Two Words

Sometimes things happen and you just break out a knowing grin or an appreciative smile and have another sip of whatever beer you happen to be enjoying at the time, content in the knowledge that you and the person you are sharing a drink with are speaking the same silent language.

It can be many different things which elicits this response but the thread which unites them all, regardless of content or context, is that agreement is almost immediate. You just get it. Right away and straight off the bat. You concur ... concurrently.

This is the story of two blokes sharing a beer in a pub. I will stop the story here for a bit so that you can go and get yourself a beer – you’re not driving a tram or operating heavy machinery, are you? – and then create your own mental picture of you and your mate in whatever is you favourite pub setting. Done? Good. Is it a nice old pub with character and charm and no pokie machines? Nice. Now concentrate on this story and not on the boobies of the girls on the table across the way.

There is a TV in the background; no sound, just an acceptable quality picture flickering slightly every time the bar staff open and close the beer fridges. The conversation is about everything and nothing and the beers are travelling down the Gullet Highway with ease and efficiency. Efficiency is also the theme of the conversation in general. Just chat. A bit of sport, some work talk and a general inquiry as to the health and wellbeing of the missus or the kids. Maybe a smattering of politics sneaks its way in; but only because the topic of beer and tax has popped up after paying for the third round. But that’s a whole other post for another time.

As you do when drinking beer in pubs, after every third or fourth sip your gaze tends to scan the room, you check out the crowd, look for any new arrivals in case there’s someone you know and glance carefully sideways to make sure those boobies are still as good as you remember them from before. Then one of you happens to catch a glimpse of the TV on the wall and see that the current show is an interview with Kyle Sandilands*. Without a pause or an even cursory glance to you mate, you finish your sip, put your glass down and utter two words – “Shit Bloke”. Enough said. You just get it.


*Kyle Sandilands is a knob.



*for those who still don’t know, Kyle Sandilands (along with his on air radio partner Jackie O) is famous for being well known. Having contributed less than nothing to the overall quality of Australian radio or television for the past few years, he can today be found hosting Big Brother, playing the role of the cockhead judge on Australian Idol, using his role as a radio host to promote the alleged ‘talent ‘ of his girlfriend and pulling the wings off flies. Actually, that’s not entirely true – his girlfriend has no talent.

Viewers unfamiliar with this tools’ work can make this story more personal and understandable by inserting the name of any ‘celebrity’ twat whose self promotion is exceeded only by his ability to constantly deny that he is, in fact, the biggest knob-jockey to ever exhale breath that would be more deservedly used by either a parking inspector, civil liberties spokesperson, a Mc FatKidFactory franchisee or even a vegan.

My Beery thanks to Chris and The Bear for playing the lead roles in this beer story.

They're At It Again

This one comes from the letters to the Editor in the Melbourne Herald Sun a while back.
Under the sub-heading, “Nip Booze Culture in the Bud” – no Budweiser reference intended, I’m sure, although, if we could nip one modern day curse, it could well be ‘The King of Beers (Rear)’ – was this gem of beer bashing brainlessness;

“It’s not only the Government and MPs concerned about excessive alcohol consumption – so are thousands of families afflicted by this dreaded disease.” No argument so far, fair point. We all want to stop bingeing and the related social fall-out.

“Alcohol is now less expensive than bottled water.” Your point being? Careful, now.

“It’s time to tax it to the hilt, as is done with tobacco, label containers with health warnings and reduce advertising.” Now you’re just being a dickhead.

“Alcohol consumption can be lessened if we make the effort.” Perhaps if your brain had made more of an effort, you wouldn’t be copping this spray.

Does it ever occur to these ‘blame-gamers’ that maybe the price of bottled water is too high!?! Or that dickheaded beer disrespecting tools don’t look at the price of bottled water and say.”Hmm, bit rich, might just go a slab of VB instead.” Based on this logic, I could argue that cats’ piss is less expensive than beer so I am forced or encouraged to drink that! By the way, in this example I mean REAL cat piss, not Corona.

Yes, let’s tax beer and such ‘to the hilt’ so that ordinary, law abiding and self respecting enjoyers of nice things can be punished for the sins of the weak willed minority and the beer fuelled buffoonery of the mindless few. And maybe, in retaliation, we could force a tax on moccasins and mullets and going out in public without footwear so that those who disrespect basic social conventions can feel as pissed off as we beer drinkers feel when we are unfairly targeted.

I will also, at this point, make note that this particular letter to the editor did not specifically single out beer as the blighted alcohol curse, but so many others in the recent past have singled out beer that I felt the average person would reasonably expect that this was implied. So there.

Cheers,
Prof. Pilsner

The Beer the Media and the Bullshit – Part Two

WHY DON’T WE JUST BAN EVERYTHING?

Another piece of national news caught my eye, and my ire, during recently. It is a very sad story and I mean absolutely no disrespect to those involved nor do I mean, in any way, to make light of any persons situation but it seems indicative of the general ills that pervade our modern society and it is also, sadly, beer related.

The incident involves two women 20 and 23 years old who were sharing the dance floor in a club in Wollongong when they bumped into each other. I will use the magic word ‘allegedly’ at this point – feel free to insert it as required for the remainder of this paragraph. They began to argue; as you do, words were exchanged; as they are and then one of them smashed the other in the face with a glass. Now, this is not an original sin. Sadly, dickheads and dickheadettes have been reacting unthinkingly and showing poor judgement since God’s dog was a pup and they will probably continue to do so in the future.

What got me going was the headline and the gist of the article.

‘PLASTIC PLEA AFTER ATTACK’.

“A woman ‘glassed’ to the face and now blind in one eye has demanded
that pubs and clubs be forced to use toughened plastic cups.” “I want them
to take all glass out of pubs .. so that this doesn’t happen to anyone else.”
” I have lost my sight for the rest of my life over what? Just from going out
one night for a couple of drinks with friends.”

As sad and needless as this incident is, it really beggars belief that a newspaper would report such illogical and unnecessary proposals, delivered as they are, by someone who is clearly the victim of a traumatic and upsetting event. I have to assume that it is too soon and too close for her to think clearly. Again I apportion no blame, nor do I pretend to know what either party is going through, but I can’t see the point in playing the Ban Game either. Let’s ban billiard balls – she could have been sconed with one of them if the glasses had been plastic. Let’s ban selling anything in a bottle or a stubby, and then let’s get rid of bar stools – people have been beaned by furniture in pubs for eons. And don’t forget to remove all the ashtrays, mobile phones and car keys that could take an eye out.

And you can even take out an eye with a fist – or your finger – so let’s have them amputated and left at the door.

Or just get rid of dickheads instead.

And here is a tip for anyone who is out there enjoying a quiet ale or a few noisy lagers in a pub or club. Savour the taste of the beer in your glass and think about how sad it would be if we had to drink from plastic cups. It’s bad enough that we have to do this to an innocent beer at sporting events – and you rarely have major danger there, but to ban glass in bars is like banning cars from the road. It is not the nature of a car, or a glass, to harm anyone. It is not in the nature of a gun to kill or maim the innocent. It is however the person with the car or the gun or the glass who can control their actions.

And for those of us watching on with a cold beer in a clean glass; let’s hope that the next time someone starts to warm up a stink, the others in the vicinity might just walk away and let them rant, let them swear and carry on like a two bob watch and find somewhere else to stand. By the bar or next to a bouncer might work. Although I don’t think bouncers serve cold beer.

The article appeared in the Melbourne Herald Sun on Friday November 9, 2007 on page 23.

Stay safe out there and do what we all can to discourage ‘dickheadedness’ in our pubs, bars and clubs.

Cheers,
Prof. Pilsner

P.S. Are drunk chicks even really funny at all? Well, I guess they can be.

Cricket and NO Beer

No sooner has the virtual ink dried on my Cricket & Beer post than virtual blood has been spilled all over the pitch separating the Australian and Indian teams mid way through their current tour.

Be warned. I am about to send down a couple of overs of short pitched, express paced and helmet-logo directed deliveries in a Beer Bloke attempt to dispel some misconceptions, correct some untruths and defend the honour of the game and it’s guardians. There will be no sooking to the third umpire. Pad up and don’t say I didn’t warn you.

First, the case details. The Indian cricket team has threatened to suspend its tour of Australia and renege on its responsibilities to the fans of the game by refusing to play scheduled games. They are doing this because one of their players has been found guilty of racial abuse of an opponent and suspended for three matches by an independent third party. In a SEPARATE issue, the quality of the umpiring during the second test match in Sydney was poor. It was probably worse than poor, but, like the players, the umpires are subject to being human and therefore subject to making mistakes.

The racist comment made by the Indian player and heard by three Australian players, was reported to the match referee by Australian captain, Ricky Ponting. He reported the incident after both teams captains were instructed before the match to report any instances of racist sledging. The taunt used was the same one used by Indian crowds during the October 07 one day series against Andrew Symonds, the same player subjected to the abuse on this occasion. The taunt used was ‘Monkey’. Australia won the test match with 7 balls or 8 minutes of play remaining to secure a record equalling 16th consecutive victory. Despite what you may learn from reading the articles written by the Indian press, these facts are not disputable.

Next, I will give you an accurate overview of the responses given by Indian cricket officials, Indian community representatives and Indian and Australian cricket fans. I will attempt to ‘hit each and every one of them for six’ as is what rubbish deserves.

I have played a bit of competitive cricket in my time and I am of the opinion that, if you are given out by the official, you go and if you have hit the ball and it is caught, you walk. I am also of the firm belief that this decision is mine and that if you believe differently then that is your right and I will back you. If an opposition player tells me that he has taken a fair catch, I accept his word. It is therefore NOT the place of the batsmen to decide what is or is not out or if a catch is fairly taken or not. So, to all the letter writers and hand-wringing whiners out there in newspaperland – this is NOT an issue at hand.

If an independent body hears all the available evidence and makes a decision – regardless of how harsh it seems – you either cop it sweet (like Darren Lehmann did when he swore IN THE CHANGEROOMS after being dismissed in a match and copped a five one-day game penalty) or you appeal the decision in the board’s legislated manner. You do not piss and moan and threaten to take your bat and ball and go home, nor do you claim racism and persecution and blame the very authority which you rely on for your bread and butter. You do not demand that an official elected by the sports’ governing body be removed because YOU think he should be. That is not the way a professional outfit behaves.

The Indian who is the president of the BCCI – the sports’ Indian governing body – claimed that “the honour of the Indian team and, for that matter, every Indian was at stake” as a result of the ban on their player. Bullshit, mate. He may have copped an unfair penalty, but the process was as per the regulations and based on the available evidence. Would the ‘honour of the Indian team’ be at stake had any of the twenty players to lose their wicket managed to last eight balls more than they did? If each batsman had stopped to scratch his arse for just less than thirty seconds each the game would have ended in a draw and the Indians would not be able to use the result as a bargaining tool or a posturing weapon.

The president of the United Indian Associations said in the Melbourne Herald Sun that the Australian team was ‘largely responsible for (the) grave state of affairs in Indian-Australian sporting relations’ because the umpires made a ‘dreadful umpiring decision that allowed Andrew Symonds to continue playing after he was clearly caught behind’. How that works, I don’t know, but here’s something to think about, based on this twisted logic. Sachin Tendulkar made more than a few runs after he was given not out LBW when on 36. Most observers agree that the decision was as incorrect as Symonds’. Tendulkar went on to make 154 not out, so if, as a reader suggests he ‘deducted the extra runs Symonds made and believes India won’ when they passed the “real” total then he and his mates need to be reminded that Tendulkar’s extra 118 runs come off as well and then be reminded that Australia CHOSE to declare it’s innings closed based on the ACTUAL REAL SCORE THAT IS IN THE HISTORY BOOKS, dickhead.

I know I’m gettin’ fired up here, but stick with me; it will all make sense in a minute. The spurious claims by Indian captain Anil Kumble that only his side was playing within the spirit of the game is as delusional as it is incorrect. Both sides made errors of judgement in claiming dubious wickets, appealing for others and disputing the umpires’ decisions IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT and both sides would probably like to have some of these occasions to replay. Sledging has been a cornerstone of the Australian arsenal, but this is only an effective tool when the team is already well on top of the opposition, so it’s not as if you can call it cheating.

As it is also unfair to say that the term ‘monkey’ should not be deemed offensive by Andrew Symonds who is an Australian with an African background. The Indians who are claiming that they have a Hindu Monkey God and this makes this a compliment rather than a slur need to be informed that the term was used in the context of Africans being only a small step removed from our primate friends and recently descended from the trees. This is the context within which the slur was used and the user knew it based on the publicity the crowd chanting incidents drew back in October. So cross that argument off your list as well.

In addition, you cannot claim that you NEVER said it, then say that you tried to TAKE IT BACK and then claim that you were saying it to SOMEONE ELSE and keep your credibility. Cop it and move on. This issue has been made more complicated than it should be by the many and varied claims of racism that always seem to come up when successful Australian sporting teams are involved. And to all the turn coats and whingers, who have filled the letters pages with crap about being ashamed of the winning culture and the perceived arrogance of the Aussie team, piss off and find a sport that excites a little less passion and controversy in your poor little sensitivities. Lawn bowls are always looking for spectators.

Now, finally, for my take on the reason for the whole shemozzle and the solution to short circuiting future implosions and international incidents. Beer and plenty of it. A quiet couple before the match and a couple after stumps during the game could only serve to foster relations between the teams. You can’t tell me that over the five days of a test match you can’t find an hour or two to clink glasses and talk a bit of bullshit. A few well chosen words over the top of a frosty glass of beer are the difference between a giggle over some dodgy umpiring calls and a full scale Indian –Australian cultural war.

The boys would all get together and talk a bit of trash about their opponents hair do or turban style and the way a bloke wears zinc cream on his mush and there would be room only for beer and cricket banter. Wankers need not apply.

And before I finish up I just want to point out that, before the introduction of the neutral umpire system, the last Indian to be out LBW on Indian soil was Mahatma Ghandi in a back yard game – and he walked. So don’t complain of ‘home town’ umpiring decisions. Play the game and accept the decisions made in the true spirit of the game. We want our kids to continue the traditions created by Bannerman and Grace and cemented by Bradman and Benaud and Worrell and left, today, in the hands of Ponting, Flintoff and Fleming. It’s the least that the game deserves.

Cheers and I hope that all your hooks are sixes,
Prof. Pilsner

Postscript; at the time of posting, the Indian team management has agreed to continue the tour ‘for the present’ but has not discounted the possibility of abandoning the trip should the ICC not kowtow to their churlish and petulant demands.

The Media the Beer and the Bullshit –Part One

Hopping Mad

My interest was pricked by the promo for A Current Affair to be aired in Melbourne that Wednesday night. The all-too-serious voice over boomed out a warning to potential viewers that the show would expose the most heinous of corporate crimes, a well organised and overtly dishonest campaign aimed at misleading and ripping off the consumer. Bring it on, I says.

The bit that made me take notice was the self righteous condemnation of the evil doers responsible for this latest big business scam- the beer brewers – ripping off the poor old average aussie working-and-drinking average man. And how were they conning the drinker, you ask? Well, here’s the bit that really paled my ale.

I watched and waited to hear the apparently damning evidence against the breweries. ‘Hopping Mad’ was the headline – at least they are edu-ma-cated enough to research that hops are an ingredient of beer. This made their witty pun all the more attention grabbing. You see, it appears, according to A Current Affair, that those nasty money grubbing liars down at Foster’s and Lion Nathan – that’s Carlton and Toohey’s – are tricking the drinker into paying top dollar for IMPORTED BEERS that are really made HERE IN AUSTRALIA! (Cue dramatic music) DAH – DAH – DAH – DAHH!!!

Now I don’t think that I am an especially smart sort of bloke, and I don’t have any inside brewing information that the average bloke doesn’t have access to, but I knew that many ‘international‘ beers have been brewed under licence in many countries for about ten years. I just assumed that everyone else knew it, too. The report featured sound grabs from ’average’ drinkin’ blokes standing around the barbie and in the pub. I tell you, average is a generous label. These plonkers were dumber than a bag full of hammers. A Current Affair must have had a shed full of leftovers from the last dole bludger expose.

For a start, I can’t imagine any of these mental microbes being able to spell UK, let alone know of, or drink beer from there. They looked like VB and XXXX kind of guys. And I reckon that they might have struggled to spell those, too. But let’s give them a break and pretend that they have actually ever bought a Stella Artois or a Beck’s or a Guinness, a Kingfisher or a Carlsberg.

The first complaint against Big Brewer was that he was pretending that these beers were imported. But were they really being deceptive? The bit on the label that says Made Under Licence; right next to the bit that says MADE IN AUSTRALIA. Wasn’t that just a bit of a give away? "There it is in the FINE print", said the earnest reporter, as if there should be a law that states the country of origin must be in bold font at least twice the size of the brand name. "They’re trying to fool us", said Braniac #3. That wouldn’t be a three point play. On and on these whingers went, lamenting the fact that we are led to believe that "they’re from Europe", plodded Dufus #2. "They taste watery, like they’ve been topped up." What!?

Complaining about the brewers 'charging full import prices for stuff made with Sydney water’ these people need to ‘do a Kylie’ and take a step back in time. The primary reason that international beers like those listed above are being advertised, marketed and sold to Australian drinkers is that the licence brewing has made them cheaper!* Fair dinkum, how about complaining about the fact that you have to fork out the best part of forty bucks for a slab of VB! It’s VB, people! Or close to sixty dollars for Corona! CORONA! It’s Mexican for snake’s water! Wake up.

‘Ads say that these beers are from Europe etc, etc ‘, the reporter continued. No, they don’t. They say that they are European beers. Do we really believe that Lebanese cucumbers can only come from Lebanon? Does Chinese five spice become Wyong five spice if it is made by Masterfoods in NSW? Brewers have developed the technology to produce beer to almost the same taste using local water and highly developed yeast strains so that a Beck’s brewed in Pyrmont, NSW is a pretty good copy of the Beck’s brewed in Bremen, Germany. I stress that this is not always the case, but how many drinkers could honestly say they can taste the difference anyway?

Will ACA now run a similar story telling the Brits that Foster’s Lager has been brewed in Great Britain since around 1980 – no, they won’t, because CUB at the time spent a kabillion dollars and twenty cents on equipment to filter and adjust the water so that Foster’s tastes just like the one at home and took a yeast sample handcuffed to the executives wrist on the plane over there so that the strain would be pure and genuine. And because the poms know that the stuff is brewed over there, too. And they don’t care because it is cheaper than it was when it was shipped from Aus.

And let’s see if next week ACA can expose the fact that the Australian drinker forks over a ton of tax for every slab that he carries home – and we’re still better off than many European countries in this regard. In the mean time run some stories about all the blokes and blokettes who drink beer and DON’T drive home and DON’T beat their kids or who CAN find and keep a job and stop creating stories – in particular, anti beer stories – for the benefit of the four people who can’t exercise basic compulsion control or who don’t know how to read a beer label or who can’t remember how much imported beer used to cost? Hmmm?

*I am researching the price movements of local and imported beers over the past decade – vey slack of me to go in with all guns blazing and not be fully armed – but what the hey?