How's About Some Outtakes?

Hey, the Great American Beer Festival starts tomorrow. My beer buddies are arriving in Denver even as I type this. They are; I'm not. But how 'bout I mark the occasion anyway?

Last January, Daniel Bradford, the publisher of All About Beer magazine, asked me to write an essay for the magazine's 30th anniversary issue. He wanted me to look back at the past thirty years of American beer and writing something "controversial," as he put it. Something that would get people talking.

Frankly, I wasn't sure I had new or novel to say, but I thought about it. Realized that, yes, I did want to say something. So I agreed, and cranked out my 4,000 words.

Daniel was taken aback; it was a bit . . . too, ummm, out in left field.

So he decided run it with a companion essay by AAB's editor, Julie Johnson. In order to fit both essays into the allotted pages, I sliced my essay by half.

Which means --- you guessed it --- outtakes! So I'm going to post a chunk of what got deleted, running it in three parts (it's long). Just in time for the start of the fun in Denver.

Oh: almost forgot. The magazine is now on sale, at newstands. (Sorry, it's not online, so if you want to read the whole thing, you'll have to, ya know, plunk down some dough.) So, next up at the blog: three easy pieces.

Must-Read of the Day: Rob MacDougall on Angels and Octopodes

Today's must-read: This entry from Canadian historian Rob MacDougall.(*1) Man, I love this new generation of historians and the way they use the web. (Another example is Alexis Madrigal at Inventing Green.)

And now, back to work. Today's topic: canned meat and how it shaped Americans' demand for fresh meat. (Yes, there is a connection...)

________________

*1: Interesting in and of itself, but timely for me as I've been thinking about the octopus imagery as I write my current chapter about, yes, giant meat processing corporations in the late 19th century.

On the State of "Information" In the Information Age

Just finished reading the current issue of The Atlantic. (I'm not big on magazines, but I do read this one --- and yes, I read it on paper.) It contains the usual great mix of articles, poems, etc.

But one article in particular is worth reading: "The Story Behind the Story," by Mark Bowden, an informed and critical look at what passes for "journalism" today, especially on television. You can read it online here. (It is, I point out, a several-thousand-word essay, not a short blog entry, so if you're burdened with a short attention span, well, don't bother.) Definitely worth reading.

There's a companion piece of sorts, "The Moguls' New Clothes," which looks at the dollars and cents of media in the information age. It's here, and it's worth strolling on over to The Atlantic website if only to see the illustration that accompanied this essay.

Indeed, one of the pleasures of The Atlantic is the care the editors take with illustrations --- as well as layout and font selection. Which is a fancy way of saying that the magazine is a easy on the eyes. There are entirely too many websites, magazines, and newspapers out there that are almost impossible to read thanks to bad design.

Oh --- one other piece in this issue: an essay about how and why California came to play such a prominent role in energy efficiency. Think of it as a mini-primer on the subject.

Okay, I have now fulfilled my role as a "lazy" blogger --- one of those who "reacts" to material rather than creates it. (So says Bowden in the first essay I mentioned above.)

What's [Not] New Under the Sun (Or the Moon Over Which Jumped the Cow)

Whoa. Just had THE weirdest case of historian's deja vu.

A little background: I've spent the week reading testimony from a series of Congressional hearings held in late 1888 and early 1889. The subject was the transportation and sale of meat products. Livestock producers complained about low prices for their cattle. They blamed a collection of meatpackers that they called the "Big Four": Armour, Swift, Morris, and Hammond. The farmers told senate investigators that the Big Four colluded on prices at stockyards, driving prices into the ground and cattle producers into bankruptcy.

As I read the hearing testimony, however, it became clear to me that there is and was little historical evidence of these charges and that the true culprit was over-supply of livestock and decreasing demand for meat (mostly in export markets).

Moreover, this downturn in prices came only after record high prices which, no surprise, had led many investors to buy land and cattle (investors who, for the most part, had no experience and no idea what they were doing). They then flooded the market with (mostly poor) livestock and prices plunged. Anyway, the cattle producers were dead certain there was a conspiracy against them and had no interest in hearing any facts to the contrary.

So today I'm reading an article in the Wall Street Journal about rising milk prices. Same deal, except with milk rather than cattle. Dairy farmers want a federal probe of prices because, they say,

they have too few buyers and too little competition for their milk. The industry is dominated by two players: Dean Foods Co. of Dallas, which is creating a national brand in what had been a fragmented industry, and Dairy Farmers of America Inc., a Kansas City, Mo., cooperative that buys milk from farmers and sells some of it to Dean Foods.

Only toward the end of the article do we learn anything to the contrary:

Many economists doubt that Dean Foods -- which benefits from being able to buy plentiful supplies of cheap raw milk to make everything from bottled milk to cheese to ice cream -- is to blame for this year's depressed milk prices. Indeed, the company's market clout wasn't enough to stop the prices farmers received for their milk from hitting record and near-record high levels in 2007 and 2008.

Yes, I realize this is milk, rather than cattle, but the principle is the same: When the going gets tough, food producers are quick to blame "monopolists" for the sharp price gyrations that are a normal part of the food industry.

Moral of the story? Hmmmm. Beats me. Those who don't know history are bound to repeat their mistakes? We should all read more history? We should all listen when historians speak? We should step back and take the long view? I dunno. (Hey! It's the best I can do on a Friday afternoon after a looooooooooong week.) (Long week, you say? Aren't they all seven days long? Not mine, buddy. Not this week. MY week ran 75 days.)

Tip o' the mug to Dan Mitchell of Daily Bread.