Oh Dear – The “Cake Boss” Of Beer Gets Panned

What a disappointing graphic. But appropriately so – don’t you think? See, I have mentioned how I have been utterly unthrilled by the prospect of a TV show about Dogfish Head and their business operations. This is not to say you should not be thrilled by the show and not to say that I do not like some beers by Dogfish Head – though not all. It’s just that the whole Cake Boss thing has been done. The format is tired. My chosen photo captures that, doesn’t it. Besides – I love the beer not the brewer. Celebrity brewer infomerical? That’s a bit sad. So, give me something new. Give me Man v. Food any day. Or maybe a show about craft beer or even the history and taxonomy of beer generally. But not this:

…the series focuses on Sam Calagione, the proprietor of the Delaware-based Dogfish Head Brewery. A telegenic and voluble type, Calagione waxes eloquent when he describes his company’s mission. He claims that Americans are the kind of people who refuse to accept what’s shoved down their throats, and that’s why we demand distinctive beer. Then he goes ahead and contradicts that by noting that craft beers are only 5 percent of the U.S. market. He says the philosophy of the company is stated in a long quotation from Emerson about individualism that is posted on an office wall. Since it’s too many words to put on a bottle, the company’s motto is “Off-centered ales for off-centered people.” Calagione’s skill at crafting baloney is put to good use in the first episode, in which Sony Records commissions him to create a beer to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the release of Miles Davis’ album “Bitches Brew.” Inspired by jazz, which he says is a mixture of African and American elements, Calagione decides to blend an Ethiopian honey beer and an American imperial stout, even though the aforementioned statistic would suggest that the quintessential American beer would be a bland, fizzy mass-produced lager.

That’s from Media Life magazine‘s web site. A hat tip to Andy for mentioning it on Facebook. Not a source that has a particular agenda or at least one that has any skin in the craft beer game. And what about the name, Brew Masters. Is it a claim? Any why the plural? I would have thought that that time would have been reserved for a show that might talk about a number of masters of brewing from breweries around the world. That was the show I was hoping for – Stan and Ron wandering the globe meeting the beery, getting a zillion perspectives. It appears my disappointment in regards to the scope of and planning for the show may be matched by results. Oh dear.

But, as with my not giving of the rat’s ass about Beer Wars and then seeking your input on the experience, you may have a different point of view. And maybe a better graphical representation of your mood about the whole thing. You should. You better. Let me know what it is.

What Is Multiculturalism A Euphemism For Today?

Three friends of mine from undergrad ended up respectively marrying a Brit, a Slovak and a practicing Hindu. The weddings were all marked by their twin cultures and no one, as far as I can tell, lost an eye. A sister-in-law is a Swede. My folks are immigrants. So, I always wonder about these sorts of statements:

…that he considers Muslim fundamentalists an unwelcome element in liberal society is the kind of thing that gets Mr. Steyn so readily branded as a bigot, particularly in Canada where a worship of his most hated term “multiculturalism” has, he says, utterly shrivelled the limits on public discussion. That may, however, only prove his point. “It’s a sick fetish,” he says. “The idea that multiculturalism simply on its own terms is a virtue in itself is completely preposterous.”

What I don’t understand is how “multiculturalism” in this use differs from immigrants who practice Islam? Does Steyn have an issue with Filipinos or Hungarians or Peruvians? If there was no Islam and everything is the same, does he think we have the same issue? I am not sure. Because of that, I really have no idea what he is talking about. Which makes it hard to take him seriously. He may have a good point, one worth considering, if he ever got down to finer strokes. Instead we wallow in silly statements like “… diversity-obsessed Canadians have become generally sympathetic to the plight of Omar Khadr.” I’d say most Canadians have no idea who Omar Khadr is – just natterers. Just those who need it for an illustration of something else, the pre-established conclusion. How hasn’t that approach to thought “utterly shrivelled the limits on public discussion?”

None