Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 11

Part 1 --- Part 2 --- Part 3 --- Part 4 --- Part 5 --- Part 6 --- Part 7 Part 8 --- Part 9 --- Part 10 --- Part 11 --- Part 12 --- Part 13

NOTE: When I moved to a new site, this "Beer Wars" series was mangled/destroyed during the move. I've reconstructed it by copying/pasting another copy of the original posts. I also lost the comments in their original form. I've copied/pasted the comments, but had to do so under my own name. So although it looks as though I'm the only commenter, I'm not. In each case, I've identified the original commenter.

_______________________________

Finally, there’s the three-tier system.

The film portrayed the system as a weapon wielded by evil corporate giants who use it to hold down little guys like Sam and Greg, and to prevent Americans from gaining access to “real” beer.

I disagree.(*1) It’s not that simple, and to understand why, we need to know something about the history of the three-tier system. I know what you’re saying:

“Yeah, yeah. The 3-tier system was created after Prohibition. So what? The past is irrelevant. All that matters now is that the 3-tier system allows wholesalers to exercise too much power over beer distribution.”

Again, I disagree. The original reason for the 3-tier system is as relevant today as it was in 1933, and is connected to why craft brewers have a hard time getting their message across to consumers.

So. Short history lesson. Before Prohibition, breweries could own saloons and use them as retail outlets for their beer. Nearly every brewer owned one, and big brewers owned many of them. The prohibitionists believed that if they could outlaw the saloons, the brewers would have no place to sell beer and they would go out of business. (It’s not a coincidence that the group that spearheaded the drive to ban alcohol was named the Anti-Saloon League.) So they launched a (successful) campaign against the saloon, painting them as a threat to decency, law, order, and the family; as dens of iniquity that harbored criminal activity, such as gambling and prostitution.

The Prohibitionists made their point, and an entire generation of Americans grew up fearing the power of the saloon. So when Prohibition ended, Americans wanted to avoid the return of this alleged evil.To that end, lawmakers at the federal and state level passed hundreds of laws aimed at constructing barriers between Americans and alcohol: Sunday closing laws, the state-control of the sale of alcohol, liquor-by-the-drink laws, the power for localities to remain “dry” and so forth.

I wrote about this in a longish op-ed piece for U.S. News a few months ago, so I won’t repeat myself. You can read that piece here.

Next: The 3-tier system as vehicle for demonization.

______________

*1: That doesn’t mean that I think the film was bad. As I noted earlier in this absurdly long discourse, I thought Anat’s film was first-rate. I disagree, however, with part of her “message.” It’s possible to praise the messenger and the medium and still disagree with the message.

Update on Jeff Alworth's "Honest Pint Project"

I don't think I'm EVER going to get caught up on reading/thinking/writing, thanks to my trip to LA and the "Beer Wars" event. But I'm trying.

And one thing I missed/neglected/overlooked (until now) was the great news about Jeff Alworth's Honest Pint Project. Here's one update (with comical commentary from Jeff.) The Oregon House votes on the bill today. You go, Jeff!

Pete Brown's New Book is Out

British beer writer Pete Brown (one of THE nicest guys on the planet) has a new book out:Hops and Glory: One Man's Search for the Beer That Built the British Empire. The book was released in the UK, but you can get free shipping to the US by ordering it here. His blog is here.

Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 10

Part 1 --- Part 2 --- Part 3 --- Part 4 --- Part 5 --- Part 6 --- Part 7 Part 8 --- Part 9 --- Part 10 --- Part 11 --- Part 12 --- Part 13

NOTE: When I moved to a new site, this "Beer Wars" series was mangled/destroyed during the move. I've reconstructed it by copying/pasting another copy of the original posts. I also lost the comments in their original form. I've copied/pasted the comments, but had to do so under my own name. So although it looks as though I'm the only commenter, I'm not. In each case, I've identified the original commenter.

_______________________________

Yes, I’m almost at the end. This is part ten of thirteen. And no, I never intended to string this out so long, which has resulted, I’m afraid in a more disjointed rumination than I originally intended. (Nor did I realize Life was gonna get in my face the way it has the past week.)

During the panel discussion, Anat showed a clip of Todd criticizing Rhonda for not making “real” beer. The general drift was that she doesn’t make “real” beer, so she’s not a “real” beer person or a “real” entrepreneur. She’s not “authentic.”

The exchange floored me. If the craft people want to exclude someone like Rhonda from, say, their trade organization, fine. But it strikes me as disingenuous to believe that they, and they alone, have the power to decide what is “real” beer and what is not.

And that gets at the heart of the matter (or one of the hearts, for this is a creature of many hearts): If the craft people want real beer, great. But their passion and desire for real beer does not grant them the power to deny other kinds of beer to other people.

Why? Because this is, after all, the United States, where we all believe in the “religion” of choice. It’s a big world out there. I’m willing to allow the craft brewers their corner of the world, but they in turn ought, I think, be generous enough to accept and acknowledge that not everyone agrees with them and their view of beer, real or otherwise. Nor should they render moral judgment upon those who prefer one kind of beer over another.

This is the essence of why battling over religion itself is pointless: If five people believe in five different gods, it’s clear that the “ real god” is whatever one each believes in. If so, then by definition, there can’t be “one” god. So why insist that your view of god is the correct one?

(And of course if I had the answer to that question, I would in one swoop solve most of the world’s problems.)

But the subtext of that discussion was, of course, the Big Brewers. No one came right out and said it, but in effect, they’re regard Rhonda as a patsy for Big Brewers, and, like them, foisting “non-real beer” off on consumers.

I have another view: I think Rhonda, and the Big Brewers are simply giving Americans what they want, and to understand why, we need to turn to the other villain in this piece: the 3-tier system.

Boston Globe to Stop Revolving?

This via the Washington Post: The Boston Globe will likely cease to exist --- and sooner rather than later. Which reminds me of my ruminations/fretting a few weeks back about what would happen to a newspaper's electronic site, and especially its digital archive. (I've relied extensively on the Globe's digital archive in my research for my new book about meat.) (Gustavus Swift started his career as a cattle trader in Massachusetts and he launched his "dressed beef" empire in New England.)

Tip o' the e-mug to Rebecca Skloot at Twitter (@rebeccaskloot). (Notice how my Twitter reference rolls right out of my keyboard. Ah, how quickly things change . . . .)

The Race for a Viable E-Reader Heats Up

More news today worth reading on the race to create a viable e-reader. This from the New York Times. Today's Wall Street Journal also contains an interesting report on the subject.

As always, there's no way to tell if this is one of the WSJ's freebies or not, although you can always try googling to see if it's beyond the barricades elsewhere. The title is "Publishers Nurture Rivals to Kindle," written by Shira Ovide and Geoffrey A. Fowler. One quote:

Gannett Co.'s USA Today and Pearson PLC's Financial Times are among newspapers that have signed up with Plastic Logic Ltd., a startup that is readying a reading tablet, the size of a letter-sized sheet of paper, that can displays books, periodicals and work documents. The device, which uses digital ink technology from E Ink Corp., the same firm behind the Kindle, is slated to be rolled out by early next year, and will offer publishers the chance to include ads.

Finally, this cautionary tale worth reading about the way in which Amazon uses its clout with authors.