So, if you haven’t heard, Obama’s drinking Bud Light at tonight’s “Beer Summit,” which brings together Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge Sergeant James Crowley in an attempt to seize a “teachable moment” on race relations.

Unfortunately, if this moment is teaching us anything about race in America, it’s that we don’t know how to talk about it and don’t really want to talk about it (Stephen Colbert made this point with his usual brilliant satire). Oh, and that the right-wing reactionaries in America still love to exploit all that unease (Joan Walsh has the best take on Glenn Beck and company).

The real “teachable moment” here is the opportunity to show what a screwed-up relationship Americans — especially American men — have with beer. And how easy it is to fix that relationship — by staying local and trusting craftsmanship over marketing.  I’ve said this before.

And Obama is just the one to do it. He has already showed his preference for microbrews — at parties and at the White House. And he clearly has a sophisticated palate — considering his favorite restaurants, chefs and foodie friends as well as the people he has chosen to take the lead on food policy (especially USDA Under Secretary Kathleen Merrigan).

And he chooses Bud Light? Pandering would be an understatement. Some image maker appears to be telling him he needs to up his NASCAR-Dad credentials. How sad. I really didn’t plan to have to say that about Obama — at least so soon.

For your information, Bud Light receives a D- from Beeradvocate.com and is in the “0″ percentile (that would be out of a 100) on the ratebeer.com scale. Of course, Red Stripe (Gates’ choice) doesn’t fare much better.  Blue Moon gets mediocre ratings (putting aside that it’s a MillerCoors product) — but oh, there are so many better American craft-brewed Belgian white ales out there!

Oops, I lapsed into beer snobbery there. But it’s really not about drinking hoity-toity beer. It’s about honoring authenticity and complexity over a manufactured narrative that can be overwhelming, especially for those of us who have had to sit through the endless line of juvenile beer ads while watching a sporting event on TV.

That narrative, centered around young, goofy men ogling young, goofy women while a “drinkable” beverage loosens them all up, divorces the experience of drinking beer from its production (which is an art form when done right) and the communal enjoyment of its taste (which a site like ratebeer.com or a booth a your local gastropub — we love you, Hopleaf! — revels in).

And it’s not as if Obama didn’t know there were plenty of beers out there that could have allowed him to step outside that narrative without losing credability. Jack Nicas of the Boston Globe reports on how Boston brewers made their case to be the beer of choice at the meeting — emphasizing how all three participants had Boston connections. Matt Simpson, a “beer sommelier” who writes the “Ask Beer” column for Beer Magazine (which, to digress and paraphrase that ol’ saying, tries have to have its traditional beer narrative and drink its craft beers too), made the rounds with his own recommendations in interviews with NPR and ABC.

That ABC News article also interviews Anthony Bowker from Goose Island, who makes the case for a beer from his (and Obama’s) local Chicago brewery — possibly, he notes, 312 Urban Wheat Ale (a summer fave of mine as well).

Personally, I’d take the Chicago angle as well, but I’d recommend that Obama show his support for an up-and-coming small business … who happens to make the best damn lagers on the planet. That would Metropolitan Brewing, which is quickly making a name for itself on the north side of Chicago. Their Flying Wheel Bright Lager is a perfect choice for a summer day.

A very “teachable beer,” one might say.

I’ve already confessed my preference for local, craft-brewed beer.

And if I haven’t done so already, I must give a shout-out to Drinking Liberally (feel free to join us the second and fourth Tuesday of every month)  — which combines two of my great loves: beer and politics.

Little did I know that my innocent predilections, however, have actually been preparing me to assume the presidency — or at least to hang out with the leader of the free world.

In a short but well-hopped cultural analysis, Rex W. Huppke of the Chicago Tribune dissects why presidents and candidates must show their affection for America’s beverage of choice:

“Beer has become kind of the cultural leveler in our society,” noted Ken Janda, professor emeritus of political science at Northwestern University. “It can go across all classes of society – it’s a symbol of equality. You’d never say, ‘He’s a nice guy to have a glass of wine with.’”

[...]

Let’s not forget the previous presidential campaign in which about 60 percent of undecided voters conceded they’d rather have a beer with George W. Bush than with John Kerry. (The irony there, of course, was that Bush doesn’t drink and Kerry, if he had a couple beers, might have actually become interesting.)

Huppke also notes how President Barack Obama has indicated more than once that he is an avid beer drinker.  To make my progressive dream come full circle, however, Obama would have a soft spot for local microbrews.

And, it appears, he does — as the Secret Service had to stop him recently from bringing in some InaugurAle from one of his (and our) favorite Chicago brewpubs, Piece.

Ready for this one? The American Life League, a Catholic anti-abortion organization, is protesting Krispy Kreme for offering Americans their “choice” of a free doughnut on Inauguration Day.

Here’s the innocuous press release from Krispy Kreme that caused the uproar:

“Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American’s sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies — just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet ‘free’ can be.”

And The American Life League’s response:

“The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that ‘choice’ is synonymous with abortion access, and celebration of ‘freedom of choice’ is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand. [...]

We challenge Krispy Kreme doughnuts to reaffirm their commitment to true freedom - to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — and to separate themselves and their doughnuts from our great American shame.”

Read the full response at Miami New Times. I’ll be in D.C., looking for powdered strawberry!

*cross-posted at Our Bodies, Our Blog

I’m the last person to celebrate the life of a celebrity — but I will make at least one exception: Paul Newman.

My fervent hope is that future generations of superstars take his cue — on two fronts.

First, he shunned the entire Hollywood machine, even while he was living off it.  He created an entirely new definition of “staying humble.”

Second, he never felt he should hide his politics for the sake of his art.

Thanks, Paul.

It’s about time I found a good excuse to post on beer. It’s a beverage which — particularly in the form of the great American microbrew — holds a special place in my heart and, needless to say, American culture.

Unlike water or wine, beer walks the delicate line between common appeal and refinement. It is at home in a corner bar or in the bleachers but even in its blandest form and contrary to its reputation in fraternities, it rewards sipping and — as any grimacing adolescent will tell you — is an acquired taste.

And when you graduate to the products of small, craft breweries, it can, like nothing else, simultaneously satisfy the desire for simple, locally-produced nourishment and complex flavor.

Unlike wine, however, a beer’s particular reputation or the social expectations surrounding its consumption never overwhelm the moment. Sites of beer connoisseurship like RateBeer.com always end up being — except for a few snobby souls — more excuses for social connection and ways to be in touch with local communities than places of exclusion and privilege.

Through that idealistic lens I read Edward McClelland’s analysis of the rise and fall of Budweiser. McClelland uses the occasion of Bud’s sale to the big Belgian brewer InBev to offer a fascinating (if short and somewhat predictable) analysis of how the “mad men” marketing culture was able to popularize some pretty bad beer:

(more…)

In “King Corn,” directors Aaron Woolf, Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney move to Iowa to plant and harvest one acre of corn, in an attempt to learn more about this ubiquitous crop’s role in the American food supply. It will air tonight on PBS on Independent Lens, 10 p.m. EST.

I saw the movie two weeks ago at a small screening in Boston. I had heard it was filmed in Greene, Iowa, 10 minutes from the town where I grew up. It’s a rare movie that features Iowa, and no movies ever are made in “my” county. Not even low-budget documentaries. So naturally I was thrilled about this and had e-mailed the trailer to everyone I knew from my life pre-college. Add to this that it was a movie about two guys who move from Boston to Iowa — cue audience laughter, ha! who would do such a thing! — and I was doubly interested, having done that precise trip the other way around.

Ian Cheney (left) and Curt Ellis sample their crop in Greene, Iowa
Photo by Sam Cullman

I invited my friend Lynn along (because she’s from Minnesota), and made my 14-year-old daughter go, too (because I think it’s important that children learn about corn). She brought her friend Dan, who went along under the mistaken impression that it was a science fiction movie.

“She” — and here he pointed an accusing finger at my daughter — “told me it was a movie about people who find out they’re made out of corn!” Which was technically accurate, that is what it was about — it’s just that it was true. It begins with two guys taking a hair test and realizing they’re mostly corn products.

(more…)

A vegan Gentleman’s Club is something right out of The Onion — but you can’t make the comments of Casa Diablo owner Johnny Diablo up (unlike his name):

Mr. Diablo isn?t concerned with the “feminazis,” as he calls them. As a vegan himself, he says he hasn?t worn or eaten animal products in 24 years and is worried about cruelty to animals. “My sole purpose in this universe is to save every possible creature from pain and suffering,” he said.

And I know objectification of women and commodification of a movement are important issues — and I’ve spent a great deal of space here writing about them — but I can’t help but laugh at some of these well-intentioned lines and quotes from New York Times writer Kara Jesella:

Casa Diablo is just the latest example of selling veganism with a “Girls Gone Wild” aesthetic [...]

Isa Chandra Moskowitz, a cookbook author, is among those who believe such images twist the vegan message. “As a feminist, I?m not keen on the idea of using women’s bodies to sell veganism, and I’m not into the idea of using veganism to sell women’s bodies,” she said.[...]

The issue of sexism in vegan circles is “extremely polarizing,” said Bob Torres, an author of “Vegan Freak” [...]

Vegans who use sexuality to promote the cause say it is a good way to convert carnivores — in particular, men [...]

The article actually does a very good job at getting across the diversity of the vegan community — and the difficulties of tying together progressive agendas and of resisting easy compromises to advance a cause.

But, you gotta admit, it’s a pretty silly way to spark the conversation.

Blogging for The New York Times, Jennifer Michael Hecht discusses New Year’s resolutions and the history of self-denial in the name of self-improvement.

Go discover the history of Graham crackers. And don’t forget to toast the New Year, preferably with red wine.

“You are what you eat” has long been the mantra of parents and health professionals who are trying to reach, in the most simplistic terms, a reluctant audience, be they teenagers or their out-of-shape elders. In an increasingly interconnected world, though, the message is incomplete.

A community, a nation, a world is also what it consumes.

And maybe that broader message — which takes the question of eating out of the realm of personal decision-making and moves it into a larger political and environmental context — will resonate where the old mantra has failed.

At least that’s the hope of author Michael Pollan, who now holds the yet-to-be-codified position of what I can only call something like “food contextualizer” at the New York Times. A contributor in the past to The New York Times Magazine, Pollan now writes a blog/column for the online edition of the Times (although it’s part of the TimesSelect subscription-only service). In one of his inaugural columns about long-standing biases against food journalism, he lays out the territory (quite literally):

?When we try to pick out anything by itself,? John Muir once wrote, ?we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.? Some of these things are better hitched than others, and food is surely one of them. We don?t ordinarily think about it this way, but eating represents our most powerful engagement with the natural world ? it transforms the world by remaking the landscape more than any other human activity, and it transforms, and defines, us. Whenever a biologist wants to understand the role of a creature in the ecosystem, the first question he or she asks is, What does that creature eat, and what eats it? What, in other words, is its place in the food chain? Well, Homo sapiens is no exception. As William Ralph Inge, the English essayist, wrote early in the last century, ?all of nature is a conjugation of the verb to eat, in the active and passive.? Even the eating of a Twinkie represents transactions between species, though in the case of the Twinkie I?d be hard pressed to name all the species involved. (Have you read a Twinkie ingredient list lately? It?s long and full of surprises, one of which is beef.)

I teach a course at Berkeley?s graduate journalism school called ?Following the Food Chain,? and what my students quickly discover as they go down that trail is that it takes them to a great many unexpected places. Food connects us to nature, first and foremost, but it also attaches us to all the other large systems that organize our lives ? from energy and economics to politics, public health and cultural identity.

Pollan does a remarkably good job of humbly inviting us to contemplate the impact of our food choices. He has many well-reasoned positions, but he also shows a refreshing openness to debate and criticism.

The one criticism I have of Pollan is his tendency to underestimate the power and persistence of the forces he is up against on a political but especially a cultural level.

Politically, for example, in his constant insistence on the important of eating locally (even over eating organically), he is fond of making statements like this: “Local food has much lower energy costs, and as the era of cheap energy draws to a close, eating local will be more important than ever.” Is the era of cheap energy really drawing to a close? I wish — but I also know my history. I have seen how capitalism, coupled with the American obsession with convenience, always seems to find a way.

In terms of culture, Pollan understandably has little to say. He and most of other progressive food journalists out there (check out the latest Orion magazine, for example) are more concerned with raw economic processes. But this battle will be fought as much in our media as it is at the farmer’s market and on the dinner table.

Have you seen the latest Burger King “Manthem” commercials? They feature growing numbers of men abandoning their feminizing jobs and families, grabbing a Texas Double Whopper and finding their inner chauvinist. Sure, there is element of hyperbole here, but as with BK’s Whopperettes ad, if a satirical point is being made, it is lost in the men’s easy assumption of their supposedly new-found identity.

Combine this re-identification of men with meat with the proliferation of steakhouses and the manly culture they embody across the land. Aficionados of traditional meat-and-potatoes American cuisine are not taking all this talk about bovine growth hormones, childhood obesity, etc., lying down.

At least not until they’ve finished that really big steak.

** The Summer 2003 issue of Ms. features one of Julia Child’s last interviews. Read it here for Child’s views on politics, abortion rights and aging — and why she gave up McDonald’s french fries. **

Julia Child has died. The Smith grad who studied history and worked for the pre-CIA Office of Strategic Services before enrolling in the Cordon Bleu cooking school and forever changing Americans’ relationship with and appreciation for food, was 91.

Child was the first woman inducted into the Culinary Institute Hall of Fame. Already in her 50s when her first television show aired in 1963 (see her PBS programs here), her enthusiasm — as well as her pre-Martha Stewart acceptance of imperfections — added to her charm and accessibility.

“Dining with one’s friends and beloved family is certainly one of life’s primal and most innocent delights, one that is both soul-satisfying and eternal,” she said in the introduction to her seventh book, The Way to Cook. “In spite of food fads, fitness programs, and health concerns, we must never lose sight of a beautifully conceived meal.”

Upon learning of her death, I thought of Julie Powell, the secretary-turned-blogger who attracted scores of online readers (and a book deal), when she challenged herself to cook all 524 recipes from Julia Child’s 1961 Mastering the Art of French Cooking in one year. I found a story The New York Times did on the Julie/Julia Project on this exact date last August. Amanda Hesser writes:

Early on, Ms. Powell was characteristically blunt about why she focused her attention on Julia Child and not on Louisette Bertholle and Simone Beck, the other authors of “Mastering.”

“Julia Child taught America to cook, and to eat,” she wrote. Period.

“It’s hard for me to focus on the rest of them when Julia is writ so large in my mind,” she said later. “I have no visual image of them at all. It’s terrible. I actually feel kind of guilty about that.”

Ms. Child, on the other hand, Ms. Powell said, leapt off the pages as a generous teacher, looking over her shoulder. “I like to think of her sort of shepherding me through it,” she said.

[Bear with me while I also draw attention, for reasons obvious to regular readers of this blog, to this passage:

Ms. Powell paused when asked how many years she had been married. "Five years? What is it?" she asked her husband, who was peeling potatoes.

"Yes, very nice super-modern TV tray tables," she said, lighting up. "Otherwise you can't watch your `Buffy' and eat your kidneys!"]

Here are excerpts from the writings of the actual Julia Child. And don’t miss an online viewing of her kitchen, which was rebuilt as an exhibit at the National Museum of American History. I particularly liked this assessment of the kitchen’s cultural importance:

“This kitchen is where she’s cooked for herself, her friends and the American people,” Rayna Green, co-curator of the project, told the Washington Post in 2002. “It stands for her singular and absolutely considerable influence on the way Americans think about food and its history.

“We also think the kitchen is a rich context for changes in the lives and work of women in the 20th century,” says Green. “It’s like an onion: When you peel back the layers, it’s just an American kitchen for an American family in later 20th century, but it’s also the kitchen of a professional woman who like that basic American family kitchen has grown and changed, whose life evolved like that kitchen, from that of an ordinary cook to one of the most influential professionals in the country who grew and changed and brought everybody else along with her. And it’s a public kitchen, one most Americans think they’ve been in.”