Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

Today, a slight detour from my daily rundown of anniversary factoids in order to alert you to annivesary-related material located at other websites.

In a previous post, I noted that a state-by-state list of celebration events can be found at the Brewers Association website.

But here are a couple of other places to visit:

Check out the website hosted by The National Beer Wholesalers Association. Scroll down to their notice of the 75th anniversary and you'll find a video titled "Mr. Beer Guy," honoring -- of course -- the guys who deliver the beer.

Then hop over to the Anheuser-Busch website for some terrific historical material.

Start here to see a collection of photos relating to the event. The small video screen on that page contains more photos and a recording of Gus Busch's address to the nation just after midnight on April 7, 1933, when he told Americans that "happy days are here again."

A larger version of the video/audio also at YouTube. It's a bit easier to see and hear. Click here for that version.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 03:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

On March, 30, 1933, the New Jersey Commissioner of Motor Vehicles issued a warning to motorists in his state.

Enjoy the legal beer that's coming, he said, but watch the wheel while you're at it.

"Theoretically, 3.2 beer is non-intoxicating," he explained.*

"It is conceivable, however, that an excess of consumption of it by certain individuals might result in an adverse effect upon the mental alertness and skill with which they operate their automobiles."

For which I hereby award him a posthumous prize for Most Convoluted Use of the English Language By A Minor Bureaucrat While Issuing a Useless Press Release.

* See my blog entry for March 22 for a brief explanation of the "non-intoxicating" point.

Source: "Warns Beer-Drinking Drivers Not to Endanger Other Traffic," New York Times, March 31, 1933, p. 2.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 09:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

Beer Day is coming up fast -- time to plan your own celebration.

One way to do that is by visiting the Brewers Association web site. (The BA is the industry trade group for small and craft brewers.) There you'll find a page devoted to the anniversary.

The page includes a press release discussing the event and significant dates in beer history. But the most important feature is the "select a state" menu. Click on it to find the location, date, and time of anniversary events near you.

As always, a tip o' the mug to the wonderful folks at the Brewers Association.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

People who supported Prohibition (the "drys") had lobbied against the return of beer by accusing the "wets" of over-estimating the economic impact of legal beer.

The wets enjoyed the last laugh -- and did so all the way to the bank: By March 28, the brewers in just one city, Milwaukee, had processed $4 million dollars in orders. (That's about $62 milllion in 2006 dollars.) And they'd already paid more than $50,000 in federal taxes ($777,0000 in 2006 dollars).

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 05:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

It was really happening!

On March 26th and 27th, 1933, breweries in Milwaukee began bottling beer. The folks at Blatz cranked up the bottling line on the evening of the 26th, running a shift through the night to get the work finished. Pabst flipped the switch on its line at noon on the 27th.

It's hard to imagine what roused the most interest: the newspaper report about all those bottles of beer -- or the photograph that accompanied the article. It showed several men tending the bottling equipment at Blatz.

Men working. Collecting paychecks. Earning money to buy food and clothes for their families.

In the end, that's probably what mattered most to Americans during that grim spring of 1933, when a third of adults were out of work.

Source: "Bottled Beer Awaits Signal," Milwaukee Sentinel, March 27, 1933, p. 9.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 06:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a previous blog entry, I included a link to an article about bock beer from the March 26. 1933 New York Times.

But according to An Astute Reader (and I love the Astute Readers), it's only free if you subscribe to the newspaper (the paper version) or the online "Reader's Service."

So apparently I subscribe to the "Reader's Service" -- which, frankly, I had forgotten. (What can I say? I'm over forty. My memory is not my strong point.)

Anyway, apologies for unintentionally misleading all of you. It's a terrific article and if I could do so legally, I'd just cut-and-paste the whole thing as a blog entry.

But of course I can't do that. It's the property of the New York Times.

So if you're dessssssssssperate to read it, you have two options.

One, spend $4.00 to buy an online copy. (Again, I'd happily do that for all of you, but I still wouldn't be able to copy here.)

Two, find a library that subscribes to the ProQuest electronic version of the Times Archives, or owns the microfilm version of the newspaper. Any university library will have them, as will any big city library.

Finally, the Times archive IS free back to 1981.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 04:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm on record as supporting the idea of parents teaching their children to drink at home. (See especially my blog entry for November 1, 2007, titled "Thinking About Drinking -- and Kids.")

My belief is that when we demonize alcohol, we teach kids to fear rather than respect it. And then we end up with an "underage drinking problem." We end up with, in other words, a drinking problem of our own making.

Anyway, there's a thoughtful piece about this topic by Eric Asimov in today's New York Times.

Instead of resorting to the usual kneejerk "booze is bad, period," he actually did some digging to find out if there's any evidence that kids' attitudes toward alcohol can be shaped by parents at home.

Worth reading.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 02:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

News about beer and beermaking filled the nation's newspapers in late March, as Americans geared up for Beer Day.

Beermakers in New York City, for example, warned that they'd have to ration their supplies. "We are booked already above our capacity," Henry Piel told a newspaper reporter. "It is quite possible that there may be a shortage of beer at first . . . ." He explained that the brewery would supply its long-standing customers first. Everyone else would have to get in line.

Some of the Milwaukee breweries announced they'd be selling their beer in new metal barrels. Their engineers had been working on the new container for years; now they planned to start using it. (The beer can wouldn't show up for another two years.)

Finally, on this day in 1933, the New York Times ran a long article on the traditions and lore surrounding bock beer. If you're into beer history, it's worth reading.

CORRECTION TO ORIGINAL BLOG ENTRY: When I accessed the bock article, it came up as a "free" read, so I assumed it was free to everyone. But apparently you can only access the article if you have subscribe to the print version of the paper or the online Reader's Service.

See a longer blog entry for March 26 titled "About that Bock Beer Article."

Thanks and tip 'o the mug to Jeff for pointing this out.

Source for Piel quote: "City Beer Shortage Feared By Brewers," New York Times, March 26, 1933, p. 1.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 08:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm going to assume most people have at least a passing familiarity with the ideas of Thomas Malthus regarding human population and the planet's resources.

According to him, a society's population "adjusts" to accommodate the available supply of food and natural resources. People might learn how to raise more food more efficiently, but often the mechanisms of "adjustment" are things like war, disease, and famine.

That's a simplistic summary, but you get the drift. (If you want to learn more, the internet is actually a good place to start looking. Even Wikipedia, which I don't normally recommend, offers a good primer on Malthus.)

Anyway, unless you're living under a rock, you know that demand for food and water have risen to historic highs, thanks to rising population and global affluence.

Naturally that raises the question: How will Malthus' theory play out over the next few decades? Was he right? Completely off mark? Has technology altered his fundamental premise?

There's a fascinating article in this morning's Wall Street Journal about relevance, meaning, and importance of Malthusian economics in today's world. If you spend any time pondering stuff like, oh, high food prices, soaring costs for brewing materials, globalization, and other interesting-and-complicated-but-depressing topics, it's worth a look.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 02:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

Beer was on the way but now it was time to wrangle over the details.

The United States Attorney General and the Treasury Department squabbled over the definition of "12:01 a.m." That was the moment on April 7 when beer sales could begin.

The Attorney General insisted that 12:01 meant 12:01, whether that was in New York or Los Angeles.

Officials at the Treasury Department argued that beer ought to go on sale everywhere at 12:01 Eastern Time -- even though it would only be 9 p.m. on the west coast. (The Attorney General won that debate.)

The mayor of Milwaukee had declared that the city would celebrate the event with a half holiday on April 7. Church officials objected and asked the mayor to delay beer sales and the celebration until the following Monday -- the day after Easter. Apparently beer -- and the jobs it would bring -- would distract people from their religious obligations.

Many people objected to the newly allowed 3.2% alcohol content. Some said it was too high; others declared it too low.

Nonsense, said Max Henius, head of the one of the nation's leading beer schools, the Wahl-Henius Institute of Brewing. "Beer of 3.2 percent is the perfect beer." It would "satisfy the popular demand for beer without . . . endangering temperance and sobriety."

"When people want beer," he added, "They want a refreshing drink, not a fiery drug."

Amen.

Sources: articles in Milwaukee Sentinel, March 23, 1933 and New York Times, March 24, 1933.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 02:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

March 22, 1933:

Seventy-five years ago today, Franklin Roosevelt signed legislation designed to “provide revenue by the taxation of certain non-intoxicating liquor.”

The bill modified the old Volstead Act to define a “non-intoxicating” beverage as one that contained to 3.2 percent alcohol. (The old version of Volstead defined “non-intoxicating” as beverages of a half percent alcohol.)

In simple language, even though Prohibition remained in effect, Americans could now manufacture and sell fermented beverages of 3.2 percent alcohol content. After thirteen dry years, “real” beer would go on sale at 12:01 a.m. on April 7.

President Roosevelt and Congress expected the “revenue” bill to stimulate employment in brewing and related industries, and, more important, thanks to a tax levy of five dollars per barrel, funnel revenue into the federal treasury.

An impromptu celebration erupted in downtown Milwaukee, where traffic came to a halt and people danced in the streets. Thousands of people lined up at breweries in that city and in St. Louis and New York, hoping to get one of the jobs that were now available.

A third of adults were out of work. Millions were homeless and hungry. But now, after a long winter and several years of despair, hope was on the way.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 01:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

March 21, 1933:

On this day, the House of Representatives approved the final version of the beer bill.

Members of the House and Senate had hoped to get it on the president's desk that day, but a clerical snafu stalled the proceedings. The Speaker of the House signed his copy and asked a clerk to run it back over to the Senate. There, the vice-president would sign it in the presence of the assembled Senate.

One small problem: The clerk missed the v-p and the Senators by nine minutes; they'd already adjourned for the day.

Not to worry. Tomorrow was soon enough. One more day. One more signature.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 02:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

March 20, 1933:

The Senate spent much of the day debating its version of the beer bill, which called for legalizing beer with 4 percent alcohol content. The subcommittee that presented the bill had relied on advice from “doctors and scientists,” who argued that “such high dilutions would not intoxicate.” Indeed, it “would serve as a healthful stimulant and a wholesome food.”

Better yet, said one Senator, it would bring “young people” back to beer and away from “dangerous, habit-forming hard liquor.”

Liquor schmiquor, said Representative Thomas Cullen, author of the beer bill that originated in House. Just get on with it.

“I sincerely hope, he said, “that before another week goes by the beer bill will be finally passed by both houses of Congress” and on its way to the President. “I feel that this is the beginning of the end of an era of fanaticism, intolerance, and lawlessness in our country.”

He didn’t have to wait a week. By day’s end the Senate had approved its version and sent it back to the House. Beer was just one signature away.

Source: New York Times, March 20, 1933: “Cullen Predicts 300,000 Beer Jobs,” p. 3 and “Text of the Report of the Committee Advocating 4 Per Cent Beer,” p. 19.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 03:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

March 19, 1933:

The day fell on a Sunday that year, and newspapers filled their extra sections with speculations about the fate of the “beer bill” chugging through Congress.

Several days earlier, the House of Representatives had passed a version permitting the sale of 3.2% beer. Would the Senate go along? Would it demand a higher content? Lower? Would the “drys” get their way and stop any legislation?

Never mind the goofy illogic of the situation: A third of adults were out of work, and nearly as many were homeless. Where would people find the money to buy beer?

That question “might puzzle Adam Smith,” observed one commentator. “But it will puzzle no one who remembers that beer-drinking man and economic man are not the same person.”

And this “psychological moment” belonged to beer-drinking man. When beer “[made] its bow,” “happier . . . days” could not be far behind.

Source: “New Flow of Beer Will Bring Social and Economic Changes,” New York Times, March 19, 1933, p. 2XX.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So the 75th anniversary of the return of legal beer has been on my mind lately. (Obviously, given that I've actually gotten off my ass to blog about it....)

But of course that means that the Great Depression has also been on my mind. The beer bill signed by FDR in March 1933 was, after all, intended as an economic stimulus package: breweries would get back in business and hire more workers. The Treasury would tax beer at five dollars a barrel, and that money would help pay for other back-to-work projects.

But the beer bill was just one part of the plan to repair the economy. On March 12, 1933, for example, FDR asked all banks to close for a brief "holiday." The goal was to stop the panic and the "bank runs" while Congress and the Federal Reserve shored up the nation's money supply. (If you've seen the movie "It's A Wonderful Life," you know what a bank run is.)

Anyway -- seventy-five years later, here we are approaching panic mode, with the Fed stepping in with moves and money designed to stop the panic and prevent full-blown economic disaster.

Will we end up where Americans were seventy-five years ago? Unemployment rates of one-third. Millions of foreclosures and bankruptcies? Homeless people on the road or camped out under bridges?

Back in 1933 and 1934, Congress created mechanisms to prevent a repeat of that disaster: federal home loan programs, the FDIC, Social Security (which originated as a way to keep paychecks flowing even when people couldn't work).

In theory, those programs, most of which still exist, were designed to protect the economy. Whether they will or not is a question no one can yet answer.

But we don't have one thing Americans had back then: leadership in the form of a strong, focused, inspiring president. In fact we've got a president who didn't know, until someone told him, that gasoline was inching toward four dollars a gallon. a president who thinks the war in Afghanistan is "romantic."

Right now, we all need to work together, avoid panic, and hang in there. But it's hard to do that when there's no one guiding the ship. So here we are all, seventy-five years after the worst economic depression in our history, once again afloat on a sea of uncertainty, fear, and near-panic. But there ain't no captain guiding this ship.

Hang on to your hats and your loved ones. This could get ugly.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 03:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to a recent study, the more beer a scientist drinks, the less productive he/she will be, at least as measured by the number of papers he/she publishes.

(Scientists, especially ones at universities, publish the results of their research in scientific journals. The more papers someone publishes, the better his/her professional reputation. In theory, at any rate.)

You can read about this, um, earth-shattering revelation here in the New York Times.

It's worth reading this, however, for a counter-view. Maybe the important conclusion is that beer isn't a brain enhancer?

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 02:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

March 18, 1933:

A reporter in Milwaukee set out to answer a question plaguing the newspaper's readers: Were the city’s brewers really ready to go?

The answer? Yes.

“Our tanks are fairly bulging,” said one brewery representative, “and if they don’t give us the word to go pretty soon, the sides of our building will be pushed out.”

Well, okay, a slight exaggeration. But who cared? The sweet smell of real beer was in the air.

Source: “Brewery Vats Bulge Awaiting Word to Go,” Milwaukee Sentinel, March 18, 1933, pp. 1 and 3.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thanks to Groucho and CHUD at beerreport.com for taking time to interview me today. Somehow they got the idea that I have half a clue; I didn't have the heart to burst their bubble . . . .

Seriously, these are two smart, funny, and totally irreverent guys. What's not to love? Check out their website, including links to their podcasts and forum ("The Confrontation Board") here.

The interview with me will be up at their site sometime during the week of March 24.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 08:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

March 17, 1933:

The Women’s Christian Temperance Union issued a statement warning women against the dangers of beer. “If women take to the beer habit, they have only to look at some of the beer drinkers in London slums to see what is ahead of them. Beer makes fat.” (No word on whether German women suffered the same fate...)

The WCTU promised to continue its war on booze, especially beer, which the organization denounced as “the most brutalizing of all drinks,” because it “induces and perpetuates the alcohol habit . . . .”

“No nation,” the ladies warned, “ever drank itself out of depression.”

Phhhtttt! This was the same song-and-dance the group had been performing for more than fifty years.

At least this time the audience wasn't watching.

Source: “Women Warned of Fattening Beer,” New York Times, March 18, 1933, p. 2.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

March 15, 1933:

Chicago officials announced they’d received 2,138 applications to sell beer, and had already approved more than 700 of those requests.

Up in Milwaukee, that city’s Association of Commerce swooned at the idea of legal beer. Brewers and related manufacturers (like glass and barrel makers) were expected to create more than 25,000 new jobs.

The “prospect of legal beer is almost too good to be true,” sighed the manager of the Blatz Hotel. But that didn’t stop him from making plans: he’d ordered new steins, lighting fixtures, and palm plants for the hotel’s restaurant. “All we are waiting for,” he added, “is legal beer.”*

Him and 125 million other Americans.

*Sources: “Issues 741 Beer Licenses,” New York Times, March 16, 1933, p. 20; and various reports in the Milwaukee Sentinel, March 15, 1933.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

March 14, 1933: The Aldermen of Ansonia, Connecticut wasted no time affirming their support for legal beer. True, the method they used was a little odd: they voted to demolish the fountain sitting in front of City Hall.

Why? Because it had been donated to the town in 1914 by the local chapter of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, one of the prime movers responsible for Prohibition.*

And the people of Ansonia, like just about everyone else in the United States, were ready to bury anything even remotely connected to the thirteen-year disaster of the Eighteenth Amendment.

Happy days were on the way.

*Source: “Will Remove W.C.T.U. Fountain,” New York Times, March 15, 1933, p. 19.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

On March 13, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress a short message: Please amend the Volstead Act to allow the sale of beer with an “alcoholic” content.

Americans had elected FDR the previous November because the nation was mired in the disaster that we now call the Great Depression. The new president promised to get the economy up and running again.

Bringing back beer was part of the plan: Legalize beer and brewers could re-open their doors. In doing so, they’d hire thousands of workers (whose paychecks would then circulate through the economy), spend millions of dollars refurbishing their dilapidated breweries (more workers, more paychecks), and deposit hefty tax revenues into federal, state, and local treasuries.

Congress had laid the groundwork the previous December, when a committee in the House of Representatives discussed the details, including the all-important matter of how much alcohol beer ought to contain. (Brewers urged Congress to allow at least 3.2%.)

Now it was up to both the House and the Senate to agree on the legislation and send the bill on to the president. An impatient nation urged them to move quickly.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I picked this up from Stan's blog. It's his entry for March 10.

There's a piece in the Washington Post about using of electronic sensors to taste food and drink. A Japanese group, for example, has developed a "Health and Food Advice" robot that can identify and distingush among various wines, cheeses, and breads. (And apparently warn its owners not to eat unhealthy food. In which case, I'm not interested. The damn thing probably hates pate.) Presumably it's possible to create a device that can also "taste" and identify flavors in beer.

Anyway, apparently robotic devices some American slaughterhouses are testing these electronic devices, using them to sort and grade sides of beef in accordance with federal standards.

I need to think about this some more, but that's fascinating. The meatpacking industry serves up some of the nation's most unpleasant jobs -- there's a reason illegal immigrants end up there; no one else wants these jobs, which are low-paying, foul, and dangerous -- but it's also the kind of work that is hard to mechanize.

If packinghouse owners could use sensors to grade meat, or even distinguish tainted from safe meat, well, that's probably a good thing. Maybe the brains behind these "robots" could also figure out how to slaughter and butcher cattle and pigs, eliminating human labor altogether.

Yes, okay, the economy needs jobs. But packinghouse work is truly the bottom of the employment ladder. People only work in packinghouses when there's no alternative.

On the other hand, well, taking humans out of the equation only adds to the already vast distance between we Americans and our food. Soooooo........ maybe not so good.

As I say, I need to think about it. But hey, I'm writing a book about the history of meat in America. I might as well keep thinking about it. If I have any brilliant insight, I'll pass it along.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, okay. Might be worth a road trip.........

.......to visit the Beer Can House in Houston, Texas. It's now owned by the Orange Show Center for Visionary Art (translation: a group of people who've rounded up enough dough to buy, preserve, and celebrate the work of local eccentrics.)

The group's site is here. Roll your cursor over the round icons at the top to find the Beer Can House and other delights.

There's a story about the house in today's New York Times.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 02:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Oh, man, this surely must be the dumbass move of the week -- if not the month, year, and decade.

Remember the James Frey fake memoir? How Oprah touted him until she figured out he'd concocted the whole story? (I'm not gonna dignify Frey with a link to anything.)

Here we go again, only this time the fakery is on an even grander scale.

A woman named Margaret B. Jones (except that's not her real name...) wrote a memoir about her life in the gang world of South LA. About growing up mixed race, in poverty, being a single mother, blah blah blah.

A publishing house bought this miracle of brilliant prose and pulse-racing narrative.

So the book landed in bookstores this week, and Ms. "Jones" (her real name is Margaret Seltzer) sat down for an interview with a reporter from the New York Times. The resulting piece ran on February 28.

It's a looong article detailing her former life as a foster child, as a drug-dealing gang member. The reporter (and the subject) wax rhapsodic about her new life in Oregon, living in a nice house, working as a writer, cooking black-eye peas for the friends who stop by. On and on.

Lies, all of it. Well, okay, she's living in Oregon. That part's right. The rest? One fabricated detail after another.

Now I ask you: What kind of a dumbass is this woman? She'd managed to hoodwink the publisher (and shame on her editor at the publishing house). But did she really think that her real family (an ordinary middle-class group from a tony suburb of LA) wouldn't figure it out?

I mean, there's her photograph plastered all over the place.

Did she think her own mother and siblings weren't going to recognize her?

I figure this woman is either the most arrogant creature on the planet - or the dumbass of the week. Maybe both.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 03:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

March 4, 1933: Franklin Roosevelt took the oath of office and moved into the White House.

Why does that matter? Because he campaigned on the Democrats’ promise to end Prohibition. He got that project underway a few days later by asking Congress to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer. On April 7, 1933, beer came back.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be blogging about that moment in our history. Stay tuned.

But today, take a few minutes to read FDR’s first inaugural address. He began his first term during the Great Depression, when Americans faced economic disaster on a scale that, bad as things are now, few of us can imagine. His message of hope is as inspiring now as it was then.

Posted by Maureen Ogle at 01:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)