Seven Years Ban Free

On January 18, 2011, I was notified by Facebook that these Musings had been flagged as containing "content that is abusive or spammy" content. As such the posts are unable to be shared on Facebook. Our Facebook "jail time" lasted a little over 24 hours before the restriction was lifted without explanation.

As Seen on January 18, 2011

I have no reason to believe that Facebook is any more accepting of non-leftist views than they were seven years ago. I am surprised to have escaped further bans, at least so far.

Challenge accepted. 

What's in a Name?

What does "Musings Over a Pint" mean? To me, it brings forth thoughts of sitting around with friends, good beer in hand, talking, laughing, pontificating, about anything of interest. It's not wholly unexpected that one thinks first of beer when hearing the blog name. In fact, the first three years or so of this blog was devoted almost exclusively to that topic. And frankly the task of writing on a single topic became, well, boring. Those that read regularly know that besides good craft beer, it's God, family, country, and the shooting sports that top my interests.

Recently, one of my long-time Twitter followers dropped my feed. He's a passionate craft beer fan, and frequently "retweeted" my beer-related posts. Personally, I would still enjoy his conversations even though we are of different political views. However, his leaving is not an uncommon reaction among craft beer-only fans. Though frankly, I'm not aware of any shooter who's ever gotten upset over my choice in beer (though they frequently don't understand it.) The header at the top of this page was created specifically as fair warning to the more sensitive types. Staying around to be offended by these Musings is self-inflicted.

Selfishly, these Musings are written by me, for me. I enjoy the reminiscing that happens while writing the posts. Very frequently I go back and read older posts just to relive a good time. I don't see that changing. The craft beer reports aren't going away. The shooting range reports aren't going away. The Catholic commentary isn't going away. The occasional right-side commentary isn't going away. More often than not, those subjects even come up within the same post.

Sitting at a pub with family or friends enjoying a beer is still one of my favorite pastimes. And if I'm sitting around with true friends, those are the topics we're most likely discussing. So have a seat, and a pint, and join in the musing.

As a side note, it's interesting to me, that the leading all-time most popular post in these Musings is the Starfire .380 Ammo Review from 2012. Something ammo distributors might take note of. ;-)

Are These "Real People" Targets?

I was recently taken to task for shooting at "pictures of real people." I recalled that fallacious accusation when I unpacked the targets I ordered for the fun day at the range coming this weekend.

Do these qualify as "pictures of real people"? After all, they do remind me of the current president's cheerleaders.

The Varieties of Gun Control Advocates

I recently mused about the trustworthiness of a person who objects to the right of self-defense or who advocates "gun control." Over at JFPO, there's an article which looks at the mindset, and motivations of the propagandists who work against our rights.

The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale. 

Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

The author goes on to list seven categories these oppressors fall into.

1. Elitists
2. Authoritarians
3. Criminals
4. The Fearful
5. Ideological Chameleons
6. Security Monopolists
7. The Dysfunctionally Unworldly

I found the divisions, and the accompanying descriptions, to be frightenly accurate. Go read the article. It makes for a good defense to know the enemy.

Here: The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate

The 2nd Amendment Caste System

To anyone who looks carefully, it becomes obvious that gun control laws are really about people control. I wrote previously about the "projection" by anti-gunners of their own weaknesses onto gun owners. Coincidently, this week we learned of a vocal anti-gun politician who, when being booked on domestic violence charges, surrendered three handguns of his own. This is a case of "okay for me, but not for thee."

Gun rights proponent, Alan Korwin makes a thought-provoking observation in his essay entitled Diplomatic Carry.

Officials travel armed. When a contingent of our officials visits any other country, they bring armed personnel in classic right-to-bear-arms manner. Life is dangerous and the ability to protect yourself is a reasonable and prudent thing, a fundamental human right of existence, a moral imperative. So they go armed. It's only rational. Hillary and similar bring along enough firepower that if some of their group go one way while some head off in another, they're both covered. 

The same is true in reverse. When an ambassador from Trashcanistan comes to the United States, discreetly armed bodyguards accompany the party at all times, "laws to the contrary notwithstanding." That's lawyer-speak for "their right to carry supersedes any other rules," or in plainer English, "We're above those laws." The ambassador might decide to personally carry too. I'm guessing Hillary does not. 

There's this whole "second system" of gun possession and carry here domestically, another layer of rules on top of the common ones you must follow, operating quietly with people in the know cooperating. 

Korwin makes a valid observation that our government acknowledges the right to self-defense for some people. People who have no obligation to obey our laws, and in some cases have pledged to disrupt our freedom, get by with a nod and a wink. All the while the gun prohibitionists push efforts to restrict the personal rights of U.S. citizens.

The author states correctly that a person's right to life and protection "cannot morally be denied." Diplomatic Carry raises this responsibility to a new level of "personal sovereignty." Personal responsibility is something our current leaders fight against with every breath. They seek to make decisions for us, and force us to comply through regulations and edicts. Perhaps it's time for a new paradigm.

I can imagine that right about now, my anti-gun readers, and probably a few pro-gun folks are stammering, "But, but, wait..." However, think about it. A caste system really does exist in this country when it comes to application of the 2nd Amendment. Why should it? The Bill of Rights was written for all citizens.

Who Would You Trust?

If you've been following the news recently, you know there's been a spate of traveler arrests in New Bloomberg, er, New York, for gun possession. Before I go further let me state categorically that gun owners have a responsibility to know the law. Just as when gun owners fail to act responsibly in safe handling of their weapons, I find it hard to feel sympathy for those who make themselves victims. However, that doesn't change my view of anti-gun laws and those who support them.

I've already mused over the natural right to self-defense. A gun happens to be part of the tool set. Why do so many people and states try to restrict our right to be armed? In my opinion it's a matter of trust. Not the prohibitionists' trust of me, but my ability to trust them.

Take the misnamed Mayors Against Illegal Guns, headed up by the aforementioned Mayor Bloomberg. These politicians do not want citizens to be armed. Why? Could it have anything to do with the fact that so many of the group's members are convicted criminals? Criminals inherently, and rightfully, fear armed victims. Gun control laws are not about guns; gun control laws are about power and control over people. In the United States, gun control laws have their roots in racism. Today, we see that the self-proclaimed "enforcers" still are lacking moral or legal ethics. When Meredith Graves was arrested, the Mayor chose to falsely claim that she was in possession of cocaine in order to destract from the ridiculous gun arrest. In the now dropped case against Mark Meckler, officials refuse to return his firearm, despite having no legal right to keep it. The state in this case is committing a criminal act in the name of control.

The anti-freedom folks try to make gun owners out to be dangerous and untrusted. Deep down that reaction is not a reflection on the gun owner, it's a reflection of the person's own mistrust of themselves to behave civilly under stress. Their own bigotry causes them to link criminals using guns with law-abiding citizens. And it's not just with guns that the false association occurs. In Illinois a disturbed person attacked people with drain cleaner. Suddenly anyone who needs drain cleaner to fix a plumbing problem needs to show a photo ID and they will have their personal information logged by the state. It's not a coincidence that Illinois is also the only state in the U.S. that refuses to trust law-abiding citizens with guns for self-defense.

If someone doesn't support my right to be armed, I know that I must be wary of their true motives. While it's not an infallible character clue, it does warrant suspicion. After all, what does an honest person have to fear from a law-abiding armed citizen? Absolutely nothing. In my view it is perfectly legitimate to judge a person's integrity by their view on the 2nd Amendment.

It's a matter of trust.

My Answer To Those "Coexist" Stickers

I've acquired a sticker that makes a more realistic point, and one I can support over the "Coexist" version.

The sticker is available here.

Note: I am not affiliated with the company in any way, and I paid for this sticker.

Quote for Today

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

A Bad Sign

November 9, 2008: "Given the daunting challenges that we face, it's important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one."
-- Valerie Jarrett, Co-Chair of the Obama transition team

August 3, 2011: "We knew this was going to take time because we've got this big, messy, tough democracy."
-- Barack Obama

September 14, 2011: "In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic."
-- Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget

September 27, 2011: "I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover."
-- North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue


See also:
trial balloon
n.
An idea or a plan advanced tentatively to test public reaction.

Verizon Service Fail

Writing these Musings is often cathartic for me, so perhaps putting these complaints "to paper" will be beneficial.

The company I work for is moving into a larger office space. Facilitating that move fell to me. Through the six months of effort, from looking at nearly every commercial office space in Fredericksburg, to negotiating a lease, to buying new furniture, to moving, to dealing with utilities, nothing has been more frustrating that dealing with the cancellation of old phone numbers with Verizon Business.

Wednesday: I call Verizon to cancel our old phone service. No problem I'm told. The helpful rep confirms that Verizon will provide a referral service for 90 days to announce our new number to callers. I am assured the change will be in effect by the close of business today.

Thursday: The old numbers are still ringing through to our old PBX system. I cannot have that system taken off line until the referral message is in place. The Verizon rep says she has to cancel the first request and create a new one. That done, she says the change will happen by the close of business today.

Friday: The old phone number is disconnected. Unfortunately callers are not given the new number. Verizon simply plays that annoying squealing sound effect, says the number has been disconnected and no that further information is available. I place yet another call to Verizon. This rep tells me the changes aren't scheduled to take effect until today, despite what I was told yesterday. I explain that this is not good for business as Verizon has already disconnected the old number. Callers need to know the new number. She is unmoved and refuses to look into the issue or provide any further service. I am told must wait until the close of business today.

As expected the referral message still does not appear by the close of business. Unfortunately, this is Friday. Verizon does not provide customer service on weekends, so I must wait until Monday to call them again.

Monday: I call Verizon, again. After explaining the situation, today's rep says she is going to transfer me to another office. I sit through more annoying "heavier than expected call volume" recordings. Go figure. Now I have to explain the problem AGAIN. The second rep tells me that it appears the referral message did not get activated. Well, no shoot Sherlock, that's what I just explained to you. She says she will create yet another service request. You guessed it, she says the referral message will be in place by the close of business today.

Finally, by the close of business Monday, the referral message is actually in place. There's the old joke that the phone company doesn't care about customer service. There's truth in that only that Verizon acts like they are the only game in town. Fortunately they are not. A communications company that can't communicate with itself doesn't inspire confidence. A business service provider that leaves a business hanging for six days doesn't warrant my business. After my experiences with Verizon Business, I am looking to move my Verizon residential service to another provider as well.

Patriotism - A Study in Contrasts

On Saturday we attended our son's middle school basketball tournament. The tournament opened with invocation and the playing of our national anthem. The gymnasium was silent as the Star-Spangled Banner played. Players, coaches, referees, parents, all stood respectfully, hands over their hearts, facing our flag. I watched our coach, a former U.S. Marine, proudly stand at attention and salute the flag.

Contrast that with the attitude exemplified by "professional athletes" at the opening of tonight's Super Bowl® XLV. Players were looking all around. They were rocking on their feet. They talked to each other. Their hands hung at their sides or on their jersey collars. There were indeed some players who stood respectfully. But the opposite actions were not isolated incidents, the lack of respect was widespread and blatant.

United States Code, 36 U.S.C. § 301 states in part

During a rendition of the national anthem—

(1) when the flag is displayed—

(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

The demeanor of those who refuse to show even a minimum of respect for their Country is appalling. Unfortunately these are the same people many look to with misplaced admiration.

"Super Bowl" is a registered trademark of the NFL.

These Musings Banned on Facebook!

Almost since the beginnings of "Musings Over a Pint" I've been sharing the posts on my Facebook account. Yesterday, when I tried to share on Facebook the previous blog entry I was informed that this site has been reported as containing "content that is abusive or spammy" and is now banned from being linked to on Facebook.

In recent months I've been occasionally sharing my thoughts on my faith, politics, self-defense, in addition to my musings on craft beer. These things are as much a part of who I am as my love of craft beer. I realized that I might lose some readers. But what I didn't count on was the anonymous repressive actions of someone who disagreed with my opinions.

The ban applies to all of musingsoverapint.com, not a specific post. It seems there is someone who prefers to take cowardly actions against any opinions with which they don't agree, rather than contacting me directly. Of course, that only serves to prove they have no valid argument against my beliefs and that their only defense is to block others from reading them. Our forum should be one where differing opinions are treated with respect - disagreement is taken directly to the author, not sneaking in silently and unjustly cutting off the ability to post that which interests ME because it is not the same as YOUR opinion!

I wrote this on January 1:

There are those among us who think it is their place to tell us what to eat, what and how to teach our children, who we give our money to...

I left out "who want to tell others what they can and cannot read" when I wrote that list.

Just as disappointing is Facebook's blind acceptance of what is reported as "abusive." On Facebook founder Mark Zuckerburg's own Facebook page he lists his interests as "openness, making things that help people connect and share what's important to them, revolutions, information flow, minimalism". Apparently that "openess" only applies to topics that Facebook elite deem appropriate.

Currently this filter is only in place for automatic posting using the Networked Blogs application, and for sharing via a "Share This On Facebook" button or link, both of which examine the content before posting. For the time being, I've found a way around Facebook's opinion filters, so I'll get some posts up despite the ban.

[See my note in the comments for a way to let Facebook know this need to be corrected.]

Update: Ban lifted.

A National Tragedy and the Blame Game

Unless you have been living under a rock, you know about the tragedy that befell our Country this weekend. A deranged person (I won't add to his Google rankings by using his name) attempted to assassinate U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. As a result she is critically wounded, 6 others are dead, and fourteen other innocent people wounded; all their lives changed forever. While many of us focused on prayers for the victims, a certain portion of our society instead focused on using the crisis for their own political gain. And so began the blame game.

Happy New Year

It's seems almost cliché to say it, but I do wish all of you a Safe and Prosperous New Year. May 2011 bring you much success and an abundance of joy. I hope everyone was able to mark the passing of 2010 with loved ones, friends, and a good beer or two, that's great!

I'm not going to write the standard summary of the previous year's events. My year was marked by the unexpected passing of my mother on September 28. The other happenings of 2010, both accomplishments and setbacks, are dwarfed by that event. However, I try to find peace in the belief that mom will be eternally rewarded for all her sacrifices and suffering. We miss and love you Mom.

What will 2011 bring? It's hard to say. Our freedoms are being attacked at home and abroad, in the name of "diversity" and "progress." There are those among us who think it is their place to tell us what to eat, what and how to teach our children, who we give our money to, and demand we be submissive while they bargain away our freedoms to oppressors both at home and abroad. Now, perhaps more than anytime in the past, the enemies of freedom are bringing the war to us. Often times they are naïvely supported by the very people we elect to protect us.

However, we must remain optimistic. Americans have long been innovators and survivors, and we will triumph in the long term. There may be dark times ahead, but it is my belief that Americans will see through the deceptions and once again freedom, and The Constitution, will reign supreme in the land of the free. I pray that day is not too far off.

I'll leave you with this parable from Bearing Drift.

An exchange student explained that he had been shot while fighting communists in his native country. They wanted to install a communist government. In the midst of his story he asked “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?” He explained that this was not a joke.

Put corn on the ground in the woods. The pigs will come every day to eat the free corn. When they get used to that, put a fence along one side of the area. When they get used to the fence, they will resume eating the corn. Then, put up another side of the fence. They will get used to that and resume eating.

Continue until you have all four sides of the fence with an open gate. The pigs will soon come through the gate to eat. Slam the gate on them, and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly, the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They will run around and around, but they are caught. Soon, they will go back to eating the free corn. They are used to it and have forgotten how to forage for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

It's Just Beer

There, I've said it. I'd probably be turned out of some beer fans' homes for such utterances. I've certainly been given a thumping on some beer forums for saying such a thing. Beer is produced by the sweat, and tears, of hard working men and women, and the brewers' handiwork must be admired and appreciated. Beer is my favorite beverage and I can wax poetic about it. But face it, in the end, beer is just that, a beverage. When do we get carried away in our "respect" for beer?

Recently I saw an online discussion about this article, The Best Beer in the World. The article's author shares a story about a Westvleteren 12 tasting. The folks being treated to this beer were having a good time describing the flavors they noted in unusual terms; Wonder Bread, Tootsie Rolls, Sun-Maid raisins, Grape drink. The drinkers enjoyed the beer and I thought it was great they didn't get their heads full of self-rightousness and could still have fun even when faced with a legendary beer. However, the commenter in the online discussion was indignant, and thought the attendees had "no respect, nevermind reverence for the Westveletern".

C'mon folks, Westvleteren is made by holy men, but that doesn't make the beer a holy object. What's the point of enjoying a good beer with friends if you can't have fun doing it? Should we dress in our Sunday best before consuming it? (I've never had a Westy, but from what I read, the descriptors weren't that far off the mark.)

It's not uncommon to read an online discourse in which someone will state that pouring out a beer is disrespectful. I've seen more than one person claim that, even if they do not like a beer they opened, they will drink it anyway — "out of respect." I drink beer because I enjoy it. Why should I force something down my throat that I find unpleasant? Nothing disrespectful to the beer or the brewer is implied if I find I do not like a beer.

I often wonder if the folks who claim that they would never pour out a beer feel the same way about the food they eat. The farmers work hard to produce the food that graces our tables. Do the beer worshippers always eat a food that they find unpleasant out of respect for the farmer who grew it? I doubt it.

What do you think? Do you force yourself to drink beer you don't enjoy simply out of respect for the beer? Is pouring a beer down the drain showing disrespect towards the brewer?

The Huddled Masses of the Nicotine Addicted

Last week the Fredericksburg City Council passed a resolution asking the General Assembly to grant localities the power to ban smoking in public places such as bars and office buildings. Currently such power lies with the state, rather than the localities. Previous anti-smoking measures in tobacco-friendly Virginia have failed, so I'm not overly optimistic about this one.

One of the arguments frequently heard against such a ban is the nuisance and litter created by smokers gathering on the sidewalk outside of bars and restaurants. For example, The Capital Ale House is non-smoking until 9:00PM. As I tried to enter the establishment recently I had to push my way through a gaggle of smokers who had gathered right outside the entrance. I have to wonder how desperate these people must be for a cigarette that they must stop at their first step out of the door to light up. Yep, it's a downside to smoking bans, but I still prefer this aggravation to going home smelling like a dirty ashtray. Since we can't legislate common courtesy, the hassle of moving through the huddled mass of the nicotine dependent is a small price to pay for clean air inside.

The Free Lance-Star article about the council resolution is here.

The Session #22: The Repeal of Prohibition

The 22nd installment of The Session is hosted by 21st Amendment Brewery. In an appropriate twist of fate, this Beer Blogging Friday falls on December 5th, the 75th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition in the U.S. Our host describes this month's theme thusly:

In 1920, there were thousands of breweries across America making unique, hand-crafted beer. The passage of Prohibition wiped out this great culture. On December 5, 1933, the states ratified the 21st Amendment, repealing the 18th Amendment, thus ending 13 years of Prohibition in America. At the 21st Amendment Brewery, the repeal of Prohibition means we can celebrate the right to brew beer, the freedom to be innovative, and the obligation to have fun.

What does the repeal of Prohibition mean to you? How will you celebrate your right to drink beer?

For me, this anniversary serves as a reminder of what was, and what threatens to be again; the return of Prohibitionist restrictions. There are many forces, even today, working hard to take away our right to enjoy alcoholic beverages. They forget, or choose to ignore, the lessons of history and are willing to repeat the mistakes of the past. These forces often misinterpret biblical teachings for their own purposes. They distort the truth in order to advance their agenda. It is against these organizations that we must be ever-vigilent. I don't want to rehash items I've already covered, but will list a few reminders of the battle we face.

Right here in Virginia, we've seen the battle against the Shooting Creek Brewery in Floyd County. There, so-called Christians fought the opening of a legal business. One of their tactics was to disparage people who would visit the brewery. "We don't need no more drunks out there" according to resident Gloria Underwood. The Nelson County Baptists prohibitionists claim to oppose the brewery "on biblical grounds." How they square that with biblical events such as the Wedding Feast at Cana and the Last Supper is unexplained.

Let's not forget the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). This is the group that led the movement that brought us Prohibition in the first place, and they are still active today. I covered this group previously. Like the group in Nelson County, they base their claims on their personal, and distorted, bible interpretations.

The ever-present Mother Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is America's most visible neo-prohibitionist organization. Organized under a noble purpose, the group has transformed its mission from education about drunk driving into lobbying against any alcohol consumption. They have proven they will go to any length, including emotional terrorism, to promote their agenda.

Not to be forgotten, the Prohibition Party has run a candidate for the presidency of the United States every election year since 1872. Even though the candidates have been ineffective, never garnering more than a quarter of a million votes, they continue to press their agenda. Gene Amondson (warning: auto-play audio) was apparently the Prohibitionist presidential candidate in 2004 and 2008.

Though this next example doesn't apply to the United States, if you need another reminder on how quickly things can change, take a look at a country famous for its fine wines. Thanks to restrictionist influences, the France now faces a ban on online advertising, and even websites that mention alcohol. With that victory under their belt, it would be foolhardy to think the anti-alcohol forces will stop with their campaign with advertising restrictions. Thousands of French drinkers could be held under the thumb of extremists! Yes, the same thing could happen here unless we are vigilant.

How do we counter these attacks? First of all, take away the ammunition from the opponent. Drink responsibly. The drunk driving issue is one of the biggest issues the neo-prohibitonists have going for them. Many of their points are valid, so we need to remove them from the equation. Educate young people. Our youth have been short-changed when it comes to learning how to enjoy alcoholic beverages responsibly. Drink craft beer. The craft beer industry as a whole promotes a more responsible image than the factory beers have historically done. Support your local brewery. Local breweries are often very active in doing good works in their communities.

I'm certainly not trying to be an alarmist. Let's celebrate the repeal of Prohibition and be thankful that we have so many fine craft beers, and other alcoholic beverages to enjoy legally and openly. Just keep in mind that these organizations don't represent ancient history. They are actively working today to take away your freedom to responsibly enjoy alcoholic beverages. On this anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition, there will be many celebrations to mark the occasion. And the celebrations are warranted. We should however, take heed at this time to remember that the battle may have been won, but the war continues. By remaining vigilent and active, we can stave off the forces that seek to remove our ability to enjoy good beer.

How will I celebrate this occasion? By sharing a bottle of American craft beer with my wife, in the comfort of my home, and demonstrating to my son that it's an okay thing to do.

Be sure to check the 21st Amendment Brewery website for the summary of all this month's contributions to The Session.

Update, December 9: The Session roundup has been posted here.

Brewpub Kid Cups

There was a recent thread on DC-Beer discussing kid-friendly pubs in Maryland. I thought it was an interesting topic. For beer to become more mainstream, it needs to foster a family-friendly image as part of the change in common perceptions. The other day I grabbed a plastic cup from the kitchen cabinet and noticed it was from Outer Banks Brewing in North Carolina. The cup was collected during a family dinner at the brewpub this summer, when our son enjoyed a lemonade while Colleen and I sampled the house beers. We actually have another cup from the same brewpub. That one is from a few years back, before Outer Banks Brewing put up its windmill.

Granted, this brewery is located in a beach town, so plastic cups are handy for other purposes. In this particular case, it might not technically qualify as a kid-cup. However, if any pub goes to the expense of printing cups for kid drinks, it's probably a good indication of family-friendliness. What do you think?

Old Dominion, Anheuser-Bush, and Local Allegiances

Much has been written on this blog and other forums about the recent and impending changes at Old Dominion Brewery. There's been plenty of teeth-gnashing over these changes. But what's really behind the vitriol?

Back up to last year when the brewery was sold to Coastal Brewing, a joint venture of Maryland-based Fordham Brewing and St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch. Almost immediately local craft beer fans began decrying the sale, and remarking how A-B would destroy the brand. Fast forward a year, and the Old Dominion brewpub is now closed, and Coastal has announced the impending shuttering of the Ashburn brewery along with the transfer of brewing operations to Delaware. When this last announcement was made, the discussions on DC-Beer and the web forums heated up. One common thread arises in the discussions: Anheuser-Bush. But why?

Recently on the DC-Beer list Greg Kitsock asked "Will you still consider Dominion brands to be local beers?" That's a thought provoking question. On DC-Beer and other forums, many folks have said they will no longer buy Old Dominion Beers because they are no longer "local". Many commentators also brought up Anheuser-Bush and have implied they would no longer buy the beers because of the ownership of A-B.

Is Old Dominion still a local beer? Well that really depends on your definition of local. Some commentators remarked that they wouldn't buy Old Dominion because it was no longer brewed locally. Does that mean these folks also don't purchase Dogfish Head beers, also brewed in Delaware? Others make the local ownership argument, pointing to Anheuser-Bush. Old Dominion is owned by Coastal Brewing. The majority of Coastal Brewing (51%) is held by Fordham Brewing, an Annapolis, MD/Dover, DE company. I find it very telling that the majority of the anger over the Old Dominion changes is directed towards A-B, not the local majority owner. Why does Fordham get a pass?

Many craft beer drinkers seem to wallow in A-B hatred. A-B is an evil corporation they say, bent on destroying craft breweries. (Much of this discourse is undoubtably written on computers running Windows or Apple software, and maybe even sent via their Google email account. All of these companies decried as "evil" at one time or another.) With the impending buyout of A-B by the Belgian company InBev, things heat up even more. Do the folks who are upset at this change still buy imported Belgian beers? As a proud American, I do hate to see American companies being taken over by foreign firms. However, Anheuser-Bush employs thousands of Americans workers at their numerous breweries. The company employed more than 30,000 people in 2007. Hundreds more are employed by associated distributors, retailers, etc. We should keep in mind that corporations employ people. Coastal Brewing is 51% a local company, employing local people.

Let's also look at the case of Virginia's Starr Hill. Last December, owner Mark Thompson signed a distribution agreement with A-B to expand Starr Hill's distribution. Despite Mark's statement that he retains control over the beer production, and that this move was about distribution, we saw comments on various online forums about the eminent destruction of Starr Hill by Anheuser-Bush. Again, arguments seemingly based on A-B hatred, despite the fact that the agreement means more people will be exposed to true craft beer. By entering into this agreement, A-B likely gives up shelf space for it's house products by filling it with Starr Hill beer. That hardly seems like a way to destroy a product.

My remarks shouldn't be construed as a wholesale defense of macro-breweries. I generally don't drink most A-B brands, just as I don't drink Miller or Coors. That decision is based on my taste preferences. (I do admit to a bit of anger over the damage to beer's image caused by factory brewers' inane, and misleading, advertising campaigns.) Rather, this is a look at what I consider some of the misplaced anger directed at Old Dominion. Indeed some of the criticism is well-deserved and Coastal isn't blameless for the expressed anger. As recently as last month a Coastal spokesman was assuring local drinkers that the brew pub at the Ashburn facility would reopen. It's hard to build brand loyalty with confusing or misleading statements.

I will likely continue to drink Old Dominion beers, as long as the qualities that attracted me the beer in the first place remain. Will I purchase Beach House Pilsner next summer even if it is brewed in Delaware? Surely. I'm a fan of good beer, and I base my decisions first on flavor and the enjoyment I get from drinking the beer. Rejecting a brewery solely on the involvement of Anheuser-Busch is misdirected and short sighted.

The LDA: The issue is responsibility, not age

There's an editorial published at Forbes.com that's sure to raise some eyebrows. Will Wilkinson suggests that instead of lowering the legal drinking age, consideration should be given to doing away with it all together. This is sure to get a raised eyebrow from neo-prohibitionist groups like MADD, and even from those who support lowering the LDA to 18. Wilkinson explains:

UCLA professor of public policy Mark Kleiman, an ex-advocate of age restrictions, told PBS that he came around to the no-limits position when he saw a billboard that said, "If you're not 21, it's not Miller Time--yet." Age limits make drinking a badge of adulthood and build in the minds of teens a romantic sense of the transgressive danger of alcohol. That's what so often leads to the abuse of alcohol as a ritual of release from the authority of parents. And that's what has the college presidents worried. They see it.

That's not a new argument against the 21 LDA, but it certainly takes it more than a few steps further. However, the more interesting point of the editorial to me, is the connection to be made with driving and responsibility. This speaks to the original, and agreeable, purpose behind MADD, reducing the deaths from mixing alcohol and cars. Driving and drinking don't mix. I doubt you'll get many arguments there. However, driving and a car full of teens doesn't mix either. Neither does driving and texting, or putting on makeup, or reading a newspaper. Perhaps it's time to put the focus on responsibility when driving. Says Wilkinson:

Drinking by itself just isn't very dangerous. But driving is. Despite more relaxed drinking-age laws, the EU, according to Miron and Tetelbaum, averaged 95 fatalities per million inhabitants in the past decade while the U.S. experienced 150 fatalities per million. The big difference is that in many EU countries you have to wait until 18 to get behind the wheel. If you're worried about car wrecks, regulate drivers.

The consumption of alcohol isn't bad in and of itself. It's what you do in conjunction. So much effort from MADD and others is focused on telling us that young people aren't responsible enough to consume alcohol. The problem is that they aren't taught to be responsible for their actions. It's been my observation that most drunk driving arrests aren't of teens, but supposed adults. Teen deaths from car accidents have more to do with speed than alcohol.

The debate over the LDA in this country is heating up, thanks in no small part to the Amethyst Initiative. I am happy to see it brought to the forefront and editorials like this one will only serve to keep the conversation going. It doesn't matter if you agree with the premise or not. The first step in solving a problem is understanding it.

The complete Forbes article is here.