They couldn’t print it if it wasn’t true

From the front page of today’s StarTribune:

“Squeezed by a smoking ban and higher costs, beer sales in British pubs have fallen to Depression-era levels, and 1,400 pubs have closed.”


The Telegraph had more to say.

UK beer sales have fallen through the five billion litre mark for the first time since 1975 as the consumer downturn and smoking ban continue to hit Britain’s pubs and brewers.

News that annual beer sales have slipped below 50m hectolitres will come as a further blow to an industry already suffering as pubs go out of business and brewers are forced to consolidate.

Figures released to the brewing industry by the British Beer and Pub Association, and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show total UK beer sales fell 1.7 per cent in the year to the end of April.
advertisement

The effect of the decline in consumption, combined with rising utility and commodity costs, an increase in beer duty, and the impact of the consumer downturn and smoking ban is having a catastrophic impact on Britain’s pubs.

Pub closures are running at 27 a week, according to the BBPA, amounting to some 1,200 that have been forced out of business over the last 12 months.

To be fair, a 1.7 percent decline in beer sales this year doesn’t sound like enough to drive pubs out of business, even if linked to a smoking ban. The article also states:

That came as the volume of beer sold through pubs hit its lowest level since the Great Depression of the 1930s, with sales in the whole of the UK beer market down by 22 per cent since 1979.

If beer sales have been dropping since 1979 it doesn’t sound as if a smoking ban was the root cause. Still, it couldn’t have been helpful, especially when combined with other factors, including additional government handicaps in the form of increased duties.

Meanwhile, The Guardian had this report:

Pubs have sold 175 million fewer pints in the past year as a direct result of the smoking ban, according to market analysts AC Nielsen.

Jake Shepherd, marketing director AC Nielsen, said: ‘The winter months were particularly bad. Sales fell nine per cent through November to January when smokers would have been reluctant to stand outside in the cold to have a cigarette.’

Sales of wine were not hit as hard, dropping four per cent after the ban. Shepherd said: ‘Wine has held up somewhat better than other drinks, benefiting from the increasing importance of food and women to the trade.’ Cigarette sales have dropped 6 per cent since 1 July last year with smokers buying 2 billion fewer cigarettes between 1 July 2007 and April 2008.

The decline in beer sales in England, however, is consistent with the experience of Scottish pubs. Scotland instituted a nation-wide smoking ban in March of 2006, a year ahead of the rest of the UK, and saw a 7 percent decrease in pub beer sales in the ensuing 12 months according to AC Nielsen in an article in The Independent.

It would seem that in a down economy it is easier to push a margin-intensive business over the edge, especially when the government adds the extra burdens of increased taxes and a smoking ban. Increase taxes and institute a smoking ban? I’m certainly glad that that couldn’t happen in Minnesota.

Wait a minute…

“Just Manny being Manny” — but how about “Manly”?

Manny Ramirez of the Boston Team Manny has one laudatory skill: being able to hit a baseball. Perhaps he would benefit by checking out
Manival #14. It’s back “home” this week at the blog that launched the Manival carnival, The Art of Manliness. As usual there’s lots of good stuff and several different categories to explore, especially if you’re Manny Ramirez.

For example, check out Dr. Awesome for valuable advice and important rulings on what is or isn’t manly: this week’s topic concerns long hair. In addition, as the summer winds down and the play-offs draw near there’s still time to review a list of “Top 10 Summer Activites for Dad & Kids” from Discovering Dad. And if you’re into naming the “best” and “worst” of anything you’ll probably like “The Best Foods for Men” at Fat Man Unleashed (oh, Manny!) and “The Worst Karate Move I Ever Learned” at Martial Development (I wonder if this involves knocking down the club’s 60-year-old Traveling Secretary?).

There are also plenty of good posts for those of us non-All Stars who might still like to take our game to another level. This week I want to call special attention to two Manival articles: Monday Morning Amour over at A Good Husband. You should definitely read the other Manival entries as well, or — as Twins’ announcer John Gordon would say — “Touch ’em all!”

They reportedly like Obama, too…

The new fashion statement from Europe is…

Men In Skirts (story and photos)…

How do you know men’s lib is in full swing? When men start wearing skirts. On the street. In everyday life. The Sartorialist, Scott Schuman, snapped two men wearing skirts on the streets of Europe, and it caught us off guard — it’s not like these guys were heading to a Scottish wedding in ritual dress. No, they evidently woke up that morning and decided that instead of putting their pants on one leg at a time, they’d slip a skirt over both legs. We thought we weren’t ready for mirdles, but this is a whole new level.

We admit, we find the looks Schumann shot stylish. But we can’t get past the fact that they’re men wearing skirts, and something about that trend catching on just doesn’t look or feel right. Don’t get us wrong — we’re all for equality of the sexes, and if Yves Saint Laurent can put women in pantsuits, there’s no reason other designers can’t put men in skirts. We expect to see them on the men’s runways from time to time. And we find it delightful when we do, but in a non-serious way. But now that it may be getting serious, we’re a bit unsettled. We don’t know if America is ready for her men to be traipsing around the streets in skirts. And if they’re just barely catching on in Europe now, how long before they’re popular here? Five to ten years?

Commenters on the Sartorialist are smitten by these men in their skirts. One writes, “I’d do it myself (in ten years maybe).” Another writes, “There was a great Met Costume Institute show of men in skirts a few years ago — it took about 5 seconds inside to realize that the West has missed an opportunity for beautiful tailoring and sexy knees.” And yet another writes, “I love both looks — I was struck by the usage of the belt on the guy with the tie — these looks are hot.”

Hot? As in, Damn, that outfit compels me to get that guy’s number? Hm. Dunno. But that’s not to say that in several years we won’t find a hot man in a hot skirt to be the sexiest thing since Brangelina. For now, though, so long as they’re off the runway, we can’t help but prefer to see guys with that extra bit of fabric between their thighs. But maybe we’re just behind. So we’ll ask you: How do you feel about men in skirts? Is the world ready for it? Or do you think it will take another decade or so for the planet to prepare?

Developing…

I’m still tired after spending the weekend trying to recover from the annual Millard Fillmore Memorial golf tournament (aka “The MILF”) last Friday where I was in the woods so much I think the tourney should be renamed “Lumberjack Days.” I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m now battling Lyme Disease.

Then there was my stepping up at the last minute at the post-MILF party to serve as a replacement “Master of Sausages” without first being able to perform the standard three day meditation and purification regimen that goes along with that. Fortunately I was able to pass through the flames without injury, but it was a very close thing and that will take something out of you.

I’ve also been devoting time to preparing the second lecture and homework assignment for this week’s “Are You Marriageable” class that I’m teaching, set for Wednesday night. Speaking of which, here’s an interesting link to a post over at The Art of Manliness on How to Ask a Woman’s Father For Her Hand in Marriage.

Maybe I’ll have enough energy to post something tonight after I finally get home. I first have to stop off and see Ben; he said there’s something he wanted to talk to me about.

Update:
Developing further…

Going back in time with Tiger Lilly

I happened to come across a reference the other day to Connor Prairie Farm, an historic farm and village near Indianapolis that recreates life circa the 1800s. The setting is authentic, as is the clothing of the staff who each must stay “in character” as they interact with visitors. Seeing the place mentioned again brought back memories, especially one in particular.

When I was a kid growing up in Indianapolis it seemed as if we had a school field trip out to Connor Prarie every other year. About 10 years ago my family was back visiting in the area and we decided to take the young Mall Diva and Tiger Lilly out to the site for a visit. Tiger Lilly would have been five then, and this was the summer between kindergarten and first grade (she started kindergarten when she was four).

Her red hair and precociousness have always garnered her a lot of attention, and when we visited the Tailor’s shop she was soon in a conversation with the tailor, an older gentleman with long, white hair, wireframe glasses, dressed in breeches and a waistcoat and stitching on some project. After they had talked a bit, TL asked the tailor why he said “thee” and “thou” so much.

“Because,” he said, with a twinkle, “I am a Quaker. Does thou know what a Quaker is?”

“Oh, yes,” was the reply. “Last year in school we read a book about Benjamin West and his cat Grimalkin!” TL went on to talk about how Benjamin West was a Quaker and wanted to be a painter, but the Quakers didn’t think painting was proper but he did it anyway and became America’s first great painter.

The tailor was quite taken by this unexpected discourse and smiled and said, “Does that tell you how important it is to listen to that small voice inside you?”

Tiger Lilly cocked her head and gave him a puzzled look for a moment. “You mean GOD?”

The tailor couldn’t hide the surprise and amusement in his face, and shook his head, chuckling. “Thou art a caution!” he said.

Indeed!

How to be Marriageable: Class 1

Several weeks ago I wrote a post entitled How to Be Marriageable. In it I laid out, at a high level, some key considerations and preparations a man should undertake to prepare himself to meet that special someone and to serve as the foundation of a happy and fruitful marriage. I even taught pretty much the same information to a men’s group, touching on all the points in about 30 minutes without going into a lot of detail for each.

My plan already was to develop each point into it’s own teaching and present it to a group of young men that I connected to. When I presented the idea to the lads there was a long silence as they considered the prospect. Finally, one of the guys (and a leader) said, “Ok, I’ll do it.”

Another of the young men said, “Yeah, I’ll do it; what could it hurt?” To which the first young man said, “Oh, it’s Mr. Stewart — it could hurt!” Nevertheless almost all of them gathered last week for our first class. I’ve posted here the “script” I used and followed (for the most part). There was a lot of discussion and some diversions where I used examples from my personal life to illustrate a point and those aren’t captured here. There should be enough to give you a good idea of what’s up, though. It starts very similarly to the original post but quickly moves into more detail than I wanted to provide initially. There’s also a link to a handout we’ll be using.

The Dark Knight(writer)

I came across Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns book in the late 80s and was captivated by the story and images, and how powerfully the re-imaged story overwrote my memories of the campy, 1960s television show. This was a deep story: grimmer, grittier, darker and an evocative social commentary on culture and the individual, and the individual’s struggle with himself. I was so pumped up when I heard a little later about the a new kind of Batman movie coming out. Then I heard that Michael Keaton was cast as the Batman. Oh well.

That movie series actually turned out to be okay, though it was understandable why no actor wanted to make it a recurring role as Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney all had a little fun with the part and moved on. It was only when Batman Begins, starring Christian Bale, came out that I saw the vision and felt the excitement that Miller first stirred in me. Given all that’s gone before, there’s a reason the new series has been rebranded as a whole new franchise under The Dark Knight mantle.

I went to see the new movie on Saturday with some anticipation, though I was a little concerned that the movie was being overshadowed by the untimely death of Heath Ledger, who I’m sure you have heard played The Joker. There had been rave reviews of the movie and of Ledger’s performance; even some talk of him being nominated for an Oscar. I chalked this up to bathos related to his passing. I was somewhat familiar with other roles Ledger had played and was underwhelmed. Now that I’ve seen this movie, however, I would cast my vote in his favor. Everything, from the angle of his shoulders, to his voice and laugh, to the twitching of his tongue, created the most compelling and sinister movie villain since Hannibel Lecter.

Best of all, and as strong as the performance was, it didn’t overshadow the rest of the movie. It’s a fabulous story, building onto Batman Begins and gaining momentum of its own. There’s action and special effects of course, but also a story of the nature of good and evil. Granted, the dilemmas are freshman-level ethical “heavies”, but still much deeper than your average (or even above-average) summer blockbuster. In my view it’s as Hayden Tompkins points out in her take on the movie, “Not every choice, however, is one made it the midst of crisis. It’s the choices we make on a day-to-day basis, in the flow of our life, which can just as clearly reveal who we really are.”

As the Joker says in the movie, “Madness is like gravity. It only takes a little push.” Character, however, is harder work. It takes a push, a prod and a continuing series of head slaps sometimes to establish it and keep it going. Consider this movie an invigorating head-slap and go see it.

P.S.
While you’re at it, go here to listen to a song, My Twisted Humor, that a friend of the Mall Diva’s (alias Princess Flicker Feather) wrote and performed in the hopes that it might make its way into this movie. It obviously didn’t, but it can still work for the next movie!

Nobody expects…the Dad inquisition

My chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…my two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency. My three weapons are fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency….and coming out of the sun with a squirt bottle full of cold water. Make that my four weapons…oh, never mind. The point is Ben and the Diva weren’t expecting it, but they should have been!

You’re so Favre, I bet you think this post is about you

At first I didn’t post on the Brett Favre saga becuase I didn’t want to be late the party. Now it appears that this is going to drag on for months yet, and by writing now I can still squeeze a few paragraphs into the first 10% of all the words that will end up being written.

Frankly, the story is barely newsworthy in terms of being shocking; you’d have to be FEMA not to have seen this one coming. Aside from the annual off-season “maybe I’ll retire, maybe I won’t” strokefest, this latest move is vintage Favre for anyone who’s followed #4’s on-the-field exploits.

“Triple-coverage? What triple-coverage? I’m Brett Favre – I can put the ball in a Junebug’s back pocket!” Whooosh. “Dang!” Similarly, while “miscalculation” might be hard for Brett to say, it isn’t a foreign concept to him. “Retirement papers? I didn’t file no retirement papers! I’m Brett Favre – they’ve got to take me back!”

The moves made by both the Packers and Favre have been just as predictable.

Farve: “I maybe, possibly, might want to come back, but you didn’t hear it from me.”

Packers GM Ted Thompson: “Naah, naah, naah, not listening! I’m on vacation! I’m rearranging my sock drawer! Brett who?”

Favre: “It’s all just rumors taken out of context, I don’t know how Chris Mortenson could have intercepted my text messages.”

Thompson: “Of course we’d welcome Brett back, as long as he’ll wear a helmet really made from cheese and confess that he was the one that killed Dan Devine’s dog. There might be a problem, though, because we’re all sold out of #4 jerseys and I told the staff not to order any more. He might have to wear #78, which also happens to be the number of times we’ve been down this road with Brett in the past.”

Favre: “Help! Help! I’m being repressed! Come see the nonsense inherent in the system! Want to see me cry again?”

The posturing by both sides is just as transparent. The Packers will act as if they’d gladly take Favre back as their back-up quarterback, knowing there’s no way in hell Brett will accept that, while Favre will say he’ll come back knowing that there’s no way in hell Thompson wants the nightmare of Favre in uniform on the bench while a young quarterback takes his lumps. The team could conceivably punish him by trading him to a non-contender, but that is nearly as empty a threat as bringing him back as a bench-warmer. What non-contending team would trade for Favre and his salary, especially knowing that Brett won’t want to be there. Even potentially contending teams will be hesitant to give up much, especially if it means Favre having to learn a new offense. You should also keep in mind how much Favre has whined about having enough talent on the team in recent years; even if the Packers can find a trade partner (which they have the technical capability to do), Favre will pout his way out of that situation as well, probably forcing another trade that will make the Packers’ moves blow up in their face. In the Packers’ favor is that trades take time and that’s something that Favre and most teams don’t have if he’s going to go somewhere new and be ready by the start of the season.

Ultimately the Packers and Favre know he has the leverage and can force his release just by continuing to be the pain-in-the-butt prima donna he already is. Thompson also knows that the Vikings would be a prime landing space for Favre given that the team is merely an established quarterback away from being a serious Super Bowl contender, and that Favre would relish the opportunity to play the Pack twice in the coming year. There’s not much Thompson can do to prevent it, except muddy the waters by proactively accusing the Vikings of tampering, especially since Vikings offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell was Favre’s former quarterback coach. I don’t know what hard evidence Thompson could have to support his claim unless he’s got the power to subpeona phone records. Perhaps it was this transcript from a tape that was mysteriously found in the pocket of Bill Belichek’s hoodie:

DB: Hey, Brett, it’s your ol’ buddy, Darrell.

BF: Who?

DB: Darrell Bevell, your old quarterbacks coach.

BF: I had a quarterbacks coach? Who knew? I think I knew a guy named Darrell who caddied for me for awhile.

DB: Ha-ha, always the kidder. I’m just calling you up like good buddies do, to talk about huntin’ and fishin’ and such.

BF: Do tell.

DB: Of course! I wouldn’t dream of having you tampered with, unless of course it was by Jared Allen; man, can that boy hunt! You know, we should get together. I think you’d like our West Coast off-, I mean, you ought to check out the west coast of Lake Minnetonka. Good fishing out there. Super, in fact.

BF: Hey, thanks, Darnell…

DB: It’s Darrell.

BF: Oh, yeah, Darrell. The thing is, I don’t know if I’m going to have any time. Michael Strahan has also retired, and him and me got a contract offer from FOX to go around the country re-enactin’ the time I fell down so Michael could set the single-season sack record.

DB: I remember you like bowling. We’ve got a good group of, um, bowlers over here. You know Kevin and Pat, and we got that kid we call, “All Day.” Next time we get together I’d be happy to give you a ring. Uh, hello?

BF: Sorry, Merrill, I accidentally dropped my phone. I had this itch I was trying to scratch.

Tune into ESPN tomorrow (and the day after that, and the day after that, and the day after that) for the latest developments.

Proof

We now have more evidence of what Tiger Lilly has been saying all along: cows are terrorists! Here’s a photo of a would-be bovine suicide bomber about to go on a mission:

Actually, going on an emission might be more accurate. The photo is from a story about a group of Argentinian scientists that are trying to measure the amount of methane emissions from cows and the impact that may have on global warming:

In a bid to understand the impact of the wind produced by cows on global warming, scientists collected gas from their stomachs in plastic tanks attached to their backs.

The Argentine researchers discovered methane from cows accounts for more than 30 per cent of the country’s total greenhouse emissions.

As one of the world’s biggest beef producers, Argentina has more than 55 million cows grazing in its famed Pampas grasslands.

Guillermo Berra, a researcher at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology, said every cow produces between 8000 to 1,000 litres of emissions every day.

Methane, which is also released from landfills, coal mines and leaking gas pipes, is 23 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

Scientists are now carrying out trials of new diets designed to improve cows’s digestion and hopefully reduce global warming. Silvia Valtorta, of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations, said that by feeding cows clover and alfalfa instead of grain “you can reduce methane emissions by 25 percent”.

So the cows are out to get us, using biological weapons no less. This plan has a fatal flaw, however.

When the weather gets warm, I like to grill.

HT: The Llama Butchers