The cool kids can go fu ... well, you know what I mean.

The pirate looks at sixty, and the evidence is incontrovertible. Each time in my life, when for some arcane reason it seemed a good idea to try becoming a cool kid -- part of the "in" crowd, belonging to a certain trendy group, inhabiting a clique, seeking to enlist in the power elite or aspiring to a socially ascendant organization -- it always has turned out badly.

Always; without exception.

It's better to remain contrarian, an iconoclast, infidel and outsider, because staying true to yourself at least allows your dignity to remain intact. Independence is neither cool nor uncool. It is merely principled. It just is.

Not only that, but you can't become a cool kid by your own rule book, anyway. The beautiful people, those fashionable arbiters of style, have rules of their own, and if you have to ask what these are, you'll never know.

Furthermore, I'm allergic to arrogance, and the thought of abiding the inevitable group-think is enough to avoid these entangling alliances.

The so-called cool kids generally select a leader; there's a head cheese or a big dog at the apex of their pyramid, and this grand poobah usually turns out to be my intellectual inferior; often, he or she quite simply is a dreadful dullard and the ensuing idolatry makes no sense.

Accordingly the exalted boss's followers acquiesce at being sheeple, no less arrogant or exuding their in-crowd privileges, but otherwise devoid of understanding and unaware of any meaningful narrative apart from yearning to belong to something irrespective of the cost to their identities.

You can count me out.

Again and again, perhaps twice on Sunday, remorseless experience has taught me that the "cool kids" aren't cool at all. They'll always make you drink the Kool-Aid first, before there's any chance of acceptance, and then stripped of autonomy, you become one of the braying jackals.

Don't misunderstand, because remaining independent does not imply aloofness. Cooperation still serves the common good, so long as the conditions are clear. I stand ready to be of assistance -- just don't expect me to sell out.

Because you can't afford me, dipshits.

THE BEER BEAT: This just might be the Pour Fool's greatest rant: "Open Letter to The Bud Sell-Outs: Cowboy Up, Whiners."

"There is one old saw that the 'owners' of these former craft breweries should take to heart and if any of you have never heard it, allow me ... 'You Made Your Bed, Now Lie In It.' "

Ladies and gentleman, give it up for Steve Foolbody (The Pour Fool).

It's the best summary yet offered, as truthfully attesting to the phenomenon of Trojan Zombie Afterlife Breweries and their former owners. Here's a relevant non-brewing history lesson.

Vidkun Quisling, in full Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonsson Quisling, (born July 18, 1887, Fyresdal, Norway—died October 24, 1945, Akershus Fortress, Oslo), Norwegian army officer whose collaboration with the Germans in their occupation of Norway during World War II established his name as a synonym for “traitor.”

It's too bad the word Quisling has gone out of fashion, isn't it?

Open Letter to The Bud Sell-Outs: Cowboy Up, Whiners

 ... To be precise about this, there is no more "Ely**an Brewing" in Seattle. That brewery is now, accurately, Anheuser Busch Seattle. It's the same with all those others who sold out. Breckenridge Brewing is now Anheuser Busch Colorado. Devil's Backbone is now Anheuser Busch, East Bicycle, Virginia. Karbach: AB Texas. Four Peaks? AB Arizona. Golden Road Brewing is now ABLA. 10 Barrel is now Anheuser Busch of Bend, OR. Blue Point Brewing is now ABNY. Wicked Weed is now Anheuser Busch North Carolina, RateBeer.com is now ABRateBeer.com...

...and the first craft brewery to sell out to AB, Goose Island Brewing of Chicago, is now, literally and practically, Anheuser Busch Brewing Company of Chicago, Illinois.

This is not hyperbole or any attempt to insult all these breweries and their present staffs or anyone except their former owners...I'll get around to them in a few minutes. What this is IS an attempt to introduce some honesty into this ongoing discussion. These companies may have retained the original owners as figureheads - hood ornaments, as I have come to think of them - but they are, in fact and legally, owned by Anheuser Busch and its parent company, AB/InBev, based in Leuven. Belgium and in Brazil. They may have the same signage and you probably will never see any banners around that say, "A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of AB/InBev", but that's just because AB knows now and has known for at least the past 25 years that MOST of us who have been involved in the Craft Beer Boom see them as the minions of Satan, if not actually Satan himself. Their 120 years history of corporate thuggery and ruthless suppression of the entire American beer industry was what drove me to hate them but then they also set themselves up as a blatant and committed adversary to the entire Indie/Craft culture, speaking and acting as if our decision to drink something else was either just youthful folly or an organized attempt to usurp what they see as their Divine Right to dominate All Things Beer in America. They endlessly ridicule small, independent American brewers as "amateurs" and the beers as "bitter and stale", ridiculing the idea that creative brewing is a worthy idea, with smarmy, self-congratulatory ads like their notorious Super Bowl TV spot, in which they singled out - as the sign of effete craft pretension - a "Peach Pumpkin Ale"...which a brewery they had acquired about sixty days earlier, the aforementioned "Ely**an", has just produced a month before. These are the people who declared open war on craft brewing, while saying, out of the other side of their mouths, they see themselves as "a friend to brewers everywhere".

Many of the owners of those craft breweries who bent over and greased up for AB had, themselves, made loud and brash statements about the evils of AB.

SNIP

All of these people are different personalities and make different beers. But one thing about them has become suspiciously and almost eerily identical: suddenly, as though by magic, selling a brewery to the avowed enemy of the culture that built their own businesses...was okay. Just like that; many of them literally the same day that they signed the papers. It may be a little Alex "Douchebag" Jones-y of me to suggest it but it's...it's almost like Anheuser Busch's marketing department produced a list of talking points for their newly discredited hood ornaments to use in speaking about their Whore-Out Moment and told them to just keep on repeating that and For God's Sake, STAY ON MESSAGE!

"This will help us grow and make Better Beer!"

"This will make it easier for you to get our products!"

"This will mean that our brewers can be even more creative!"

"This doesn't mean, anything, really!"

"We expect a great partnership* with AB/InBev and they're just here to advise us and make us more efficient!"

And my own favorite...

"Nothing has changed!"

I have personally watched people parrot that last nugget twice, in person, and saw actual spittle flying from their mouths. That's the Hail Mary of these empty phrases; the fall-back exclamation when it appears that your bullshit is not selling. "Nothing has changed! Really. We're just the same company you've known and trusted (translation: "handed over your money to"), all this time!"

Bullshit.

ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: The Bridges Authority has no clothes.

ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: The Bridges Authority has no clothes.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

I seldom indulge in wholesale reprints, but will do so today in the wake of Monday's triumphal announcement by the Bridges Authority of its preference for tolling rates. This column originally was published in the newspaper on November 18, 2010. Almost 16 months later, there is neither evidence of an economic impact study on Hoosier small business, nor any indication that the idea ever has been broached within the star chambers.  

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

“The future is never more important than to a people on the verge of a cataclysm.”
-- Nathaniel Philbrick

I’m the co-owner of an independent Hoosier small business. Teaching, selling and living better beer are my workday preferences, and admittedly other “minor” details occasionally elude me. However, after two decades in the food and beer business, pristine clarity periodically emerges from the gloaming.

Based on samplings of my experience, permit me to submit the following propositions.

1. We’ve always tended to our Southern Indiana backyards, but as an independent, niche-oriented small business, we’ve found that an aggressive focus on marketing to potential customers in Louisville is necessary for survival and growth.

2. Basic metropolitan area demographics justify this approach. Better beer costs more, but it resonates with a specific (and happily, ever expanding) demographic. Large numbers of our target demographic – higher incomes, better education, more extensive travel and life experience – live in more populous Louisville.

3. Marketing to a Louisville demographic never is easy, owing primarily to ancestral assumptions and clannish prejudices of the sort common along borders. Although those not engaged in bricks and mortar retailing might dismiss such intangibles as apocryphal, they’re far from imaginary to those who actually occupy the independent small business trenches.

4. I’ve accumulated sufficient knowledge about NABC’s consumer base to know that an important segment of it comes from Louisville. I am vindicated by knowing that a plan patiently pursued over a long period of years has proven worthy. Looking around, I can see that we’re not alone, and similar strategies are working for other independent Hoosier small businesses nearby.

5. Tolls on existing Ohio River bridges absolutely would alter this playing field to the detriment of independent Hoosier small businesses. Whether a quarter or $3 each way, the sum would constitute an increase on the price of Hoosier goods and services for Louisville consumers. Hoosiers crossing the Ohio to work would have no choice except to pay tolls (and have less money to spend at home), while Louisvillians would have the option to remain at home and spend discretionary monies in Kentucky.

6. Tolling burdens absolutely are tantamount to the erection of a physical barrier to interstate commerce. Furthermore, it is quite likely that even now, the mere mention of tolling is having a measurable influence on the decision making process of Louisville consumers. Clearly, I can see how tolling will damage my independent Hoosier small business, and I can plausibly infer that it will hurt my brethren just as badly.

Why, then, are Hoosiers acting against the interests of Hoosiers?

---

Numerous Southern Indiana businesses just like mine have done exactly what the reigning experts at organizations like One Southern Indiana endlessly preach at their costly seminars: To gather information, know the customer, plan strategies, and over time, nurture these strategies in pursuit of success.

We’ve all done so, and we’ve all learned from these many years of experience, but suddenly, overnight, what we’ve learned apparently no longer matters. It’s a commandment-level article of 1Si faith that business owners know what’s best for them – except now, when those of among us daring to demand evidence are ignored, muzzled, and dismissed as vitriolic cranks with hidden agendas and Communist leanings.

Most ironic of all: Ever since objections have arisen and evidence has been presented as to why tolls will negatively impact independent Hoosier small businesses, certain tolling advocates with no evidence … who have not spent two decades marketing their businesses as destinations Louisville customers … who are not engaged in bricks and mortar retail … who’ve never, ever been engaged in any semblance of independent small business … haughtily roll their eyes, gazing loftily at the clouds whenever it is suggested that maybe, just maybe, independent Hoosier small business owners actually know perfectly well that tolls on existing bridges will be catastrophic for them, destroying decades of outreach to Kentucky in one, huge $4 billion swoop.

Here’s the rub: You can believe the lessons of my business experience, or you can delete them, but throughout it all, amid high-handed imperiousness and ham-fisted diversionary tactics, not once has the Bridges Authority actually offered answers to these questions, as asked by independent Hoosier small business owners.

No economic impact study has been cited. No outside information has been referenced. Pins drop, crickets chirp, and the Bridges Authority can only mumble mantras about inevitability, accuse sincere questioners of spreading myths, and when rattled, hide behind St. Daniels’ billowing robes.

And so it is my contention, borne of experience, that the imposition of tolls by an unelected body with nary an independent small business owner seated on it will have the undeniably harmful effect of indirectly taxing independent Hoosier small businesses, burdening their Louisville and Greater Kentucky customers price hikes, denying needed sales tax revenue to Indiana, and isolating a sizeable market that we’ve finally come so close to capturing in recent years.

Because the Bridges Authority refuses to answer legitimate questions, we must conclude that as an entity, quasi-evangelical construction zeal is trumping every other human concern, and that independent Hoosier small businesses soon will be expected to meekly surrender, patronizingly receive pat on their heads, ceremoniously bow to their betters, and take the full brunt of the financial hit -- for the greater “good” offered us by 1Si’s gospel of economic elitism and St. Daniels’ future D.C. job prospects.

There’s neither myth nor negativity in any of this, because after all, I have my evidence.

Where on earth is theirs?

Clere has a toll to pay whether they build bridges or not.

When the New Albanian asked State Representative Ed Clere to explain his position on tolling Ohio River Bridges via Facebook in August of last year, the question was infamously deleted with Clere telling constituents that Roger was unfairly targeting him by politicizing the issue, even though he'd asked it of every candidate for state office regardless of party affiliation or drinking habits. It was a straightforward question of genuine concern to many voters and Clere refused to answer it for weeks.

Later, in October of 2010 just before the general election, the News and Tribune posed it to Clere this way:

DO YOU SUPPORT TOLLS AS A MEANS TO PAY FOR TWO NEW BRIDGES ACROSS THE OHIO RIVER?

His answer:

Special interests are trying to use tolls as a scare tactic to kill the bridges project altogether. Politicians have failed for decades to build the bridges, and I won’t use the issue of tolls to score cheap political points. There’s too much at stake, including tens of thousands of jobs. This isn’t a question of being for or against tolls. It’s a question of being for or against jobs, and I’m for jobs. I don’t want to pay tolls. I also don’t want to leave the bridges project as a problem for my children to solve. It’s our responsibility to find a way to move forward. I’m eager to see the financing plan the bi-state Bridges Authority will propose later this year. If the plan involves tolls, I will have the same questions and concerns as anyone else who lives here and uses the bridges. I won’t, however, take a position against something that hasn’t been proposed in a cynical attempt to win an election.

At the time, NAC pointed to Clere's evasiveness on the matter.

Little did we know.

As local citizens await the outcome of SB 473 in the current legislative session, a bill that would allow the governor to approve tolling deals including the Ohio River Bridges Project with oversight only from a small committee, the News and Tribune's Braden Lammers surfaces a gem: that outcome might not really matter.

It seems the governor had already been granted the same tolling authority by legislation passed in 2010 via SEA 382. The language of SEA 382 was decidedly similar to SB 473 and granted the governor tolling authority without the usually required vote in the legislature.

When the bill was passed in the House after being amended by State Representative Steve Stemler to specifically include tolling on the Ohio River Bridges, Ed Clere voted for it (roll call pdf). In February of 2010.

Months before Roger or the News and Tribune asked for Clere's position on tolls, he'd already volunteered to give up his ability to vote on them. When he said "If the plan involves tolls, I will have the same questions and concerns as anyone else who lives here", he knew full well that he would have no capacity to directly impact the decision; his district would not be counted. The trouble is that a majority of the public didn't know that and Ed, having had months to do so and being directly questioned again, purposefully avoided telling them, instead letting voters continue to believe that he would look out for them in reference to tolls with his "questions and concerns".

I'm not sure how one goes about defining a "cynical attempt to win an election" by scoring "cheap political points" that doesn't include such egregious obfuscation, but I bet Clere will try. His descent continues to dumbfound.