Jackson Jambalaya

Crisp is naive. Her I'm right, you're wrong attitude is perfect for a newspaper doing a bang up job of losing paid subscribers.

I don't think she was condescending, I just think she has an honest disagreement on this issue.

Wasn't aware there was a level of anger. We've been pretty nice on this issue.

She's claiming to know more or possess a keener insight simply because she covers the beat. She's adamant that money is not an influence on legislation. That snugly fits the definition of naive.

It doesn't take a license or test nor winning an election to be a 'journalist'. But sure as hell once you call yourself one you suddenly become an expert about all things.

I thought Ms. Crisp was polite about it as well, though she and the other poster clearly disagreed. She was a little too polite...like DonnerK polite...

She is probably easily charmed and persuaded by the politicians she covers. It's not uncommon unfortunately.

She has a point about Kirby and his Pearl constituency. Pearl is a world unto itself. Also, is she saying that politicians blocked the bill because they received criticism for being in support? If not, to say that you blocked a bill because you were criticized for being against it in the first place is as immature and disingenuous as it gets. I'm sorry, was I being critical?

I will respect her opinion when ever she brings the Clarion Ledger from it's current lowly level of Weekly Reader back to it's former glory when the Hedermans owned it. It should add the following slogan under it name heading: The Clarion Ledger-Pissing off good subscribers one by one. Jackson Jambalya goes to alot more effort on investigative reporting than the CL. What a complete and utter joke of a paper.

Look, I'm not trying to beat up on Dean Kirby. He's told people I know it wasn't about the beer money but didn't want to do alcohol vote in election year. I've no reason to doubt him. He is in a safe seat and has a huge warchest. However, its relevant to follow the money and ask questions as well. There is a reason the beer lobby spent so much more money since 2007, we are merely trting to figure out why.

Gee Fish, quite a contradiction. On one hand Kirby sports, per you, a huge warchest and is in a safe seat but on the other practices legislative issue avoidance in other to not offend the electorate in an election year. And why does Kirby need lots of campaign cash if he is in a safe seat?

I'm not buying any of that election year bullshit nor that lobbyists and campaign contributions had no influence on Kirby's decision making. The people who believe that crap are the same ones who think we can fix the education system and improve student test scores merely by throwing more money into the public education black hole.

Thanks for giving regular updates on what the C-L is trying to convince people is going on. I dropped my sub over two years ago due to terrible writing / reporting and worse editing, and rely on sites like this to stay informed. Professional journalists should feel embarrassed about how many stories you have broken that they ignored.

Just last week I called Gary Pettus to let him know Puerto Rico is not a foreign current, but a US territory, and their residents are US citizens. He didn't seem fazed at all about printing some boneheaded mistake in his story.

For what it is worth...

Dean Kirby is an ancillary issue here. His position holds him in a light of scrutiny when talking about contributions, but that is not the story.

Crisp has no clue about the beer industry. None. Her fluff is simple puffery and does not even scratch the surface of the industry's aggressive competition.

Let us go back to the start and lay this one out for her.

Raise your Pints has been able to somehow bring to bear the creation of bills that the legislature, as I read it, turned down. Completely.

It is 2007 and the battle of the cooler resets between the many beer suppliers (A/B; SAB; Others) at the supermarket chains are fiercely being waged.

After much testing, SAB convinces some of the retailers that it is a very profitable strategy to bring in the "Mix and Match High-end Beer" section. This is to much dismay from A/B. Unfortunately they had recently lost all distribution of Corona and now they were facing an expansion of new brands. Oh crap! Space has to come from somewhere.

Where do you think it came from? The cooler is stocked based on sales and days of supply against a weekly delivery. The distributor will have to drop twice, or in some cases if they are very good at distribution, once. Also remember, it is not just the space in the cooler, it is the space in the back too.

If they drop product twice a week, that means that the days of supply for a brand package would be around 3.5 days of supply. If you are targeting a once a week schedule you are targeting a 7.0 days of supply. Hmmm.

Now lets get back to the loss of space to the craft beers. With those loses I bet you that the days of supply were closer to 3.5 rather than 7.0. So guess who's distribution cost just doubled; if that is your strategy?

So you say why don't they just put their brands in with the current crafts? Well they did, and they didn't last. Also, the strategy of the mix and match is to keep it flowing - new exciting products. A/B simply doesn't have the ability to continue to introduce new brands or purchase them at a rate that the overall market can. It is easier to pull from multiple product manufacturers who have already invested in the PPE and gain distribution through an SAB distributor than it is for either brewery to manufacture themselves.

Elizabeth's rudimentary, more like elementary. I wonder what beer she drinks.

He [Pettus] didn't seem fazed at all about printing some boneheaded mistake in his story.

When the good Lord gave out arrogance he made sure that Pettus was fat and happy from the size of the portion he received. He's the last SOB over there you'd want on a story if accuracy was important.

Quote from Crisp's article: "(I’ve been told the ongoing open criticism is likely what led to the death of the bill that would have allowed breweries in Mississippi to make beer with a higher content that would be sold in other states that allow it.)"

WHO told her-a brewer, a politician, an average John/Jane Doe???

Also, something to ponder...

If Mississippi were to allow for the manufacturing of something that cannot be legally sold here to distribute to other states, then why discriminate? Why not make it legal to grow marijuana here and sell in CA and CO? Why not make it legal to run a prostitute training school to provide for the demand in Nevada?

Perhaps I am way off base in my thinking, but if it's illegal here, then wouldn't manufacturing here be a contradiction to the State legislation's views on the idea?

The above quote from Crisp is bull. Pure and simple bull. This is a PR snow job. I told you. A/B doesn't want to be in the real news (which happens here); they are going to try and spin our reporting to marginalize our insights. Not only that, they don't know how someone in MS might actually know about the Beer biz, and their paranoia is showing.

Relative to the bill on Lazy Magnolia, I am wondering how the state is getting around the Federal Commerce laws. It would seem to me that preventing Interstate Commerce is a pretty big deal.

And, to add more to the questions, why would A/B suddenly in the past few years pursue a legislative approach to business? If taxes were in play I'd say, "No big deal." Heck Coke and Pepsi are the ones who are involved in that battle. What is interesting to me is, why would they be so ticky about the issues we are bringing up? Wonder if we have the insight into some testing St. Louis is doing with legislative action. MS is not national news, perhaps this is the place for them to test the waters in preventing brews from expanding beyond their confined borders of local flavor. It really does make me wonder. Lazy Magnolia's situation would certainly beg the question.

Dear Elizabeth:When I wrote the first post about this issue, Kirby had already told the MBJ it was not coming out for a vote and he was killing the bill.

Start doing your OWN research instead of letting the Beer lobby write your posts for you.

Maybe some original reporting would be nice by Mrs. Crisp. Her blog post comes off as an attempt to gay a job with Mrs. Clay! Quid pro quo anyone?

Oops. Meant get.

And we believe you KK! : )

Reily's latest take:

Both Bryant and Kirby like to tout their BIPEC (Business and Industry Political Education Committee) rating as pro-business lawmakers.

Yet, when there is an opportunity help the business community, their actions fall woefully short.

What I would love is for Sen. Kirby and Lt. Gov. Bryant to come by our offices and visit, drink a cup of coffee and have an honest, thoughtful discussion on why a pro-business bill has been stiff-armed for three consecutive years.


The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'
That's what I said

You know, the more politicians want to make this about beer/alcohol and their continued job security in this dismal age of unemployment, the more we SHOULD make this about their efforts to curtail JOB CREATION in favor of protected status quo.

Two good Republican's can't take the time to respond? Their response is "it's an election year" I need to keep my job, damn the public good - read JOBS?

Why do we continue to allow politicians to PREVENT the will of the people for self-serving reasons? Are we that lemming?

8:15--It's because money talks and shit walks. In money, there is power. With huge amounts of money, there are many opportunities for the wealthy to control everything.

The founders of our nation would be nauseated at how we have twisted and turned their efforts to create a "more perfect union." In fact, the more perfect union was built on annihilating the native people, deliberately tricking them, and/or forcing them their homeland--in order for US gov't and US businessmen to prevail.

In Alabama, the only way to get past AB and the Pearl-esque anti-alcohol mob was to "go to the mattresses" and call for a boycott of all AB products. The plan had an impact and pro-beer legislation passed. RYP probably doesn't want to go that far, since such a move would hurt the distributors, many of whom have voiced support for the cause. Cheers to them for bringing people to the table.

But, considering the circumstances, such a move is probably inevitable.

Bud doesn't want anything to do with supporting RYP efforts other than making sure they are viewed as good guys by providing a poster or two, maybe a couple hundred bucks supporting RYP events. If RYP went exclusively with The Cap City guys, I bet you they would dedicate some of their On-Premise guys.

If you were able to slow Bud Light in the areas of the RYP group, I do believe that it would have an impact, especially if you are one of those who run in the bar scene.

I can think of a few on-premise places that are craft oriented, speak to them about the situation; ask for their support.

To get A/B's attention the on-premise is the place to play.

Crisp wrote that AB only gave Kirby $1000 and that is true because that is the maximum amount of money a corporation can give under Mississippi law a year. But as Kingfish has pointed out, it appears they got more than that corporate limit to him in other ways. If so, that is a story in itself apart from beer politics.

Also, he is in a safe seat because of his war chest. If he had no money, I suspect he would see a challenger in the Republican Primary.

They've given him more than one grand directly but yeah, you're right. She didn't check AB donations.

WAIT!
They don't have time to respond to voter interest in a bill because it's " an election year"?

WHAT????

So... we should just guess whether their current position is their actual position since they don't have the cojones to take up anything controversial in an election year?

Or, are they saying they are too busy running for office and raising money to " do the people's business"?

Which is it, KF? Will you ask? Just for fun? Ask them.

Maybe I'm a bit sensitive, but I feel I'm being played for a fool.