Nein, nein, oh nein! A Retraction

I created the posting label “Beer Jerk” for a reason, people. When I apply it to one of my blog postings, I mean to say that I’m being a beer jerk. Which is to say, the posting is probably off the mark.

Back in July I posted a short piece called Hot-Weather Ramblings that dealt with, among other things, an article in the July/August issue of Beer Magazine. In that posting, I characterized a particular article in that issue as “rather inept.” Well, the author of that article somehow stumbled onto Beer Rant. (Don’t ask me how; we’re located off one of the most remote back roads on the entire Information Superhighway.) He left a comment that was far more diplomatic than necessary, asking me to explain my characterization of his article as “inept” (or “rather inept”). Frankly, he had every right to call me out in stronger terms because after re-reading the article, I can’t find much fault with the content and were I to describe the article again, I’d certainly not call it inept, but perhaps “clumsy.” Understand, the article’s clumsiness is due entirely to issues related to layout and not due to content so the blame (if there is any) should fall on the magazine editor, not the author.

So, having inaccurately described Mr. Brooks’ article as “rather inept,” I’d like to point out the high points of the piece and hopefully describe the specific attributes that made the article clumsy in my opinion. The piece is broken down into about 18 sub-sections that cover a number of aspects of beer labeling policy and practice. I especially liked the section on measurements under the heading “Required Information.” The section entitled “The Long and Winding Road to Approval" is interesting and brought to mind the hoop-lah that attended Flying Dog’s slogan “Good Beer, No Shit.” The discussion of the differences between “alcohol by weight” versus “alcohol by volume” in the section “Fat or Heavy” was especially enlightening and finally, the explanation of the terms “out of code” and “gone bad” is good information for folks who wonder just how long a six-pack is allowed to sit on the shelf before being “recalled” by the brewer.

If I praise Mr. Brooks’ work to strongly now, it may come across as patronizing. All I can say at this point is that I was mistaken to describe his article as “rather inept” or “inept’ in any fashion. Upon a second reading I find that I’m most bothered by the fact that some of the text of his piece is barely legible because of the editor’s poor choice of background photographs. This probably won’t matter one bit, if, as Mr. Brooks mentions in his comment, the article is aimed at a “younger audience.” Kids today don’t know from subtly, nuance or turn of phrase; they’re probably just looking at the pictures, which makes the illegible text immaterial.

I want to thank Mr. Brooks for having left such an even-handed comment in response to my harsh criticism of his article – he certainly had every right to use stronger language. He strikes me as an even handed fellow and nobody with such a love of the common “French Fry” could possibly be all bad, right? Don’t believe me? See Mr. Brooks’ French Fry blog HERE!

Some recent label anomalies I've found:

When is a lager, not a lager? When you're in Texas. Then it's an ale!

Guess where was when I found this "unlawful to remove" sticker on a bottle of beer.