Being Hefty: The Laws And Lies

I’ve been a big guy most of my life, though when I look back now at pictures of me from when I thought I was too heavy makes me shake my head. You do what you can, put down the seventh Ring-a-Ding Junior, do an insane number of sit-up yet still you get to wake up to news like this:

While New York City proposes to force fast-food restaurants to post calorie information on their message boards, these three lawmakers have done the Big Apple one better – proposing to make it illegal for a Mississippi restaurant to serve anyone with a body mass index of 30 or more – the clinical threshold of obesity.

The funny thing is, as we learn through HB, that it is all a lie because the other news today is that “Healthy people place biggest burden on state“:

The study, led by Pieter van Baal at the Netherlands’ National Institute for Public Health and Environment, found: “The underlying mechanism is that there is a substitution of inexpensive, lethal diseases towards less lethal, and therefore more costly diseases.” By comparison, being significantly overweight tends to lower overall medical bills: “Obesity increases the risk of diseases such as diabetes, increasing healthcare utilisation but decreasing life expectancy.” They concluded: “Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained.”

What comfort. We die earlier leaving our children to carry the burden of paying for the thin. No word, however, on the specific effect that beer blogging struggling novice masters shot putters in training have on the public purse. Does this mean health insurers should adjust the tables? Reduce premiums for those who will not reduce?

Ethical Writing And A Brysonian Discourse On Attitude

One of the cheatiest cheats a lazy beer blogger can foist is the copying of comments made elsewhere. But, and this is #7 on the list of the failings of the internet, you put out all that information our there, all those clever turns of phrase and they are lost to eternity as certain as a clever remark made on a radio show in 1937 floated away, dispersed in the ether.

And there is a lot of good thought going on out there. Pete Brown posted a post last Monday and good comments keep trickling in. The post was about, well, it can be summarized by this:

…just to be clear, they’re offering you money to take ads, and turn them into editorial on your blog…

A host of opinion followed. It is sort of an extension of the idea of why there is so much unhappy cranking out there but it’s also interesting in that it is getting a bit to the point on the relationship of value and writing. The only unfortunate thing is that its title suggested that confusion of this relationship was a first nail in the coffin of blogging.

First, the first nail in that coffin was long ago, likely caused by the first wire that connected a personal computer to the global system. But really, second, the question of what makes you a good writer or a poor writer ought not to be defined by one’s position of employment or unemployment in relation to the given subject matter. It really ought not be connected to the nature of the benefit one receives, if any, in response to one’s writing. I’ve been a professional writer in another context, law, for almost two decades now. The fitness of my larder depends on the fitness of my thought. Unlike beer writing, however, there has always been the assumption that my writing is open for criticism due to the adversarial system of justice I chose to work within all those years ago. The red pen of the professor was replaced by the articling principle, then the senior partner, then the judge. On top of that is the giddy joy of having everyone and his dog coming up to you on a daily basis to let you know that you must be a scoundrel, a liar and a thief.

What does this have to do with a beer blog? Well, consider this comment from Lew in response to this comment from me:

Alan, I can see junkets swaying folks — and I’m trying to do more on my own dime because of that — but they do give a writer an opportunity to soak up information, particularly on the right junket. I’ve been on several junkets that I never wrote stories about — I never said I would — but I’ve used some of the other stuff I’ve picked up on the trip.

But samples? I’m sorry, I cannot be bought for a 12-pack. And if I don’t like the beer, I’ll either say so on my blog, or I’ll send the folks who sent me the stuff a polite e-mail, saying I didn’t like it, and here’s why, and thanks, maybe some other time. I just don’t see samples as swaying. And neither do any of my editors, some of whom have pretty tight ethics policies: they all make exceptions for samples. The New York Times is quite ethical: they take samples. It’s easy to take them and stay honest once you realize that there are 10,000 breweries in the world: you’re afraid of pissing off a couple? Screw ’em! Besides, I still get samples from breweries I’ve reamed. They know how this works.

Greg, we maintain that kind of firewall at Malt Advocate. I’ve never once been asked to write or run a story because of ad concerns, and we’ve lost advertisers because of reviews. We’ve gained readers, though, and that has made the ads that other producers bought more profitable.

The only thing I don’t like about bloggers as a professional writer…is the holier-than-thou attitude some of them take. I did say “some”!

To which I responded this morning:

I think your “holier than thou attitude” problem is a shared one with professional beer writers, too, as that is just another aspect of integrity. The person who starts the day thinking they are clear of these issues or gets a head start on them because of previous record or other business connections is in breach of Grannie rule #1: handsome is as handsome does. But, as I thought when an acquaintance who was a professional humour writer started to blog – it must be very odd having those comment things now showing up at the end of a professional writers pieces for someone who has been at it for decades. It is not just the attitude of blogging is the the mere fact of its existence that creates such a broad brush of archived response to this column or that beer – this is only so much one can say, isn’t there? I was quite shocked when a good brewer, for example, when on about the “HateBeer” forum on the internet but who would have thought that pursuing one’s dream as a craft brewer would mean being pursued by a gang of note taking cranks.

I have to apologize for the lengthy copying without even asking but, as it was triggered and/or written by me I am content with the etiquette. But look at what is happening – it’s a part of a larger discussion of very specific ethics in relation to a very specific trade and, as I live with daily, suggestions of impropriety being slung back and forth. This is great stuff and not only because Lew is one of my favorite turners-of-phrase and beer ethicists whose point sits in a flow of other very interesting thoughts on the topic. It is great because it is robust and healthy. It is also starkly open, something we beg for in other parts of life like government and commerce. Remember how blogging was supposed to make business and politics personal and open and real? Remember how that flopped? Well, it has not flopped in some niche areas and this is a fine example.

But underneath all it is that call for integrity; a challenge that if you are going to state opinions that they be as true and as honest as you can make them. Enthusiasm – whether it is over your beer or your politics or your faith – can be a devious trap, attracting accolades and acolytes as well as other benefit. To some, if you get enough benefit in relation to your enthusiasm, well, that makes you a professional in your mind. To others, that only occurs when you earn the benefit through the application of integrity no matter what the context which, given a dose of humility, may be an honour that one never quite achieves.

Anyway, these are just thoughts over Cheerios as the baby has her bottle. As with any writing, it is only the reader who can say if they are worth anything just as it is only the noble drinker who can say if the work of the brewer has achieved any standard. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of having a new to me local craft beer from a brewer who has until recently made only that one beer and am happy to report it was better than I could have imagined. I don’t know if I have ever had that sort of experience with writing – but that may be the difference between text and ale. The one by its nature should never be expected to completely satisfy. It should challenge and leave you mulling. It should trigger cranks. It can’t be expected to immersively and completely satisfy like good beer.

PM Harper Does The Unexpected – Appoints On Merit

I don’t know if Justice David Jenkins was a Grit or a Tory in his pre-bench life but he is a fine judge. He sat on the hearing I was involved with which led to the recognition that political discrimination had to end in Canada’s last hold out for Victorian values, Prince Edward Island. I think my favorite question was something like “so if the other side is right and this is not discrimination, the Government could then set up a Provincial Park and say ‘No NDP supporters allowed?'” My answer was, of course, yes. He also asked, because political belief had never before been proven to be protected by The Charter, how it was that no other government had had it proven against them? I said that no other had the gall and he nodded in agreement.

So good for Stephen Harper in doing the right thing in this case – not a habit he has gotten into when it comes to appointments. And a happy retirement to Justice Mitchell, whose portfolio as Chief Justice of The Appeals Division in Canada’s tiniest province included handling adoptions, including the one in our family. He presided over the event with great pleasure which made the day an ever greater one for our family.

And Now Gomery’s Being Mean to Harper

Now even I am starting to feel bad for the PM. First, Ben says our Prime Minister “doesn’t have enough confidence in himself, sadly.” Now Gomery says Harper has bailed on accountability:

John Gomery, in a wide-ranging interview marking the second anniversary of his final report, expressed dismay that the federal Conservatives have ignored his key recommendations for reform. “I have to tell you, I’m very disappointed,” Mr. Gomery said from the farm in Havelock, Que., where he now lives in retirement. “I worked so hard, and I got other people to work hard, and we gave very serious thought to what we were recommending. I thought it deserved a debate.”
Instead, said the former judge, most of the political and bureaucratic changes he proposed fell into a “black hole” of indifference or were rejected out of hand.

I’m worried. I’m worried that leadership has collapsed to the level that I can’t think of a single leader of any party before Martin became PM who would not now smoke the present Government in an election yet there is no one who can step up and do that now.

I never thought I would miss Deb Grey so much. Or Eugene Whalen.

Please Don’t Hit Me. Please Don’t Hit Me. Please Don’t Hit Me.

Drag. I just got the new shingles up this year – like 40 year shingles, you know. And now there’s space junk a fallin’. Space junk can look cool when it’s falling except when it’s falling on you.

I must have told you this but last summer, we were sitting out back in the early evening when someone said – what is that. Looking up there was this thing in the sky, a pivoting white cylinder falling and falling straight at us. I must have told you. Never? Well, there was nothing to give any perspective so we didn’t know if it was three feet long 300 feet up or 30 feet long half a mile up. It kept falling and we figured which wall were were about to hide up against when a cross current took it away off past the lake.

But a CIA spy satellite is not going to go that. It’s going to smash my new shingles. Please don’t hit the new shingles. Maybe ask the Chinese to help.

Japan: Where Faith And Beer Come Together

Jay has been lamenting the divide between Southern Baptists and their beer. You know, it was darn pesky of the Lord to hang around in taverns and make wine when you think of it. In addition to the work, however, of Rev. Taffy Davis in Macclesfield, England, Jay found one US pastor who has followed in the steps of the Big Guy and brought the word back to the tavern. Good stuff.

Interesting, then, it was for me to find out this sort of thing is happening under other faiths as well as this story from last month about Buddhist monks in Japan shows:

This is what you might call “Buddhism-lite” though. It is performance, not preaching. After their first session on the stage, which lasts about 20 minutes, they sit down with the audience for a drink and a chat. One of the monks gets a bag of balloons out of his pocket and starts sculpting balloon flowers for some of the older ladies sitting around the room. “Many Japanese don’t want to come to temple,” Hogen Natori says. He is standing behind the bar where he has lit up a cigarette as he chats with the drinkers. “They think Buddhism is very difficult, and deep and serious, but Buddhism is much more than that – exciting, funny even. I want to spread this kind of teaching.” He feels people are more receptive in a bar, when they are drinking and with friends.

Hmmm…that last bit makes it sound a bit like a pick up line: “Hey good looking – that’s quite the soul you have there.” The BBC has a short video of the monks in action at the Chippie Sound Music Bar in Tokyo. Be warned – having watched it, I am still not clear which beer goes best with “Ohmm”.

It Is UnCanadian To Question Or Embarrass Your New Rural Overlords!

The whole bleat of the Government of One is getting tired, is it not? How is it that after the PMO botches a story and then botches it again, that the Opposition then commenting on the botch is a deed done wrong? Only the mind of Peter MacKay knows that:

Dion pointed out Friday that Defence Minister Peter Mackay was in Afghanistan when the policy on detainees changed. When questioned on the issue, MacKay refused to answer and criticized Dion instead. “What Mr. Dion is doing, if he wants to be irresponsible and talk about briefings that he received, that’s a decision for him. I am not going to put Canadian soldiers or the people that they’re there to protect in harm’s way by talking about operational details or what takes place in the theatre.”

So when the Tories let loose with the fact about where Opposition government leaders will be in a war zone before it happens, well, that is not bad. But to point out the foolishness of the PMO after it spills the beans? Now that is UnCanadian.

The Last Friday Bullets Before February

Janufeb. The grey blur before the melt, made more grey those three out of four years without Olympic curling. It is the time when the Morton teeters, when show turns that other colour. We’ve seen the dark edge of the storm and even had double lake effect this week. I heard an ad for large screen TVs telling me how they bring the family together.

  • Australians should be scared of coming to Canada? What a load. I thought Australians were fearless of backpacking though third world gang zones blind drunk, spraying the combatants with obscenities and just emptied beer cans? Bleaters of the right will go on about the terrorist references but note this:

    “Heavy snowfalls and ice in the winter can make driving dangerous. The wind-chill factor can also create dangerously cold outdoor conditions. … The province of British Columbia in western Canada is in an active earthquake zone. Alberta and British Columbia are also subject to avalanches. … Tornadoes can occur in some areas of Canada between May and September. Bush and forest fires can occur any time in Canada.”

    Whimps! This is the real crisis and a funny one as we consider what terrorism and natural disasters really means to an Australian – no access to beer for a couple of days.

  • What happens if two pass too close and the lines tangle?
  • One point on the Manley Report that is important and telling in the brader context is a critique of the Government of One policy that we are living under these days:

    The panel members called the policy unhelpful and said it was undermining public support for the mission and presenting a skewed picture of why Canadian troops are being asked to put their lives on the line in Afghanistan. Chairman John Manley, a former foreign affairs minister, said the decision taken at the “centre” – in the Prime Minister’s Office or the Privy Council Office – to allow only the Defence Department to speak on the mission means Canadians are being told their young men and women are dying without being given “any context in which they can say this is why and this is meaningful and this is tragic but it’s worth it.”

    Leadership tells us why we need to do things, makes it compelling. Shutting up is the same as creating confusion. No wonder he gets treated the same way. Would you vote for Manley now? Who wouldn’t?

  • I haven’t watched tennis for years but maybe that will change now that the log jam has broken.
  • Rampant freeloadery and responsibility shiftery which can’t even get its act together on a 42 year timeline for achieving something!
  • The Economist puts it well:

    Mr Harper has been unable to do much more than survive. Respected for his competence, he has all the charisma of an automaton. “I thought that people needed time to get used to Mr Harper,” says Roger Gibbins of the Canada West Foundation, an Alberta-based think-tank. “But it’s turned out that to know Harper is not to love him.” That is especially true for women. Opinion polls show little change in allegiance since the last election—except for a brief moment of Conservative advance last autumn…This year is shaping up to be Mr Harper’s most difficult so far. But there is not yet any sign that the opposition will feel sufficiently emboldened to bring him down and trigger an election.

    So more of the Great White Yawn…except to Australians. Boo!

How long until The Beat Authority? How long until Darcey posts the Beer and Blues? Lord, how long?

It’s Like No One Really Want To Win This Race

Another day another come back kid:

Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who ran as a son of Michigan though he left the state nearly 40 years ago, won a commanding victory Tuesday in the Republican primary here with a message aimed at voters deeply anxious about the state’s ailing economy. Mr. Romney defeated his principal rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, by winning a clear plurality of Republicans and conservatives, who turned out in greater numbers than they had in the 2000 primary, which Mr. McCain won.

Now I am hopeing for Fred or Rudy in South Carolina. A new winner for every state, I say!

Ann Arbor went 9% for Kucinich. Watch out for Kucinich. He is coming on.

Big Hop Bombs: Extreme Beer And Your Personal Limits

It’s always a big day when Eric Asimov writes a beer article for The New York Times. Being Canadian, a culture with a deep seam of neediness running through it¹, you glow when you feel like you are noticed just as when the beer nerd’s nerdiness gets the MSM treatment. But in today’s article all was not nice – there was a bit of push back from him and the panel against the extreme hoppiness in beer that have marked a certain sector of the nerd herd:

“The hoppiest beer?” Garrett asked. “It’s a fairly idiotic pursuit, like a chef saying, ‘This is the saltiest dish.’ Anyone can toss hops in a pot, but can you make it beautiful?” Phil likened the appeal of these beers to the macho allure of hot sauces, which almost dare enthusiasts to try the hottest ones.

I like the comparison to saltiness and it reminds me of the idea that the search for the strongest beer, an earlier extreme beer obsession, is as dumb as hunting for the strongest Scotch. One thing I noticed was that the beers chosen that I was familiar with were not the most hop-ridden out there by any stretch. Dogfish Head 90 looks up to their 120, I found Simcoe Double IPA balanced (something I could not say for the brewer’s bigger Eleven) and only Un*earthly broke the now standard 10% alcohol limit that now sort of divides extreme between really strong from insanely strong.

Stan notes at his blog that some in craft beer are not so prudent or concerned with beauty when he shares this update from Avery about their 2008 version of New World Porter:

While some observers may posit that the hop shortage is a good thing, forcing brewers to become more efficient and prudent with their use of hops, we at Avery tend to disagree. Hops are the heart and soul of our beers and we refuse to compromise our recipes or our flavors. Even more, as if to scoff in the face of common sense and basic brewery economics, we decided to increase the hops that were added to this years New World Porter. The 2008 batch is truly a black IPA.

Something tells me that this could well just not be a beer for me. After a few of years of these big brews I am starting to think that I have a natural limit of around 8.5 percent beyond which beers start to have a diminishing return unless there is something else to particularly attract my attention. I also have a limit as to hop acid and that is defined by the need not worry about the state of my tooth enamel…unless, say, there are those arugula hops from Ithaca in there. This is no different than my sour beer studies leading to my limit for acidity being far closer to Kriek De Ranke than to Bruocsella 1990.

Is it wrong to say that you can’t go all the way or at least as far as others go? Old farts call this a sign of maturing. The immature call it the sign of an old fart. To my mind, Asimov’s NYT article leaned towards old fart territory without explicitly saying so. The other end of the pendulum’s swing can be found at this busy forum filled with unimpressed lame-‘cusatory BAers. It’s like everyone is unhappy with everyone else and, frankly, Pete Brown is pretty much fed up with the lot of you.

Yet these things only go so far. Can someone else tell us what to think, to taste? There is nothing more odd than sitting over the same bottle with experienced fans and hearing differing comments, different experiences of pleasure. In many ways, beer has an audience of one and that is you. So what have you learned about yourself? Which path would a brewer have you walk but you won’t follow? Is it and overly Burtoned mineralized brew? Too still, too hopped, too smoked or just too much goddamn yeasty floaties? Or is it the milds, lights and other table beers that bore you or, worse, wear you out from trips to the can? Remember this: we each have to make our old way in this wicked world and there is no better example of that than the love of beer. What thing about beer have you learned not to repeat?

¹Think Sally Field saying “They like me! They really like me!!” and add snow.