuesday left a lot to be desired compared to Dark Lord Day.  The sad and ironic part is that the experience had little to do with the people at the Bruery and a lot to due with some of the people that showed up.  Kinks, and there were some, will be worked out by Patrick and company–that comes with doing this thing a few times.  Unfortunately, the bottle hoarding, line cutting, self-interested scum will be in the line, unless they are weeded out.

Isn’t it amazing how a few people can crash a whole market…or an event?  If you went, what did you think? Personally, I’d like to see most of the changes affect these type of people next year.  What experiences have the rest of you had at beer events?

Now I’m not as excited as I used to be.  Why?  Well, there is a place down the road from me (5 minute walking distance) that has well over 100 beers on tap (in fact, a major chunk of their motto is “World’s Largest Selection of Draft Beer”).  I’ve read some reviews of the place, and the beer selection is always referred to as “awesome,” except for a “good,” which stated that price was the issue.

So, why am I up in arms about it?  Because I went there.  I walked into this bustling beertropolis of a place and started eying my way around the taps…and became a little distraught.  Typical, typical, typical.  I’m not saying there weren’t some good beers in the offering–there were even a couple that are generally harder to find.  But for the most part, the beer selection was typical Beeravania (very few stouts, too, I might add). The representative micros fluttered their eyes, the very typical English Ales sat politely, and the Leinenkugel’s Sunset Wheat (a horrible beer) should have been sent to the drain (a definite sink-worthy beer). Don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to be snobby about many of the beers, they’re terrific; but they’re everywhere, which is what I’m getting at (…except Leinenkugel’s, it’s truly terrible).

What I mean is this:  Where’s the adventure in beer choices (hard answering to a corporation, isn’t it?)? Where’s the risk?  Where’s the mold-breaking spirit of these alleged beer people?  Can’t we have made some better choices here?

I’ll give some examples.  Young’s Double Chocolate Stout was on tap, it’s a great beer; I like Bison’s Chocolate Stout better.  Maybe we could get some from the latter brewery, considering it’s in the same state.  Why not put some more state/local beers on the tap?  I think that some of the Bruery, Lost Abbey, Moylan’s or numerous other more local breweries could have replaced a couple quotidian Belgians.  Maybe California could have a little economic boost if businesses that are in the very state might do something like this.  Despite the fact that the Bruery is 40 minutes away, not a single beer from them is featured.  This is just one issue I have with a place that has a ton of beers while having very little when it comes down to it. How about another Lambic beside Lindeman’s (I also love this beer)?

What is a person to do?  I know, I’ll go to that place down the road that has a measly 65 beers on tap.  But they are having a Belgianfest, and I know they have unique stuff.  I’ll sit and sip a sour, drink a trappist, or get a strong ale.  Even if there were ten beers on tap somewhere, if they were well chosen, I might end up there.

I’m trying to avoid the gimmick of “we have 3 million beers on tap” because what’s the size of the choice when there is really nothing good to choose from?  Maybe size doesn’t matter.  Maybe the quality is the important thing.  Thanks for indulging this musing.

Like I said, I’m watching these people hang out and get their Budweisers to drink.  What happened next is what I found irritating.  Budweiser is building the perception (through their product placement) that drinking and hanging out equals fun.  Fair enough, I think that myself.  But then I saw it.  I saw a bottle opener being used on the Budweiser twist off cap.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  A bad representation?  Definitely. Am I being petty?  Most assuredly.  Yet, some nagging feeling makes me feel justified in my pettiness.  Most people watching the movie see someone taking off a cap and drinking a beer.  I see the bottle opener opening a twist cap and the message, “Look at this fancy beer.  It requires a bottle opener. It’s just as good as those other beers you drink, fancy pants.”  Was that the intention?  Is it subliminal to most people?  I don’t know.  What I do know is that I found it annoying.  Then again, perception is everything…and that’s my point.

Am I insane for thinking this?  What are your thoughts?

What do these beers have in common?  I believe that the hop factor is the real answer.  It is semi-understandable that they want their product to have the fresh hoppiness that they intended when making it.  Hop acids degrade over time, so their essential oils break down and recede.  On the other hand, the practice of increasing hops in a beer was originally intended to lengthen the life of the beer.  Hops are a preservative and antiseptic.  So I want to make myself clear when I say that whether or not you cellar a beer is a matter of preference, provided the beer fits the criteria of being cellarable.  It is extremely annoying to me when the manufacturer tells me to do this or that with their beer.

I’ve been cellaring beer for about 5 or 6 years now and know how they can blossom over time.  All these IPAs with Cascade hops become tiresome after a while.  They are ubiquitous, predictable, and quotidian at this point.  Far more interesting to me is what these beers may become over time.  So, the prohibition is baffling to me.  I would think that brewers might encourage people to age their beers and even perceive it to be not unlike a fine wine.  Can you imagine someone saying in 2019, “This is a 2008 Pliny the Elder?”  I can.

As a matter of fact, I’ve had beers that have been aged/I have been aging for 5 or 10 years.  In fact, they were hoppy beers that turned into something quite different and quite wonderful.  Drinking 1999 Lees Harvest Ale and Fuller’s 2004 Vintage Ale this year were major highlights.  Good thing I don’t always do what I’m told.  Do you?

I’m always critical of the person who exclusively drinks macro beer. In fact, I can be critical of someone who drinks them with any regularity. Now that I work in a liquor store, I’ve observed a phenomenon. Mr. Regular comes in and buys the same old beer every time. He walks in and grabs Natural Light. He knows exactly where it’s at, how much it costs and has the exact change. “Put it in a bag,” he says. Who can blame him? I would hide it, too. What else can he be doing but hiding the fact that he bought worthless beer for the purpose of inebriation? It can’t be that he really believes that walking out a liquor store won’t be perceived as buying beer, so long as he has it in a bag. This article is not really about that; let people have bags if they want to feel fancy or do it out of habit. All I can say is that if variety is the spice of life, the same beer all the time is parsley.

How did you personally feel when I spoke of “Mr. Regular” a moment ago? I know that I feel critical. I think, “Why can’t you drink something better for something more than the purpose of inebriation?”  Maybe you even said, “Well, I drink Heineken, Corona, or whatever better brand.” I have a question for you: do you know right where the Heineken is, have the exact change, and won’t drink much else? On one level, better beer is better beer, so I don’t criticize someone’s choice of better beer.  Even if it’s something terrific: “Oh! I only drink Chimay.”  On the other hand, how is it any less zombie-like than to walk straight to a chosen beer without thinking about anything else? Have you “found” something and stuck with it come hell or high water?

The reason that I write this is because I’ve seen people doing this and thinking that somehow they are more enlightened than the Bud Light drinker. Maybe there is a sliver of enlightenment with the selection of better beer, but it still represents a narrow view of the beer world. Okay! I’m willing to concede that this person drinks two beers vs. one, but that’s still not so impressive. Is there not some level of inherent illogical approach to beer in this mindset? I think so, especially when the person is making fun of the Bud Light drinker. (Don’t get me wrong, I do my fair share of making fun, too.)

Let me clarify what I’m saying. I am not saying that if you have a “go to” beer, then I’m talking about you. I have a couple of beers that I go to if I don ‘t want have to think about the drink too much. I know the beer well, and it is good, so I enjoy drinking it on occasion. But for the most part, I’m always looking for a new beer. Notice that I didn’t say perfect beer. Perfection seems to me to be a fairly illusory concept, so I normally refrain from speaking about beer in those terms. We’ve said it before, beer is an experience. One that should not cease to be profoundly interesting. Who wants a boring and hackneyed existence? I know that I don’t. How about going out on a limb for something new?

So, here is my encouragement: don’t walk with your hand extended toward the beer that you always drink, no matter what that beer is. You look like a zombie going through the pre-programmed motions. Be a human with a brain that requires some cerebration. Check your zombie at the door and open up a door to a bright and colorful world of beer rather than the drab world of zombiedom.

I see some analogous things happening in the beer world. Luckily, this is not strictly true for everything. I’m not an iconoclast by any means when it comes to beer. However, I do like something new or a new spin on an old style. If I had a brewery, I think that I’d mix between making good versions of traditional styles, spins on old styles, and real boundary pushers. Some breweries, like AB, are making laughable “craft” beers, but they’re of no account to me. Taking an inferior and cheap recipe and ruining people’s idea of a world classic should be a criminal offense. Leinenkugel’s 1888 Bock…need I say more?

The real crime is that some people, let’s call them the teens from the example above, are completely ignorant of the original artist (so to speak) or at least a really good cover-band. But a person who has had the real deal can always tell a fake. It’s akin to putting a cubic zirconium in front of a diamond dealer. The jig is up before it begins.

This is really a call to arms for my fellow beer drinkers and brewers. Let’s spread awareness that these remade, rehashed, regurgitated beers are simply ersatz examples of the classic styles that we’ve come to know and love. Let’s tell them that Rolling Rock is not a Pale Ale. No matter how extra it is, it pales in comparison. Share a good beer with a friend, and together we can end the bad remakes once and for all.

What other bad versions of a good style can you think of?

Sen. Bill Morrisette (D) of Springfield concocted drafted a proposal for a bill that would increase the statewide tax on beer leaving the brewery by 1900%.  No, my fat fingers didn’t mistakenly depress the “9″ and “0″ key at the same time, Senator Morrisette really did propose a 1900% tax increase.  As I read up on the proposed legislation, I became perturbed.  I stopped and asked myself, “Am I annoyed simply because this has to deal with beer?”  That is, had the Senator been taxing something irrelevant to me; say, cigarettes, would I still be up in arms as the tax would not affect me?  Yes, i believe so.

Besides the fact that the Rothbardian in me feigns state controlled revenue in most situations, there are times that I feel taxation is justified.  But the justification behind this tax is faulty, to say the least.  The senator stated two main reasons for the hike:

1.  Oregon has one of the lowest tax rates in the country and therefore it should be raised.

2.  He wants to create revenue that would go towards drug and alcohol abuse, prevention, and treatment.

Contra his first point, it is the opinion of this beer geek that change for the sake of change is not only futile, but often carries detrimental consequences.  If it isn’t broken, why fix it?  Besides, state competition is a good thing.  I posit that Oregon’s booming craft beer industry is a result of the in-place tax laws, and as such has put Oregon on the map.  Why squelch something that draws people, jobs, tourist, etc.?

As far as his justification, is it really the job of the State to fix someone’s dumb decision (you’ve heard of bank bailout this is morality bailout)?  Since heart disease kills more individuals per year than cirrhosis, why not impose a 1900% on Oregon’s glut of fast food chains?  Shoot, why not make obesity illegal like Japan did? Even if you say yes, the beer tax is the wrong place to go for funding.  Let’s face it, alcoholism among craft beer drinkers is much lower than among cheap beer and cheap liquor consumers.   The tax is not a a scapegoat (that is a punishment for the effects of alcohol), it is an excuse to bring in revenue in tight times.

I admit, this post is extremely subjective…but I can objectively say that it could be a slippery slope into prohibition-esque pragmatism.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Hate mail?