Quotulatiousness

March 17, 2012

Happy (Biologist’s) St. Patrick’s Day

Filed under: Humour, Science — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 00:08

I’m resurrecting this nerdy drinking song from last year… As many of you perceptive viewers noticed there were a couple alcohol-induced scientific errors in my last version of this song (gold star, perceptive viewers!) — so I thought this St. Patrick’s day would be a perfect time to correct them.

Lyrics:
In the year of our lord eighteen hundred and eleven
On March the seventeenth day
I will raise up a beer and I’ll raise up a cheer
For Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Here’s to brewers yeast, that humblest of all beasts
Producing carbon gas reducing acetaldehyde
But my friends that isn’t all — it makes ethyl alcohol
That is what the yeast excretes and that’s what we imbibe

Anaerobic isolation
Alcoholic fermentation
NADH oxidation
Give me a beer

[CHORUS]

My intestinal wall absorbs that ethanol
And soon it passes through my blood-brain barrier
There’s a girl in the next seat who I didn’t think that sweet
But after a few drinks I want to marry her
I guess it’s not surprising, my dopamine is rising
And my glutamate receptors are all shot
I’d surely be bemoaning all the extra serotonin
But my judgment is impaired and my confidence is not

Allosteric modulation
No Long Term Potentiation
Hastens my inebriation
Give me a beer

[CHORUS]

When ethanol is in me, some shows up in my kidneys
And inhibits vasopressin by degrees
A decrease in aquaporins hinders water re-absorption
And pretty soon I really have to pee
Well my liver breaks it down so my body can rebound
By my store of glycogen is soon depleted
And tomorrow when I’m sober I will also be hungover
Cause I flushed electrolytes that my nerves and muscles needed

Diuretic activation
Urination urination
Urination dehydration
Give me a beer

H/T to Chris Myrick for the link.

February 13, 2012

Ontario’s other alcohol sales monopoly

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Law — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:25

I guess it’s technically part of an oligopoly (?duopoly?), but along with the KGBO LCBO, the other entity that is legally allowed to sell beer is the mostly foreign-owned Beer Store:

… the experience highlights one of the many absurdities of a system where more than 80 per cent of beer sales are controlled by three multinationals — Labatt Brewing Co. Ltd. (owned by Anheuser-Busch InBev SA), Molson Coors Brewing Co. and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. (owned by Japan’s Sapporo Breweries Ltd.).

“The way the system is set up unfairly limits access to customers,” Mr. Beauchesne complained. “Molson, Labatt and Sleeman are completely in control of how beer stores look and feel, what products are promoted. They get to control the whole shopping experience and I get none of that control.”

The McGuinty government is pledging to review outdated liquor laws early in the legislative session that begins this week. MPP Grant Crack, parliamentary assistant to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, said the Beer Store’s monopoly will no doubt come up.

[. . .]

After 85 years, the Beer Store is an anachronism.

It’s often hard to reconcile the ad world of beer — the snow-capped mountains, parties and hockey — with the utilitarian factory-like outlets where most Ontarians actually buy the stuff.

There are noisy conveyor belts, bottle crushers and cases of beer stacked on metal shelves in dank warehouses. In many stores, patrons still make their selection by picking from a row of dusty empties on a shelf.

Behind the counter, harried clerks juggle bottle returns and running the cash register.

Forget about tastings, attention-grabbing displays of new offerings or expert advice to help you choose from hundreds of selections. At the 437 Beer Stores, it’s get in line, pay the clerk, get out.

November 1, 2011

Alberta’s policy to help small breweries has unintended consquences

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Government — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 08:20

When governments try to rig markets to achieve certain goals, they often end up getting results they didn’t foresee:

The Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission presumably had good intentions in mind when it brewed up a policy to lend a helping hand to small breweries. Namely, beer companies qualify for substantially reduced beer tax rates on the first 200,000 hectolitres sold in Alberta. The explicit aim was to help small players compete against industry leviathans such as Molson and Labatt. And, implicitly, the tax break would entice craft breweries to set up shop in the province.

However, eight years after the reduced beer tax rates—estimated by one analyst to total about $200 million in savings—were first implemented, little in the Alberta beer business has worked out the way the AGLC envisioned. Only five small breweries have opened for business in Alberta since the policy was implemented. And in that time Alberta has, in fact, become a market characterized by discount beer. And at least one of the breweries taking advantage of the AGLC policy doesn’t even brew in the province, let alone Canada.

[. . .]

Alberta’s small brewer system would appear to be yet another case of the law of unintended consequences—especially when a government agency tinkers with the free market economy. From a dearth of craft brewers to a helping hand for American jobs, the AGLC’s beer tax policy is enough to drive a teetotalling Albertan to drink.

July 10, 2011

Sgt. Major’s Over-excitable IPA

Filed under: Cancon, Randomness — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 15:53

I’m always on the lookout for interesting beers (I’m very much into wine, but now and again a beer is the right beverage). I picked up a six-pack of “Sgt. Major India Pale Ale” from the Scotch Irish Brewing company on Friday. They’ve been in the fridge since then. I decided to open one earlier this afternoon, only to discover that the Sgt. Major is an excitable type.

As you can see from the photo, about half of the beer erupted from the bottle as soon as the crown cap was slightly opened. It’s a nice, hoppy beer, but I’d rather prefer to get six drinkable bottles from my six pack, rather than six half-bottles!

Update: The second bottle wasn’t quite as energetic: only lost about 1/4 of the contents to foam expansion.

March 12, 2011

Drinking is good for you, but we still don’t know why it’s good for you

Filed under: Health, Science — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 14:17

Moderate drinking (defined as 2-3 drinks per day) is proven to be healthy for most people, but the jury is still out on why it’s good for you:

Scientists say that more research needs to be done to understand why alcohol may be beneficial in small doses. Most commonly, evidence shows that alcohol is associated with increased cardiovascular health. Researchers at the University of Calgary recently analyzed data on alcohol consumption and heart disease and determined that those who drink one to two glasses of alcohol per day are up to 25% less likely to develop heart disease.

The team, lead by Dr. William Ghali, found that moderate drinking led to higher levels of “good” cholesterol and a decrease of a chemical responsible for blood clotting. It doesn’t matter if the booze is from Chateau Mouton-Rothschild or Labatt’s; “it does appear to be alcohol itself that is causing these favourable outcomes,” Dr. Ghali, a professor of medicine at the university, said.

March 6, 2011

The economics of urinal cakes

Filed under: Economics, Humour — Tags: — Nicholas @ 11:34

Tim Harford uses Bastiat’s “broken window fallacy” to explain the economics of urinal cakes:

Dear Massimo,
When I read the first sentence of your letter, I was wondering where you were going with this. Not to worry: your question is easily answered. The 19th century French economist and essayist Frederic Bastiat anticipated it with his famous “broken window fallacy”. A broken window seems good for the economy because it creates work for the glazier. But Bastiat pointed out that the money that the window-owner pays to the glazier is money he can’t spent on something else. The glazier is richer, but the tailor or the restaurateur or the escort girl is poorer. The broken window hasn’t stimulated the economy at all.
In short, don’t think you’re doing anyone a favour by aiming squarely at the urinal cake in front of you. And don’t even think about aiming at the urinal cake in front of someone else.

February 18, 2011

QotD: Drink an imported beer and make Mother Gaia cry

Filed under: Environment, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:46

According to PricewaterhouseCoopers partner and renewables specialist Michael Timar:

“If someone saves money from having cavity wall insulation put into their house, but then spends it on something which produces carbon emissions in its manufacturing, or takes an extra journey, then the environmental benefit is lost.

“You have to think about what the effect is all the way down the chain — that if you use less, you might actually end up consuming more.”

Mr Timar warned that people who had saved £100 by cutting their energy bills could use the cash to fund extra leisure activities, such as drinking imported alcoholic beverages in bars — or electronic gadgets, which are often shipped from overseas.

This is beautiful:

It has been calculated by environmental experts that one single bottle of imported beer uses 900g of CO2 — wiping out two-thirds of the annual carbon savings made by replacing all light bulbs in an average home with energy-saving models.

Drink two and you’re in credit.

Tim Blair, “Tim Blair Blog: DON’T DO ANYTHING”, Daily Telegraph, 2011-02-18

December 9, 2010

QotD: Ontario’s “restrictive, puritanical, liquor laws”

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Law, Liberty, Quotations — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 00:20

Later in the trip we were at a Napa Valley winery. During our winery tour, the guide mentioned that if we filled out an order form we could have a case of wine delivered to home or office. Then she stopped, looked at my friend and me, and said, “Oh wait, not to Ontario. You guys are worse than Utah.” She proceeded to list all the countries they ship to, two of which have majority Muslim populations. But Ontario was too much trouble, so they gave up trying. We could buy the wine and bring it over the border ourselves, but if it were to be shipped across the border it would clearly be illegal.

Our restrictive, puritanical, liquor laws are not just limited to restricting products or preventing private stores from selling alcohol. On our trip it became a running joke to point out things that were banned in Ontario. Happy hour is illegal in Ontario. I pointed to a seasonal winter beer in at a convenience store with a cartoon picture of Santa Claus on the label and noted it would be banned in Ontario. There is cheap beer across the U.S. because of intense competition, but Ontario has a price floor of $1.07 per bottle.

So I pose the question that I was asked in the bar in San Francisco. Why are we so puritanical when it comes to alcohol?

Hugh MacIntyre, “Ontario’s liberalism dies at the brewery door”, National Post, 2010-12-08

August 11, 2010

The search for the geekiest beer

Filed under: Randomness, Science — Tags: — Nicholas @ 07:27

Betsy Mason reports on the ongoing search for the Venn diagram showing the intersection of microbrewing and science geeks:

I’ve already proven the connection between beer and geologists, but the number of brews out there with awesomely geeky science names suggests that the beer-science link is even more primordial. After stumbling across a few of these, like Shale Ale (named for the Burgess Shale, a famously fossiliferous outcrop) and Homo Erectus (an IPA made by Walking Man Brewing), I decided the matter required further investigation.

With the help of my friends and Twitteronia, I tracked down a bunch more science-geek beers, and a few with super-geeky tech themes (this is Wired, after all). I managed to get seven of them into Wired HQ, because, let’s be honest, this was all just another elaborate excuse to make drinking beer part of my job.

Sadly, I couldn’t get my hands on some of the geekiest beers. A few were short runs for special occasions, like The Empire Strikes Back All-English IPA and Galileo’s Astronomical Ale (tagline: Theoretically the best beer in the universe), brewed by astronomy geek Ken Grossman of Sierra Nevada Brewing Company to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the telescope. And some are seasonal, like 21st Amendment’s Spring Tweet, a beer brewed for Twitter (which brings up the obvious question: Where’s Wired’s beer?)

July 9, 2010

Brewing up a real stimulus package

Filed under: Law, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 20:35

I find it hard to believe that such luminaries as Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe are the moving forces behind this tax reduction scheme:

Can microbreweries revive the economy? That’s the hope of Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and a bipartisan group of senators who are pushing a plan to cut taxes on the nation’s legion of small brewers in hopes of stimulating hiring among craft brewers.

The plan, which was introduced by Sen. Kerry, would lower the per-barrel excise taxes on small breweries’ first two million barrels of beer per year (that’s 62 million gallons) and would triple the size of what the government classifies as a small brewer — to breweries that produce six million barrels a year from two million currently. Some co-sponsors include Sens. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine) and Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), whose states, not surprisingly, rank high on the list of states with the most breweries per capita.

So-called craft brewers are one of the few industries to thrive through the recession. The segment grew from 7.2% by volume last year and 5.9% in 2008. The segment has even become a haven for budding entrepreneurs that have been let go from corporate jobs. “There’s not that many success stories in American manufacturing today and craft beer is one of them,” says Jim Koch, founder of The Boston Beer Co. which makes the various Samuel Adams beers. Mr. Koch — whose company is in Mr. Kerry’s home state — has been leading the charge for a lowering of the excise tax on small brewers.

Admittedly I’m in favour of most tax reductions, but this one in particular seems to be a good idea.

May 1, 2010

Call out the inspectors

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Health, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 07:50

A busybody manages to create a lot of new jobs in San Diego County with one little phone call:

On Tuesday, we were surprised inspected by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. The two inspectors were sent out to visit our facilities (and other breweries in San Diego) as a patron had lodged a complaint about local tasting rooms. So I’d like to take a moment to thank that one person who felt it was important to lodge a complaint about brewery tasting rooms all over San Diego. Apparently they were concerned that we didn’t have a GIANT BLUE “A” on our cold boxes!

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

You see, my fellow brewers and brewery owners are now having our hands forced (in the name of public safety) to go through the plan check and approval phase so that all of us can earn Health Permits for our tasting rooms.

What’s even better and the reason we’re all so thankful for your efforts today is that Port Brewing and The Lost Abbey has been issued a cease and desist for the sampling of beer in our tasting room. Because, as we all know, beer is a public nuisance laced with nasty things that can kill you!

I personally want to extend my gratitude to that consumer who felt this industry needed more regulatory agencies knocking on our doors. (The Health Department has never been interested in us before this call) Muchas Gracias Amigo (or Amiga) wherever you might be. There are breweries all over the City of San Diego who are now going to have to spend thousands of dollars on repairs that at best are “marginally justified.”

What follows is a long list of local businesses that will be seeing more income from San Diego breweries, as they all scramble to get into compliance with regulations they didn’t have to worry about until now. Before you consider this is a good thing, make sure you read up on the broken window fallacy (scroll down to paragraph 1.6).

January 27, 2010

Where Virginia is headed, will Ontario follow?

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Law — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:31

November 13, 2009

Virginia to privatize their state-run liquor stores?

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Law — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 00:35

Katherine Mangu-Ward on the prospect of Virginia selling off their state-owned liquor stores:

Virginia is one of 18 states where the government is the monopoly rumrunner. Supermarkets, gourmet shops, and corner stores are all forbidden to sell liquor. But Bob McDonnell, the newly-elected Republican governor, has promised to end the monopoly on liquor sales in the Old Dominion.

This bold gesture isn’t because McDonnell is an especially thoroughgoing libertarian; there are plenty of other areas where he’d like to see more state involvement in the private lives of citizens, not less. This isn’t a 12-step program to help the commonwealth go cold turkey on alcohol money either. McDonnell has no intention of letting Virginia’s bottle-based income fall below its current levels of more than $100 million a year. In fact, part of the reason McDonnell is considering privatization at all is that he is looking for cash to spend on transportation infrastructure. He predicts that selling off the state’s 334 liquor stores to private players and gathering licensing fees from more private sellers will bring in $500 million in the short run, while leaving long-run income intact. (The Washington Post remains unconvinced, noting that McDonnell’s figures may be too optimistic.)

But no matter what the political and budgetary machinations, Virginians are unlikely to wind up paying more for their rotgut, and they are very likely to wind up with a better selection and a relatively skeeze-free shopping experience. Commonwealth officials can focus on governing a large landmass without having to fuss with the details of running a liquor empire. And the move may even represent a net gain for the state budget in the future when the state sheds responsibility for ABC employee benefits and pensions, and starts bringing in real estate and other tax revenue from the privatized stores.

I’ve written about Ontario’s LCBO and the (dim) hopes of privatization at the old blog. In 2004, there was a brief flurry of discussion on privatizing the LCBO:

For those of you who don’t live in Ontario, the LCBO is the government-run monopoly provider of almost all alcoholic beverages except beer and wine, which are sold through the Brewers Retail, now operating under the name “The Beer Store” and through individual winery-owned wine stores, respectively. Both the LCBO and the Brewers Retail were set up after the repeal of prohibition in Ontario to control the sale and distribution of alcohol in the province. The LCBO is government-owned, while the Brewers Retail is owned by the major breweries (Labatt, Molson, & Sleeman).

A few elections ago, the Ontario government under Premier Mike Harris started talking about getting the government out of the liquor business. The LCBO, which up until that point had operated like a sluggish version of the Post Office, suddenly had plenty of incentive to try appealing to their customers. Until the threat of privatization, the LCBO was notorious for poor service, lousy retail practices, and surly staff. Until the 1980′s, many LCBO outlets were run exactly like a warehouse: you didn’t actually get to see what was for sale, you only had a grubby list of current stock from which to write down your selections on pick tickets, which were then (eventually) filled by the staff.

If the intent was to make buying a bottle of wine feel grubby, seamy, and uncomfortable, they were masters of the craft. No shopper freshly arrived from behind the Iron Curtain would fail to recognize the atmosphere in an old LCBO outlet.

During the 1980′s, most LCBO stores finally became self-service, which required some attempt by the staff to stock shelves, mop the floors, and generally behave a bit more like a normal retail operation. It took quite some time for the atmosphere to become any more congenial or welcoming, as the staff were all unionized and most had worked there for years under the old regime — you might almost say that they had to die off and be replaced by younger employees who didn’t remember the “good old days”.

To return to the early 1990′s, the LCBO had gone through massive changes (from their own point of view), but were still far behind the times. The threat of being sold to the private sector seems to have operated as a massive injection of adrenalin to the corporate heart: the LCBO suddenly became serious about serving the customer, expanding their services, making themselves more customer-friendly and providing their staff with proper training.

In the end, the Tory government decided that they preferred the direct stream of profits from the LCBO monopoly and backed away from their privatization plans. To my amazement (and probably that of most impartial observers), the LCBO did not immediately fall back into their bad old habits: they continued the modernization that had already taken them so far from their roots.

Today, the LCBO is almost unrecognizable as the Stalinist bureaucracy of the 1960s and 70s. Their staff are generally friendly, helpful, and (mirabile dictu) know far more about their products than ever before.

All that being said, I still am happy to hear that the current government is talking about privatization again. The LCBO is better than it used to be, and continues to improve, but they are still a monopoly provider with little real competition. I don’t pretend that a badly run sale might well end up (in the short-to-medium term) reducing the variety of alcoholic products for sale in Ontario, but having competing retailing channels would (in the long term) produce a healthier market with the competitors striving to attract more customers by better service, wider selection or even (dare we say it) lower prices.

Of course, 2005 came and went, with no movement in the direction of privatization, and it won’t happen under the current provincial government. The revenue stream is still too good for the province to give up.

October 9, 2009

Australian livers: industrial strength

Filed under: Randomness — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 00:05

I’m probably admitting that I’m a lightweight here, but a “limit” of 24 cans of beer per day seems, well, not actually a limit:

Australian motorsport fans are ruing militant alcohol consumption guidelines at one of the country’s most popular races – after being limited to a mere 24 cans of beer a day.

Police in charge of the Bathurst 1,000 car race in Bathurst, New South Wales, issued the restrictions before the start of the four-day event this Thursday.

Spectators are limited to one 24-can case each of full-strength beer, although if revellers are willing to consume lower-strength alcohol (3.5% abv or less) they will be entitled to a more satisfactory 36 cans.

Wine lovers have not escaped the heavy hand of the law either, being restricted to a punitive four litres a day.

<sarcasm>A mere four litres? How do they survive?</sarcasm>

H/T to “Fishplate” for the link.

September 12, 2009

QotD: The Muse of Booze

Filed under: Humour, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 18:06

It’s reasonably well known that the arts of brewing and fermenting arose in nice time for the dawn of human civilization (there are ancient poems and mosaics and that sort of thing, dedicated to the celebration of the fact), but it’s at least as notorious that an open flask of alcohol is a mouth that can lead to hell as well as heaven. This being the case — and one day we shall work out the etymology that leads us to use the simple Italian word for a bottle, fiasco, in the way that we do — then it is as well to have a true Virgil to be our guide through the regions infernal as well as paradisiac.

The late Sir Kingsley Amis (who wrote these slender but thoughtful volumes before receiving his knighthood and who was also the expert to consult on things like the derivation of fiasco) was what the Irish call “your man” when it came to the subject of drink.

Christopher Hitchens, “The Muse of Booze”, Everyday Drinking: The Distilled Kingsley Amis, 2008

Older Posts »
« « The most welcome improvements in iPhone 3.1| Is it non-partisan when both parties are at fault? » »

Powered by WordPress