• Clowning for PETA

Note to PETA:

If you want to make what you claim is a legitimate point against McDonald’s, don’t use a drug-addled nincompoop as one of your attention-getting frontmen.

Andy Dick, comic actor and frequent participant in drug binges and idiotic public behavior, dressed up as a parody of Ronald McDonald to be part of a PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) protest against the chain for the methods it uses to slaughter chickens.

Make up your own minds about the latest PETA vs. McDonald’s flap. And, if you want to see Dick’s sterling contribution to the dialogue, watch the video.

• They still exist???

A 136-year-old organization, gathered in Wichita, KS, this week for its annual convention, has found something current to complain about.

It’s the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the same all-female organization that helped push through Prohibition back in 1919.

Their complaint? President Barack Obama’s suds summit with the Harvard prof and the local cop involved in a recent dustup that immediately became a cause celebre for people who love to play the race card — from either side.

Bunny Galladora (honest), WCTU media director, said the meeting sent the wrong message because “alcohol and conflicts are not a good combination.”

• Who’s picking the great chefs of Hollywood?

Opinions may change after the release of the much-anticipated film “Julie & Julia” tomorrow, but for now moviegoers’ favorite film chef is a lot smaller than the late 6-foot-2 Julia Child and a lot less likely to be able to consume portions of wine as well as Julia did.

An online poll conducted by Blockbuster Inc. shows 45% of respondents selected Remy the kitchen rat voiced by Patton Oswalt in the animated “Ratatouille” their all-time favorite movie chef. Humans lined up behind him:

2. Kate Armstrong, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones in “No Reservations”
3. John Clansky, played by Adam Sandler in “Spanglish”
4. Babette, played by Stephane Audran in “Babette’s Feast”
5. Isabella Oliveira, played by Penelope Cruz in “Woman On Top”

The poll shows a more current bias than I’d have on my list which would have to include some great oldies:

1. Jacqueline Bissett as the gorgeous Natasha O’Brien in “Who’s Killing the Great Chefs of Europe?”
2. Tony Shalhoub as the temperamental Primo in “Big Night.”
3. Sihung Lung as harassed dad Master Chef Chu in “Eat Drink Man Woman”
4. Hector Elizondo as tastebud-impaired Martin Naranjo in “Tortilla Soup”
5. Steven Seagal as U.S. Navy cook Casey Ryback in “Under Siege”

• So speed ‘em up, Joe

I live in an Upstate New York city just across the Hudson River from the State Capital. Thus, I get to hear and read about a lot more stupid government inactions actions than many people in other parts of the state.

The most recent deals with the decision by the State Liquor Authority (SLA) to reject an application for a liquor license by some local businesspeople seeking to open a wine/martini bar.

The reason: It is within 200 feet of a church, which automatically negates its request.

The problem: It is not within 200 feet of a church.

It is located across the street from a Salvation Army facility that most of the week is a food pantry. It holds one religious service once a week. But then, so does an entertainment venue on the same block, and no one is calling it a church.

Also, at least five other establishments on the same block hold valid state liquor or beer/wine licenses, and have for years despite the presence of the Salvation Army.

It took six months for the SLA to come up with this rejection. The right or wrong of it is obvious can be debated from various angles. What troubles me most is the excuse the SLA uses for its snail-like pace in considering license applications statewide.

During the period of months and, in some cases, years the applicants are waiting, they usually are putting time, effort and money into their facilities. A quick “No” by the SLA can dash all those hopes and lay waste to the money involved.

William Crowley, the SLA mouthpiece spokesman, says the agency has only 22 examiners divided among offices in Buffalo, Albany and New York City. They are responsible for reviewing all license applications. Crowley says the SLA received 5,315 applications between July 1, 2008, and July 1 of this year. The examiners also had to consider an estimated 7,000 applications for short-term permits, most of which are for caterers who, under state law, need a license just to serve for as little as an hour, one time. Thus, says Crowley, they can’t keep up with the workload.

Really? Let us, as they say, do the math.

• 5,315 applications received in one year
• 22 examiners
• 260 calendar work days in one year
That comes out to 242 applications per year per examiner, assuming a five-day work week. If we discount 15 days per examiner for vacations and stray holidays, that comes to about one application to be handled per day.

Doesn’t seem to be much of a workload, does it?

Now let’s look at the one-time applications.

• 7,000 applications received in one year
• 245 calendar days worked by each of 22 examiners
• That comes to 318 per examiner per year, or 1.3 applications per day.

Add it up, and we get 2.3 applications to be handled per day.

Whew! I bet those examiners are laughing their asses off have to lean back and uncap a cold one after maintaining such a blistering pace.

• Restaurants a go-go

For months, now, I’ve been sensing a disconnect between the news reports that tell me people are cutting back on dining and drinking out because of the bad economy and the daily sight of crowded parking lots and even lines at the front doors of many restaurants, restaurant/bars, wine/tapas places and the like.

Now, The Harris Poll has released the findings of a new study of 2,681 U.S. adults surveyed online between May 11 and 18 by Harris Interactive that explains what I’ve been observing.

It says that while majorities still are inclined to decrease spending on eating out and entertainment, the numbers are better than they had been two months ago.

I find this survey a comforting one. As a person who has had a lifelong affinity for the restaurant business — as bus boy, dishwasher, line cook, sous chef and restaurant critic — I have become increasingly annoyed at the “how to cut costs” lists disseminated in print and online. Inevitably, one of the suggestions is to stop going to restaurants. Nothing like telling the populace at large to, in effect, boycott an industry that is a huge employer in this country.

It’s one thing to tell people to order wisely — from both financial and nutritional standpoints. It is another to try creating a trend toward harming the cooks, waitstaff, cleaning people, launderers, food and drink vendors, truck drivers and myriad others who have a share in the world of dining-out.

In March, three-quarters of Americans said they were decreasing spending on eating out (74%) and entertainment (74%). Now, two-thirds say they are reducing eating out at restaurants (66%) and 64% say they have reduced spending on entertainment.

Americans are cutting back on their spending over the next six months. Specifically:

• Similar to last month, two-thirds of Americans (64%) say it is not likely they will take a vacation away from home lasting longer than a week while 36% say it is likely they will vacation away from home. In March, 35% of Americans said they would be likely to take a trip;

• Large purchases continue to suffer as more than three-quarters of Americans say it is not likely they will buy a new computer (79%), move to a different residence (81%), buy or lease a new car, truck or van (88%), purchase a house or condo (91%), start a new business (92%) or buy a boat or recreational vehicle (95%). These numbers are all very similar to March so people are still not ready to spend on the big-ticket items;

• One quarter of Americans (26%) say it is likely they will have more money to spend the way they want in the next six months which is up from 21% in March; and,

• People are slightly more likely to say that they are going to be saving or investing more money. Just over half of Americans (53%) say they are likely to save or invest more money while 47% are not likely to do so. In March, Americans were split on this as 50% said they were likely to save or invest and 50% said they were not likely to do so.

The pollsters note, “As people get ready for summer vacations, it seems as if the trips may be getting shorter and closer to home — more [damn, I hate this word] ‘daycations’ and [I hate this one even more] ’staycations.’ But, even if summer vacations may be changing this year, there are small signs that things may be getting better, at least in terms of spending. More people are eating out and spending money on entertainment, something that the studios for the big summer blockbusters will be happy to hear, but the big ticket items are still not seeing any type of rebound. Those may take a little longer to see the slight recovery that the smaller expenses are seeing.”

Full data tables and methodology are available online.

• (Some of) The drinks are on US Airways

As I was flying home from the Caribbean on a US Airways flight last Wednesday, the attendant asked if I wanted to purchase a soft drink.

“No, thanks,” I said. “I’ll wait till Sunday.”

He just grinned, but he got it.

US Airways, the sole major American air carrier charging customers for non-alcoholic beverages, bowed to industry and consumer pressure and will rescind the charges as of today, March 1.

According to a memo to airline employees from upper management:

“ …. We (are) returning complimentary sodas, juices, tea, water and coffee to US Airways. The free beverage service will resume on March 1. This change reverses part of the a la carte business model we believe is right for our business … .

“When we launched the beverage purchase program in 2008 we knew it would generate additional revenue. From this perspective the program was very successful. What we didn’t know at the time, but later experienced, was that the cabin atmosphere would also improve with fewer carts in the aisles and shorter lines to the lavatories.

“Today, while we remain firmly committed to the a la carte strategy — we also know it is a work in progress. We know customers don’t buy an airline ticket based on whether or not they will get a free soda onboard, but with US Airways being the only large network carrier to charge for drinks, we are at a disadvantage. More importantly, this difference in our service has become a focal point that detracts from all of the outstanding improvements in on-time performance and baggage handling that all of us have worked so hard to achieve over the past year.”

So, you’ll still be paying for alcoholic drinks. But, bottom line: No more $1 charges for tea or coffee or $2 charges for soft drinks, juices and water.

Very nice.

Buh-bye.

• Great moments in governance

I can just picture the scene.

A concerned parent is out strolling with his/her offspring(s) through the park when, suddenly, a besotted pervert leaps out of the bushes and … starts mixing a cocktail right in front of them.

Oh, the horror!

Well, Utah state legislators are pushing to be sure that never happens without a legal penalty being attached. They’re actually trying to restrict restaurants from making mixed drinks in full view of minors.

Senate president Michael Waddoups says proposed legislation is necessary to protect the “safety and mental future of our children.”

If he and any like-minded colleagues have their way, restaurants that serve drinks will be forced to remodel if their bar isn’t screened off from the dining room.

Oh, the illustration above? One possible way to combat the phobia. Or, perhaps it’s a serving staff training exercise.

• Great moments in governance

New York State’s convoluted, outdated and otherwise embarassingly pathetic regulation of the sales of wine, beer and spirits continually serves up examples of things that need to be fixed.

The latest came in Henrietta, a suburb of Rochester, where the state says Mike Palmeri’s Marketview Liquor store committed an unforgiveable, unthinkable and inhuman act.

It sold wine gift bags.

Oh, the humanity!

Palmeri is allowed, as a duly licensed vassal of the Empire State government, to sell wine. And wine glasses. And wine bottle stoppers. And wine corkscrews. But, it is prohibited from selling a gift bag to put the stuff in. If you do that, Palmeri has learned, you’re in line for a $10,000 fine for running a second business! — according to the ludicrously inept State Liquor Authority.

He could, I theorize, have given the bags away and probably tacked an additional charge on some of the other items he’s allowed to sell as a way of making up the difference.

Palmeri told WSYR-TV he had no idea the law existed.

“I was incredulous, and I took everything down. I stopped doing it,” says Palmeri, a standup guy who says he doesn’t blame the state because “ignorance of the law is no excuse. It’s like saying you didn’t know what the speed limit was. I violated the statute. I think it’s pretty ridiculous, but the state needs money so they’re looking for every possible way of getting it.”

In an exchange of e-mails I had with Bill Crowley, the SLA’s director of communications, he noted that Palmeri has pled not guilty and is awaiting a hearing. And, he noted in a touch of judgment before the judgment, ” … $10,000 is the maximum fine for a violation of the ABC Law. There is no way this establishment would receive a fine anywhere near this, whether the charges hold up or not.”

Comforting. Of course, one hopes there would be no fine at all if the charges don’t hold up.

• Drawing a conclusion

John DeRosier, the editorial cartoonist for the Times Union newspaper in Albany, NY, didn’t leave any doubt in today’s cartoon about his stance on the proposal by Gov. David Patterson to allow wine sales in grocery stores.

The proposal, which the governor estimates will significantly increase state revenue through licensing and taxes, is under fire from liquor stores which have always had that niche as their exclusive province in New York State.

Thirty-five other states already allow groceries to sell wines.

• Click here to see the full cartoon posted on the blog I write for that newspaper.

• Click here to read what I wrote about Patterson’s overall plans for beverages of all sorts in his state.

• 75 years since ‘The Noble Experiment’ fizzled

There is something about Americans that requires special treatment of anniversaries ending in the numbers 0 and 5.

Rarely do we make a big deal about the fourth anniversary, or the ninth, or even the 24th of some event. Ah, but let us get busy when it comes to the fifth, 10th or 25th.

So, imagine all the hoopla that will be going on around the country tomorrow, Friday, December 5 — the 75th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition. Let the happy hours begin!

Officially, the prohibition on the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, with a rare few licensed exceptions, was a result of the National Prohibition Act of 1919 — commonly called the Volstead Act, after U.S. Rep. Andrew J. Volstead, R-Minnesota, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and sponsor of the bill that went into effect in 1920.

This came about in a period in our history in which religious organizations and anti-drinking societies abounded and had plenty of political clout. Chief among them were the American Temperance Society, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, all of which had gained phenomenal influence.

According to the National Archives:

“Between 1905 and 1917, various states imposed laws prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages. … In 1917, the House of Representatives wanted to make Prohibition the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Congress sent the amendment to the states for ratification, where it needed three-fourths approval. The amendment stipulated a time limit of seven years for the states to pass this amendment. In just 13 months enough states said ‘yes’ to the amendment that would prohibit the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic liquors.

“The amendment worked at first, liquor consumption dropped, arrests for drunkenness fell, and the price for illegal alcohol rose higher than the average worker could afford. Alcohol consumption dropped by 30% and the United States Brewers’ Association admitted that the consumption of hard liquor was off 50% during Prohibition. These statistics however, do not reflect the growing disobedience toward the law and law enforcement.

“The intensity of the temperance advocates was matched only by the inventiveness of those who wanted to keep drinking. Enforcing Prohibition proved to be extremely difficult. The illegal production and distribution of liquor, or bootlegging, became rampant, and the national government did not have the means or desire to try to enforce every border, lake, river, and speakeasy in America. In fact, by 1925 in New York City alone there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs.

“The demand for alcohol was outweighing (and out-winning) the demand for sobriety. People found clever ways to evade Prohibition agents. They carried hip flasks, hollowed canes, false books, and the like. While Prohibition assisted the poor factory workers who could not afford liquor, all in all, neither federal nor local authorities would commit the resources necessary to enforce the Volstead Act. For example, the state of Maryland refused to pass any enforcement issue. Prohibition made life in America more violent, with open rebellion against the law and organized crime.”

Finally, the political pendulum swung far enough in favor of ridding the nation of what came to be called by some “The Noble Experiment.” As many anti-Prohibition organizations popped up as had anti-drinking groups. The Democratic Party platform in the 1932 election included an anti-Prohibition plank and Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for the presidency promising repeal, which occurred on December 5, 1933.

The popular vote for repeal of Prohibition was 74% in favor, 26% opposed. Thus, by a 3-to-1 margin, the American people rejected Prohibition. Only two states opposed repeal.

Crowds raised glasses and sang “Happy Days are Here Again!” and President Roosevelt, referring to what he called “The damnable affliction of Prohibition,” sipped a martini at the stroke of midnight, what was widely reported as the first legal cocktail since Prohibition began.

• A wild turkey of a different feather

I live on a hilltop overlooking the Hudson River in Upstate New York, a pastoral place that once was inhabited only by deer, foxes, rabbits, birds … and really big birds, in the form of wild turkeys.

The turkeys go wherever they want, whenever they want. It’s not uncommon to see a line of them ambling around the neighborhood, as you can see in the photo above that I snapped one day.

A few years ago, a new neighbor moved in down the street, relocating after a lifetime of New York City dwelling where wildlife was something you ran across only at the Bronx Zoo or when you waded through flocks of pigeons in Central Park. He knew little in the ways of true wildlife.

One summer afternoon he was in his backyard hammering something together when one of the wild turkeys came running toward him. Not knowing turkeys need to gather a head of steam to take off, he panicked and assumed the bird was attacking. He swung the hammer in the bird’s general direction and scampered off to the safety of his house.

After learning of this happening, I sneaked into his yard later that day and put a small bottle of Wild Turkey bourbon liqueur on the porch. I then called him to report “another wild turkey” was on his property. He came dashing out with the hammer and was relieved to find out what sort of “turkey” awaited him.

It is to this neighbor I dedicate this seasonal cocktail, the “Thanksgiving 101,” supplied by Lisa Cifuentes of the Thomas Collective PR firm representing the folks at Austin Nichols’ Wild Turkey. This particular expression of the bourbon is 50.5% abv (101 proof) and retails for about $20 for the 750ml bottle. As Lisa said in a note to me:

“Thanksgiving 101 is the quintessential classic American cocktail, and is a sure-fire way to get you through another family affair that is bound to bring some drama. It’s so easy to prepare, there’s no need to learn how to cook — as long as you have a bottle of Wild Turkey 101, everyone can still get their fill of bird for the day and salute to the ‘American spirit’.”

Thanksgiving 101

Wild Turkey 101
Cranberries
Rosemary

Serve the whiskey over fresh ice in a rocks glass. Garnish with several cranberries and a sprig of rosemary.

Simple to create, and a great way to have turkey even if you can’t cook.

• Who you gonna call? Booze hustler

At first I thought Dan Aykroyd was working on a new bit for a guest spot on “Saturday Night Live.” Many of us remember when he did a lot of con artist/pitchmen put-ons during his “SNL” heyday, and this seemed much like those skits.

But, no, with either total disregard for veracity or with tongue firmly planted in both cheeks — or even all four, the actor/singer/entrepreneur is spieling for a new vodka called Crystal Skull and in an online ad delivers a very long, very rambling, very self-impressed monologue about mysterious crystal skulls found in different parts of the world. He also throws in mentions of Roswell, witchcraft, ghosts and other stuff.

He eventually stops talking and lets a colleague describe the Newfoundland vodka — quadruple distilled, triple filtered at the suggestion of one Mr. Akyroyd through “500-million-year-old crystals known as Herkimer diamonds.”

For those unfamiliar with that particular mineral, it’s a faux “diamond” found in upstate New York around the Herkimer/Utica/Syracuse area. It’s OK for costume jewelry but of no particular value otherwise.

This isn’t the Canadian star’s first venture into pushing an alcoholic beverage. In June of last year, he announced plans for the $12 million Dan Aykroyd Winery to be built in the Niagara wine area. Part of it will house memorabilia from his film and TV career. The project also includes a line of wines bearing his name.