L'Affaire de Murray, or Why Now, What Now?

Anyone connected with the whisky community is likely to have seen some of the furor raised by Jim Murray's latest edition of the Whisky Bible. While he has developed a reputation for sexism over the years, the florid prose of his latest edition has taken that to new heights, drawing comparisons with the Bad Sex in Fiction Awards. A full-throated denunciation by Becky Paskin and a piece in Forbes by Felipe Schrieberg kicked off a wave of responses, both from individuals and companies.

 

Murray's response has, unsurprisingly, leaned into the now stock language used when people are called out, referencing 'free speech', 'cancel culture', and 'trumped up charges'. While his dignity seems to have taken a body blow, there appears to be very little self-reflection about why using overtly sexual terms to describe whisky might be off-putting or exclusionary for others. Equally unsurprising, there have been any numbers of whisky fans who have also leapt to his defense, calling anyone bothered by the language 'SJWs' or humorless. Others have been accused to using the situation to take Murray down a peg to promote their own work.

 

Sometimes in a less reactionary fashion, some have asked simply "Why now?" While his language is perhaps more overwrought that before, it's a difference in degree rather than in kind. This partially elides the fact that he is now forced to self-publish his work and has been progressively banned from whisky events, but it can be explained by Broken Stair Theory.

Especially in insular communities, it's very common to have problematic people who are explained away with "That's just how they are." New entrants may be quietly warned and the problem person may be slowly disinvited from events, but the majority either actively supports them or simply accepts their presence and learns to work around them. It's not until someone is willing to speak up and say "This isn't right. Why is this person still here?" that you can trigger the avalanche that finally leads to change.

What this really comes down to is who we want to be in community with, because there is exclusion in either direction. For decades the enthusiast community has tacitly allowed or even supported sexist behaviors, all the way from overt harassment to the all too common jokes along the lines of "Don't let my wife find out how much I've been buying". Assuming that women are less knowledgeable than men, describing whiskies in overtly sexualized terms, labels with scantily clad women - we've all seen this at some point or another and sighed, knowing that every single instance made women feel less welcome to participate.

The only solution is to make that kind of behavior unacceptable. You can't always change hearts and minds, but you can change behavior. No community can survive intact without moderation, because without filtering mechanisms the most boorish individuals will inevitably come to dominate. If we want to make the community inclusive, we're going to have to be a little bit exclusive. 

 

That doesn't mean dismissing people for the smallest infraction, it means that if people want to remain after making a mistake they have to be willing to own up and make genuine efforts to change. There will absolutely be a hue and cry, especially in the current political environment, but we have to make a choice. Opening up the community to the broadest possible slice humanity means that we can't keep the people who create an actively hostile environment around.

State of the Booze Union

It's a tricky time to be a spirits enthusiast in America.

While spirits are more popular now than they've been since the 1970s, the last handful of years have created a lot of new wrinkles.

First, the good. In some respects, there are more options than ever. Distillers are releasing new expressions on an almost daily basis and (some are) paying far more care and attention to their products than they did when they were effectively producing commodities. Entire categories of spirits that would have required huge amounts of legwork to source fifteen years ago can now be found on back bars and liquor store shelves across the country. Many retailers have expanded their exclusive release programs, offering options that can't be found elsewhere and increasing diversity. The internet is full of people talking about spirits, which makes finding information easier than ever. Clubs and tasting groups have sprung up in every state. And for those who care about such things, spirits are cool, giving the drinkers a caché that hasn't existed since the Mad Men era.

But not all is well. Popularity is a fickle beast. For those who had knowledge and connections during the 1990s and early 2000s, options may seem extremely closed off as stocks of old spirits have become severely depleted. What once went for a song is now many times more expensive as competition increases. But these are the effects of the market - large, primarily impersonal forces outside of individual control.

More complex are changes made at the level of state and national governments shaping the American market. While many more American liquor stores now sell their stocks online, shipping them across state lines has become an increasingly fraught task. Many states flatly refuse imports into or exports out of their borders. In some cases this is due to state monopolies on liquor sales that do not want to give up control. In others it is about protecting the interests of local distributors, who wish to ensure that they get their cut from liquor sales. In 2010 efforts were made at the national level to tighten these regulations further and make it easier for states to restrict cross-border sales, but thankfully the bill did not pass. In the meantime, some states, such as Kentucky, have taken it upon themselves to restrict internet sales, closing off once-popular stores such as The Party Source that previously shipped across the country. Binny's Beverage Depot, a major Chicago area chain that has a vast exclusive single cask program, announced that once again it was no longer able to ship spirits outside of its home state. While a previous clampdown on interstate shipping was resolved, it's currently unclear if or when this will be reversed. From this vantage it is not clear whether the issue is state regulations or the national logistics companies, but either can be a problem. Even the much-vaunted K&L Wines in California, which has a significant local market to sell to, is fairly restricted in which states it can ship liquor to (for better or worse, Oregon is not on that list).

The lack of a legal secondary market for spirits has also complicated the situation. While there are compelling arguments that secondary markets only serve to encourage speculators, the demand for limited releases, especially of bourbon and rye in the States, is practically insatiable. While any number of attempts have been made to localize and regularize these sales in some fashion, whether through Facebook groups or auction sites, many have foundered on the fundamental fact that liquor sales through any channel other than an authorized retailer are flatly illegal throughout the country. So far many the more visible efforts have either shut down or folded on their own. This is in stark contrast to Europe where numerous auction houses and websites host sales on a regular basis. There are hints that this may be changing, with Kentucky now allowing licensed retailers to buy and sell 'vintage' spirits, though it is unclear how that market will evolve. While this makes life more difficult for flippers and drastically reduces the liquidity (heh) of the market, it also means that getting ahold of limited releases is often more about legwork and relationships than money, because even the biggest bank account may not let you find someone willing to part with a particular expression for cash.

On an international level, January 2013 saw the temporary cessation of spirits shipping from the United Kingdom to the United States, due to a change in Royal Mail's policies. While workarounds were eventually discovered, shipping prices rose dramatically as a result and have remained high ever since. To cite one example, shipping spirits from a well known store like Master of Malt to Fiji costs the same as shipping to the United States. While this does not entirely foreclose that source of spirits (I have heard suggestions that this has become a more popular source for American enthusiasts), it does make them much more expensive and difficult to justify as values, even after the post-Brexit tumble in the pound.

The fractured nature of the liquor market in the United States and frequent lack of alternative channels can make it difficult to sustain enthusiasm. Especially for folks living in control states with limited selections, the itch to try new spirits can be extremely difficult to scratch without creative legwork. Even for those in broader markets like California, it can feel increasingly difficult to find bargains as prices rise and once-prized expressions disappear from circulation. On the flip side, there are some, especially bourbon fans, who find that the chase (even when it slips into quasi-legal territory) is now a big part of the fun. The thrill of slipping one past the powers that be is not insignificant, but trying to evade regulations comes with a host of risks ranging from packages impounded by customs, to buying fakes from unlicensed sellers, to criminal prosecution in the most egregious cases. Knowing where to draw the line, especially when official standards are hazy, is difficult.

Unfortunately it appears unlikely that this situation will change anytime soon. While there are some efforts to legalize direct sales across state borders, there are a large number of interested parties vested in the status quo, ranging from distributors to state monopolies. It will take pressure from below to budge lawmakers into loosening the grip of distributors and other intermediaries in the three-tier system, let alone making legal alcohol shipments from other countries easier and cheaper.

How Economic Inequality is Contributing to the Spirits Boom

Astute observers will have noticed that the rising interest in spirits has coincided roughly with the radical increase in economic inequality in developed nations over the last few decades. But the question is whether this is cause or coincidence - I would argue that they are at least partially related.

Spirits largely languished during the 1980s and 1990s, possibly as a reaction to the liquor-soaked decades that had preceded them. Distilleries closed and a glut of stock was established in the aged spirits world as producers were unable to find many willing buyers. The resulting low prices made quality spirits accessible even to folks of relatively modest means.

This began to shift in the 2000s, as interest in spirits grew in tandem with the cocktail revival and both broke into the mainstream around the housing collapse. While much of this is simply the cyclic nature of interest in drinks, the exponential rise in prices and concomitant decrease in availability of single malts and American whiskey are likely to have been driven by broader economic trends.

The obvious element is that the increasing concentration of wealth at the top has created a class of people for whom money is literally no object. For those with hundreds of millions or billions in the bank, spending thousands or tens of thousands on a single bottle of spirits won't even make a noticeable dent in their net worth. This effectively unlimited wealth makes it possible to bid up the prices of exceptionally rare spirits to stratospheric levels. With the rapid appreciation of many expressions they can even convince themselves that these mega-expensive bottles are investments like their other assets. The rising prices have a trickle-down effect on the rest of the market as distillers and retailers raise prices to capture profits that had been going to secondary market sellers and convince everyone else that they must be worth the now-inflated prices that were once within reach escape the grasp of less affluent buyers.

The other end of the market is a more complicated situation. While simple supply and demand factors explain much of the changes in prices, the question is what drives that demand since there are only so many rich people in the world and they can only drink so much. My personal belief is that the rise of high-end spirits owes much to the reduced circumstances that many people find themselves after the financial collapse of the late-2000s. Put simply, while traditional status markers such as homes and cars have moved out of reach for many, budgets can still stretch to encompass other luxury markers. So maybe you're stuck renting and taking Uber, but you can cover a $20 pour at the bar or a $100 bottle to show off to your friends. Brands have capitalized on these desires with increasingly grandiose claims of rarity for their new expressions, touting everything from 'lost' casks (from large corporations with legal obligations to keep track of their stock) to rococo production techniques that make the bottles seem difficult to obtain (often from distillers with little experience but good marketing chops), while keeping the prices just within reach of the average person with a bit of disposable income.

The real question is whether this is all sustainable. There are already indications that scotch whisky distillers are pricing themselves out of the low end market, with blend sales - making up the bulk of their profits - slipping. While sales of higher priced single malts are helping to keep profits from tumbling too far, it is unclear whether a $50+ floor is realistic over the long term when it is generally accepted that most spirits buyers consider a $25 bottle to be expensive and much more to be a splurge. American whiskey seems far healthier at the moment, with prices and sales continuing to rise with not apparent limit. While many of the once-staple bourbons in the $20-30 range have moved up-market, there are still good things to be had that that magic price point, albeit of often decreasing quality and selection. The increased production coupled with a shorter amount of time necessary to bring aged whisky to market (3-5 years for bourbon vs. 8-12 for single malts) may help to keep supply and demand more evenly matched, though the fetish for elevated age statements will likely continue to pump up that end of the spectrum. More broadly, it's unclear whether interest will be sustained if the steadily improving economy makes home ownership available to a broader section of the populace again and redirects their spending habits. As they say, time will tell.

Happy Repeal Day!

Once again it's time to celebrate Repeal Day, as December 5th marks the end of Prohibition and the return of sweet, sweet liquor to America.

Prohibition represented a dark day in American history, when we collectively decided that people shouldn't be able to make their own decisions about what to consume and went so far as to put it into the Constitution. Now admittedly, as I've mentioned before, America was an awfully hard-drinking nation back in the 19th century. The attendant problems of alcohol consumption drove many Progressives to advocate for temperance as there was a wide-spread belief that alcohol was at the root of many societal ills and that sobriety would lead to a veritable utopia. Some worked through social pressure, others by force of law.

Obviously we all know how well that worked out. There's strong evidence that alcohol consumption increased during Prohibition compared to before enactment of the law. Crime increased as the mob gained power, money and influence. Respect for the law decreased, both because of the manifest absurdity of Prohibition and the woeful ineffectiveness of local, state and federal enforcement.

It took the Depression and the desire for new tax revenues to finally turn the tide and Prohibition was officially repealed on December 5th, 1933 when Utah (who'd a thunk it?) ratified the 21st Amendment, crossing the three quarters threshold needed to enact the statute.

So raise a glass to celebrate a small return to sanity and personal responsibility. I'm currently enjoying a glass of rum distilled here in the good ol' U.S. of A.

Many thanks to Jeffery Morganthaler, who created the Repeal Day holiday. If you like, you can personally thank him by dropping by Clyde Common where he currently manages the bar.

HR 5034: Because It's Not Hard Enough to Find Good Booze

Word of a proposed bill in the House of Representatives, HR 5034, has been bouncing around the cocktail blogosphere for a while now. The gist of the bill is that states should be allow to restrict the private shipment of beer, wine and spirits from outside their borders. In an effort to cloak this concept in an air of respectability, the bill has been named the Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (CARE) Act of 2010. It is absolutely nothing of the sort.

A simple browsing of the funding sources behind the bill reveals that it is all about protecting the power and money of wholesalers, who are worried about the growth in internet sales of alcohol over the last decade. They claim that the law should be changed for a variety of silly reasons, ranging from reinforcing the regulatory powers of states to inconsistent oversight by federal courts (the law would prevent challenges to restrictions by the states) to preventing minors from buying alcohol.

Those notions are a transparent farce. As well all know too well, states already exert an enormous amount of control over alcohol, often going so far as to retain state monopolies on alcohol sales. States are already allowed to prevent the shipment of wine, beer or liquor to private individuals within their state, as long as the same is true for in-state producers. Scare-mongering about minors buying alcohol over the internet is entirely overblown as the law already requires that the shipper check ID before handing over the package.

The bill is entirely about protecting the middleman position of wholesalers at the expense of individual consumers, restricting the availability of products that otherwise can't be obtained within the state. Passage of the law would allow states to act in a protectionist manner, privileging in-state producers at the expense of everyone else. For all their talk of free market principles, the politicians supporting this bill are blatantly selling out. No party comes out looking good from this as the sponsors are pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Please look at the post on Doug's Pegu Club blog and see if any of your state representatives are currently listed as sponsors of the bill. I'm glad to say that no Oregon or Washington Reps. have signed on, but there are plenty of states where almost every Rep. is a sponsor. If one of your Reps. is listed as a sponsor, please contact them to protest a bill that does nothing for consumers and seeks only to protect vested interests.