America's True "Same as It Ever Was" Whiskey

 

E. H. Taylor was one of the prominent distillery
owners who lobbied on behalf of the Act.

Last month I posted “Whiskey’s Biggest Lie,” debunking the marketing practice of brands claiming ancient recipes and unchanged methods, implying that whiskey in the past surely was better. Since the industry began, distillers have claimed they did things “the old fashioned way,” whether they did or not.

The prevalence and persistence of such claims suggests there is an itch bourbon drinkers long to scratch, to taste whiskey their parents or grandparents would recognize. People scour liquor stores for dusties. They buy Prohibition-era bottles at auction. Some search for authenticity in moonshine, legal and illegal.

There are problems with all these approaches. Many dusties are glut-era bottlings. They represent what people were drinking then, but it wasn't typical. Many bourbon producers in the 1980s bottled whiskey that was much older than was customary for those brands, just to get rid of it. Those bottlings are representative of that relatively brief period but not, for example, of the periods immediately before or after it, and not of everything sold then. The biggest brands, such as Jim Beam and Jack Daniel’s, didn’t do this. They had not grievously over-produced, so they didn't have to do much correction. It was contract producers and smaller brands, some on their way to oblivion, that bore the brunt. (The same thing is happening now.) 

Even a decade or more after they were produced, a lot of those bottles were still out there. If you got your hands on them, they were very good and usually cheap. But bottling better whiskey didn’t save them and most whiskey that was so treated is now gone or priced stratospherically on the secondary. A. H. Hirsch Reserve is a similar story. It was aged that long because the owner didn't have a use for it. Some of those bottles are still out there but they cost a fortune.

Earlier bottlings, including those Prohibition-era pints, are also pricey. Much of the whiskey bottled during and immediately after Prohibition was mishandled or simply in wood way too long. A lot of it, maybe most of it, disappoints. Either way, it’s not representative of what your great-grandparents drank before the drought.

Moonshine, legal or illegal, has its own set of problems.

But there is one way to taste something made today in virtually the same way it was made more than a century ago. Its main parameters haven’t changed because they are dictated by federal law.

That, of course, is bottled-in-bond whiskey. The Bottled-in-Bond Act of 1897 was proposed and supported by distillers such as E. H. Taylor and opposed by rectifiers. Taking advantage of the law was voluntary. The business between distillers and rectifiers could continue as it always had but now distillers had a way to ensure that their customers received what Taylor called "the genuine article." 

As an incentive to participate, the Act allowed distillers to defer payment of the Federal Excise Tax until whiskey was withdrawn from the bonded premises. To get the deferred taxation benefit and the privilege of labeling their whiskey “bonded” or “bottled-in-bond,” the distiller had to follow several rules having to do with how the whiskey was produced and sold. Those rules are still in effect today.

In a way, they codified practices already followed by many distillers, some of which differ from modern practice. Today, it is common for distillers to mix whiskeys of different ages, even whiskeys produced at different distilleries. There’s nothing wrong with that, many very good whiskeys are created that way, but it was less common 129 years ago when the Act was passed.

While bottled-in-bond whiskey isn’t necessarily better, it is different. The sort of blending that is typical today is something a bond can’t do. Everything in the bottle must come from a single distillery and it must have been distilled during a six-month period, either January-June (“Spring”) or July-December (“Fall”), in a single year. 

We have “small batch” and “single barrel” whiskeys. You can think of BIB as “single batch,” the "batch" being all the whiskey produced at that distillery during a six-month period.

The rule also says, “one distiller.” I’m not sure what a distillery is supposed to do if their distiller quits in April, but that’s the rule. Presumably, whiskey distilled from January first through the separation date would be one batch, whiskey distilled thereafter until June 30th would be another batch.

About the only change is that, in the old days, the batch had to be identified on the bottle, usually on a paper strip that “sealed” the bottle in the days before shrink wrap capsules. The distillation season and bottling season had to be noted, e.g., “Fall 2020, Spring 2025.”

That labeling requirement was eliminated in the 1980s but another labeling requirement remains. For BIB spirits, the federal license number of the distillery, known as its DSP number, must be shown on the label. 

All distilled spirits products must indicate on the label the city and state where the producer is located, but it can be any place of business. Typical today is the name of the producer, which can be an assumed business name (e.g., Evan Williams Distilling Company instead of Heaven Hill), followed by one or more cities where that producer does business. 

But that's not good enough for BIB. The number of the distilling DSP must be printed on the label. You'll have to look up the number to identify the distillery, but that's easily done on the internet. If the whiskey was aged or bottled at a different DSP, those numbers have to be there as well.

That requirement allows anyone with a DSP to buy BIB whiskey in bulk and bottle it under their own brand name so long as they disclose where it was distilled, aged and bottled. This is not common, but it is done. Sourced whiskey can be bonded if it meets all the requirements.

BIB whiskey cannot be bottled and sold until it is at least four years old. It can be older, but must all be the same age. If a BIB is labeled ten years old, every drop is ten years old, no more, no less. It also must be bottled at 100° proof (50% ABV), no more, no less.

As for consumer protection, the Act’s purpose was to guarantee the authenticity of whiskey so labeled. It was the first instance of the United States federal government offering a guarantee of this sort. It was the first federal “truth in advertising” legislation.

Back in the late 20th century, several major producers told me they considered dropping BIB. It was always voluntary and as the 21st century dawned, it seemed of little interest to consumers. Because it required deviation from normal procedures, there was no point doing it if it produced no benefit. At that point, few brands still offered a BIB expression. Not surprisingly, many were brands sold only in the South, some only in Kentucky. The best-selling bond nationally was Old Grand-Dad.

But then craft distilleries came along. Every craft distillery that wanted to make whiskey faced a dilemma, what to do for four or five years until that first batch of whiskey matured. They needed revenue and they needed to build a following. Some sold very young whiskey. Others sourced mature whiskey. Others made vodka, gin, rum, amaro, or liqueurs.

For many, the goal they set for themselves was to release a house-made bond. It was a standard they were proud to meet, and many considered that their "arrival." When they were able to offer their bond as a portfolio product, not a limited release, it often became the top of their line, maybe even their flagship.

When consumers responded, this revived interest in the bond segment among major producers. Evan Williams Bottled-in-Bond has been very successful for Heaven Hill. 

Brown Forman, founded in 1870, predates the Bottled in Bond Act and opposed it. Although their Old Forester Bourbon was a high quality, all whiskey product, it was blended using whiskey from three different Kentucky distilleries. For many years and until recently, their line included a 100° proof expression that was not bottled-in-bond. Today, Old Forester 1907 Bottled-in-Bond is one of their most popular offerings.

For a bonded bottling, barrel selection is crucial, similar to single barrel. Because blending options are so limited, there is nowhere to hide. Most producers blend to a standard, a literal in-the-bottle sample of exactly how the brand should taste. Quality control consists of trained tasters comparing that standard to each candidate batch. This is done for bonds too. It’s hard to imagine a whole season not producing enough good barrels for a bond release. A producer can always skip a season, I suppose, but I suspect they simply have to tolerate more deviation from the standard with a bond than they would with their non-bonded release.

So, people claiming an unchanged recipe for 250 years are puffing, but 129 years is a different story. Just look for the words "bonded" or "bottled-in-bond."

Keeping Up with the Pritzkers

 

An aging warehouse at Bardstown Bourbon Company.

Last Friday, a lawsuit was filed in Nelson County in which Sylvia E. Sanders accused Bardstown Bourbon Company (BBC), parent Lofted Spirits, Lofted CEO Mark Erwin, BBC president Peter Marino, Pritzker Private Capital (PPC) Investment Partners and PPC operating partner Christian Brickman of gender discrimination and retaliation. 

Sanders was VP of Human Resources at BBC from 2019 to 2024, when she was dismissed. She claims the company created a hostile work environment for female employees and others. She was fired after she reported “illegal, unethical, discriminatory and improper conduct” by the defendants to company management.

BBC says, “We believe these claims are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves.”

In addition to Bardstown Bourbon Company, Lofted Spirits owns Green River Distillery in Owensboro.

I don't know Sanders or any of the principals at BBC except Master Distiller Steve Nally. I know people who know Sanders and think highly of her. Same with her lawyer, James Morris. They describe BBC as a "boy's club." Sanders' suit also accuses BBC of racism.

Erin Petrey, who is running for congress, went on Facebook to express her opinion and share her bad personal experience with BBC founder Peter Loftin. 

This reminds me of the Eboni Majors case, filed in 2022. A blender at Diageo's Bulleit Distillery in Bulleit County, Major alleged in her suit that she was subjected to persistent racial hostility, including pay discrepancies and demeaning treatment by co-workers. She was eventually pushed out of the company.

I can’t improve on the coverage of the BBC story provided by the Lexington Herald Leader. However, in its article, the Herald Leader mentioned that PPC "is owned by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Anthony N. Pritzker." 

On Monday, Hyatt Hotels Executive Chairman Thomas ("Tom") Pritzker announced his resignation after documents released by the Department of Justice revealed his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

So, it seems like a good time to sort out our Pritzkers. I live in Chicago, so J. B. Pritzker is my governor. I voted for him, twice.

The governor's grandfather, Abram Nicholas Pritzker, was born in 1896, a son of Ukrainian immigrants. His parents settled in Chicago. His father, Nicholas, initially worked as a pharmacist but studied law at DePaul University (as did I) and became a lawyer. Abram (“Abe”) became a lawyer too and joined his father’s firm, along with his brothers Jack and Harry, also lawyers. 

Abe had three sons: Jay, Robert, and Donald. It was Jay who founded the Hyatt Hotels chain, the main source of the family’s fortune. Each of the brothers had several children, many of whom are prominent in business, politics, entertainment, and philanthropy. They are almost all billionaires.

Jay’s children include Tom, the Hyatt executive implicated in the Epstein scandal. Jay's daughter Gigi is a successful film producer.

Robert’s kids are variously accomplished, but none were in the news this week.

That leaves Donald. His kids include Penny, who was Obama’s Secretary of Commerce in his second term. Her brothers are Anthony (“Tony”), who runs PPC, and Jay Robert, better known as J. B., governor of Illinois since 2019. 

In 2002, J. B. and Tony founded PPC, with Tony as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. PPC acquired Bardstown Bourbon Company in 2022 after the death of Loftin, who founded the distillery in 2014.

So, Tony and J. B. are brothers. Tom is their first cousin.

When he became governor, J. B. Pritzker put his assets into a blind trust. That means he makes money off those investments but has no role in decision making. He has nothing to do with management of BBC or any of the other companies owned by PPC. 

As for the BBC case, if the charges are even half true, it represents a serious management failure. You can't change people's prejudices, but you can keep them out of the workplace. You have to. That's not politics, it's just good business. You can't run a successful company if your employees don't feel respected and safe.

We'll be watching with interest.

This Week in Uncle Nearest News

 

The Uncle Nearest facility in Shelbyville, Tennessee.

My post last Friday, made in anticipation of the hearing in Knoxville federal court on Monday, received more than 10,000 views. For this blog, that's a lot. Many people are interested in this story. I will continue to follow it and may occasionally write about it, but there is much more thorough coverage out there. Here are some of the sources I use:

First, Uncle Nearest CEO Fawn Weaver, despite instructions from the court not to litigate the case in the media, continues to litigate the case in the media. Just use "Fawn Weaver" as your search term and you will be connected to all of the Fawn Weaver you can handle.

News outlets that have covered the story thoroughly include the Lexington Herald Leader and the Tennessean. Both require paid subscriptions but often their stories are available from aggregators such as MSN.com within a day or two of publication.

Two free news sites with in-depth coverage are the Moore County Observer and Shelbyville Now. Moore County is the home of Jack Daniel's. It is adjacent to Bedford County, whose seat is Shelbyville, where Uncle Nearest is located. Considering that these are small communities and these outlets mostly report on local government and high school sports, the depth and quality of their coverage has been remarkable. Because of Jack Daniel's and George Dickel, many people in those communities are sophisticated when it comes to the whiskey business. Add to that the splash Uncle Nearest made in its short time, in terms of local employment and generation of economic activity.

Finally, there is the Bourbon and Rye Club, a blog based in New Orleans, which illustrates its extensive coverage with witty AI-generated pictures of cats. 

Not much came out of Monday's hearing, in that the two questions before the court were simply kicked down the road a couple weeks. 

On Thursday evening, into Friday morning, Ms. Weaver posted three videos, each about three minutes long. I saw them on Facebook, but I believe they originated on Instagram. Everything she puts out is everywhere, so they should be easy to find. In them, she does exactly what the court has told her not to do, which is litigate the case in the media. They purport to summarize her testimony at Monday's hearing.

Unlike Ms. Weaver, the receiver, Phillip Young, has kept a low profile. You can, however, read the affidavit he submitted to the court which, as he says in the filing notice, contains everything he intended to say on Monday. The affidavit is 35 pages, plus exhibits. So, between Ms. Weaver's videos and Mr. Young's affidavit, you have the gist of what was presented Monday.

I offer all this because while I continue to follow the story with great interest I don't intend to duplicate or compete with the resources listed above. 

That said, let's jump ahead to some key facts and conclusions. According to the receiver's affidavit, Uncle Nearest's secured debt is $110M. Unsecured debt is $54M, so total debt is $164M. There is another $10M in something styled as a futures contract but it is, effectively, another debt, bringing the total to $174M. 

Since nothing is being paid, the interest on that $174M is accruing daily.

As for the business itself, revenue in 2024 was about $41M. It fell to $25M in 2025. The receiver reports that the company was losing about $1M a month, which has been reduced to $100,000 a month, but it still operates at a loss.

The receiver has two jobs, stabilize the business as much as possible and then either refinance the secured debt or sell the assets. As I outlined last week, the company's tangible assets, such as real estate and liquid inventory, in barrels and bottles, are not worth enough for their sale to cover even the secured debt for which they are collateral. 

To that end the receiver's team reached out to more than 100 entities and invited them to make an offer on either refinancing the secured debt or purchasing the assets. About 40 entities were interested enough to sign a non-disclosure agreement and kick the tires. Of these, twelve produced formal written letters of interest. No party offered a valuation in excess of the secured debt. 

As for what happens next, the receiver concludes that "a sale in the next six months is the only viable option to maximize the value of the Company and its assets."

Although Fawn Weaver no longer insists the company is worth $1.1B, her new claim is $500M. The receiver, of course, estimates that what the market is willing to pay is much less, substantially less than the $110M owed to Farm Credit. The basis for the difference is the value of the intangible asset, the Uncle Nearest brand. 

If the judge decides to end the receivership, control will not be returned to the Weavers, it can't be. That part of this story is already over. They have lost the company. It's gone. Farm Credit owns everything, which they will sell for whatever they can get, either altogether or in pieces. They may wind up with fifty cents on the dollar, if that. 

Tangible assets are the easy part. I'm not sure how a sale of the intangible assets will play out, but I find it hard to imagine any existing distilled spirits producer taking a gamble on keeping Uncle Nearest products in the marketplace. I can't foresee Fawn Weaver becoming a brand ambassador for Diageo, but maybe that's my failure of imagination.

The Sad Saga of Uncle Nearest Whiskey May Come to a Head on Monday

 

The Uncle Nearest home place in Shelbyville, Tennessee.

Uncle Nearest is a brand of American whiskey that launched about a decade ago. Started from nothing, it did very well, but now it’s in trouble.

A hearing on Monday at the federal courthouse in Knoxville may decide its fate.

In the beginning, there was a New York Times article by Clay Risen, headlined “Jack Daniel’s Embraces a Hidden Ingredient, Help from a Slave.” The story goes that Fawn Weaver read the article about Nearest Green and began a journey of discovery that led her to found the brand. She hired esteemed actor Jeffrey Wright to star in a promotional film. The History Channel included Nearest Green in its show about the founding of Jack Daniel’s.

The Uncle Nearest product line.

The new brand benefited from the bourbon boom and from its unique appeal to Black drinkers. The whiskey itself was initially acquired on the bulk whiskey market. As the brand became established, and bulk whiskey became pricey because of high demand, the company entered into a production agreement with Tennessee Distilling Group, a contract distiller in Columbia, Tennessee.

That was supposed to be temporary. The Uncle Nearest company bought Sandy Creek, a former horse farm in Shelbyville, Tennessee, about 16 miles from where Jack Daniel’s is made, as a brand home place. They made many improvements, including buying a still. It was delivered and set up in 2022 but never installed.

Uncle Nearest Founder and CEO Fawn Weaver.

It’s common for a fast-growing company to have some bumps along the way, and Uncle Nearest certainly did. Fawn Weaver became not just the founder and CEO but the living, breathing face of the brand. She made many media and in-store appearances, signing bottles and kibitzing with fans. She was seemingly everywhere. In June of 2024 she released a book, Love and Whiskey, billed as “The remarkable true story of Jack Daniel, his master distiller Nearest Green, and the improbable rise of Uncle Nearest.” She promoted it with a national tour that also promoted Uncle Nearest whiskey.

A year later, the wheels started to come off. Farm Credit Mid-America filed a lawsuit in federal court against Uncle Nearest, Inc., Nearest Green Distillery, Inc., Uncle Nearest Real Estate Holdings, LLC, and Fawn Weaver and Keith Weaver personally for defaulting on over $100M in loans that originated in 2022 and have been in default since 2024.

In September, a receivership was established and the Weavers lost control of the company. The receiver is running it now, supervised by the court. The Weavers, naturally, want the company back. As the receiver has tried to right the ship he has discovered a web of different Weaver-controlled businesses, funded by the Farm Credit loans and Uncle Nearest investors, that were not part of the original lawsuit. In a court hearing scheduled for Monday, February 9th, the receiver will ask the court to expand the receivership to include those entities. At that same hearing, the Weavers will try to end the receivership and regain control.

The Farm Credit loan is secured by the company’s assets. There are also many unsecured debts. Total indebtedness is around $160M. The receiver reports that the company is insolvent. The receiver’s goal continues to be to refinance the debt or sell the company, though he reports that he has not received any viable offers to do either.

Because the Weavers have fought the receivership every step of the way, there have been many filings, claims, and counterclaims flying back and forth. Despite warnings from the court, Fawn Weaver has litigated the case in the media. Every twist and turn has been well documented by several news outlets, so I won’t try to summarize them any further. Both sides will plead their cases and present their evidence and the judge will decide.

Among other things, the receiver predicts that if the court ends the receivership on Monday, Farm Credit will immediately foreclose and begin to liquidate the company’s assets.

So, what are the assets and how much are they worth? There is real estate, in Tennessee, Massachusetts, and France. It includes all the improvements on those properties. 

According to AcreValue, the going rate for farmland in Bedford County, Tennessee is $15,040 per acre and Sandy Creek is 270 acres. The Massachusetts property is a house, listed for $2.25M. It’s unclear what the property in France includes, but it is identified in documents as a “Cognac Chateau.” At a minimum, that should mean real estate, some buildings, and aging stock. It may or may not include a distillery.

In addition to real estate, there is whiskey, in barrels and bottles. At this point, the youngest whisky in barrels is 2 years old, and most of the inventory is less than 4 years old. They produced regularly until December 2023, so each month the inventory of 4-year-olds increases and the inventory of immature whiskey decreases, unless they resume production. The aging stock is about 56,000 barrels. The cost, as new make, was $673 per barrel.

The potentially most valuable asset is also the most volatile one, the intellectual property, specifically the Uncle Nearest brand. Depending how all this goes, it could be worth millions or nothing. Fawn Weaver seems to believe there is no Uncle Nearest brand without Fawn Weaver, and that may be the thing she is most wrong about.

In addition to losing her company, Fawn Weaver faces a sexual harassment lawsuit in New York (Menos v. Uncle Nearest Inc. et al) that was filed in 2022 and has survived several attempts to make it go away. It is scheduled for trial in July.

I predict the hearing on Monday will be brief. The judge will grant everything the receiver wants, in particular control of the other entities. One naturally wonders what Weaver will do next but that’s increasingly irrelevant. Unless she pulls $160M out of a hat, there is nothing she can do. 

"My" Peter Pan

 

Watching Mary Martin's "Peter Pan" on TV
was a major milestone for young boomers. 

NBC was the first American television network to broadcast in color, in 1954. That is, they broadcast some programs in color, just a handful at first. Most were still black and white. The three principal commercial television networks and their broadcast stations adopted color slowly. The last one to go all-color was ABC in 1966.

But NBC was first and showcased its leadership with a program called “Producers’ Showcase.” It was mostly highbrow stuff, Shakespeare, Coward, other plays, ballets, classical music, and Broadway musicals. It ran for three years, 37 episodes, all in color and all performed live. There were no reruns.

One of their most successful productions, the only one done twice, was “Peter Pan,” a musical spectacular then running on Broadway. Most musicals are identified by the names of their composers, but this “Peter Pan” is indelibly associated with its star, Mary Martin. 

The “Producers’ Showcase” presentation of “Peter Pan” was broadcast on March 7, 1955, a Monday.

I was 3 ½ years old.

To say I remember it might be overstatement, but I know I saw it, and loved it, and watched it again ten months later. Like the original, the 1956 broadcast was performed live. Everything was the same. In 1960, they did it one more time. Videotape had been invented by then, so it was recorded, periodically replayed, and eventually released on home video. If you’ve seen it, that’s probably the one you’ve seen. A kinescope of the original 1955 broadcast is available on the free streamer Pluto TV, and probably YouTube and other places.

A kinescope is simply a film, typically 16mm, made by aiming a film camera at a TV monitor. It synchronizes the TV’s frame rate with that of the film camera, but that’s as sophisticated as the technology got. Kinescopes were used to make a record of live programs, but they weren’t intended for rebroadcast, just reference. The quality is poor and although the program was broadcast in color, the kinescope is black and white.

My mother had the 1954 original Broadway cast recording of this “Peter Pan,” a portfolio of 78-RPM records. Each disk contained two songs, one on each side. Although 33 1/3 long-playing (LP) records had been around for a few years, 78s were still being released in 1954. 

My mother loved the musical and loved that I loved it. We would listen to the records together and sing along. It’s a happy memory. That production of that musical will always be Peter Pan to me.

I keep saying “that production” and “this version” because there have been a bunch.

The character and story of Peter Pan were created in 1904 by J. M. Barrie, originally as a play. From the beginning the part of Peter, a young boy, was always played by an adult woman. In the original West End production, the “lost boys,” Peter’s crew, were all played by adult women too. 

Barrie subsequently reworked the play as a novel. The story and character became very popular and there were many productions and adaptations. Barrie wrote several sequels. The first film version was made in 1924.

Walt Disney started to think about an animated adaptation in 1935. He originally intended it to follow “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” his first feature-length cartoon. He obtained the film rights in 1938. “Pinocchio” took Peter’s place in Disney’s queue, and the project was shelved when WWII began. It finally went into production in 1949 and hit theaters in 1953. 

As a kid, I liked the Disney version well enough. I even liked a couple of the songs, but the Mary Martin version will always be my favorite. 

While Disney was working on his Pan, Leonard Bernstein was working on his. Bernstein’s version debuted in 1950 with Jean Arthur as Peter and Boris Karloff as Captain Hook. It was a “play with songs,” as opposed to a full musical. It ran for 321 performances, closing in January of 1951. Despite Bernstein’s prominence, his Pan was overshadowed by the Disney cartoon and 1954 musical and is almost completely forgotten today.

In later years it was discovered that Bernstein wrote a full musical, but it was pared down for the 1950 production. That version has since been revived but only in concert form. It hasn’t been restaged. It is available on CD.

Coming along after Bernstein and Disney, producer Edwin Lester created his Peter Pan (i.e., my Peter Pan) specifically as a vehicle for Mary Martin, a popular Broadway star. It was originally a play with songs but was reworked into a full musical. It was a huge hit even before the 1955 television broadcast made it legendary.

Unlike “Producers’ Showcase,” most television programs in the 1950s were produced on film. Unlike the crude, 16mm kinescopes this was 35mm film, essentially the same technology as movies. All sitcoms and prime time dramas were made this way. (Daytime soaps were live.) With today’s digital film restoration technology, these films now look incredibly sharp and crisp, like they were made yesterday. This isn’t always a good thing. You can see how cheaply most of the sets were made. 

I went down the Peter Pan rabbit hole because I’ve been enjoying another favorite from my childhood, “The Danny Thomas Show,” also known as “Make Room for Daddy.” I recently saw an episode in which Kathy Nolan appears as an aspiring performer seeking Danny’s help. Nolan played Wendy Darling in the Mary Martin “Peter Pan.” She later played Kate McCoy in “The Real McCoys,” so she was all over my childhood.

Another TV icon, Tony Soprano, said, "nostalgia is the lowest form of conversation." Considering the source, nostalgia about old TV shows must be lower still. I’ve seen many changes in my 74 years, in televised entertainment and just about everything else, and will probably see many more before I go. One of the pleasures of old age is having lived through and experienced a lot of history first hand.

Sorry, but that’s as profound as I can manage at the moment.

International law? There’s No Such Thing

 

The United States invaded another country
to arrest its president. Is that legal?

When Russia invaded Ukraine, international law was invoked. When the Trump administration began to blowup alleged drug ships off Venezuela, it made another appearance, as it did after the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, and as it does whenever President Trump threatens to seize Greenland.

Have Putin and Trump violated international law? For that matter, has Maduro? Does anybody care?

This is nothing new.

After the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said in an interview with the BBC World Service that he believed there should have been a second U.N. resolution to determine the consequences of Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections. 

Asked if he viewed the U.S. invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. charter--from our point of view, from the (U.N.) charter point of view, it was illegal."

When diplomats such as Annan talk about international law, they usually fail to explain that what is called international law is very different from the ordinary, everyday law to which you and I are subject. Annan hinted at it with his carefully qualified answer.

If we break a law and are found guilty by a court, we can go to jail, or be required to pay a fine, or required to pay some sum of money to another person. Ultimately, the government body in question (whether it be a city, state or nation) has the authority and power to enforce its rulings, by force if necessary, and usually they do so without hesitation. 

My options for avoiding those penalties are few.

If, like most people, that is what you think of when you see the word “law,” then by comparison “international law” is a euphemism. 

Advocates of international law would like everyone to equate it with the common understanding of “law.” That is why they call it that. But if there were truth-in-advertising in international rhetoric, the term “international law” would have to be banned. 

In reality, international law is a web of multi-lateral and bi-lateral agreements among and between sovereign states. The first international laws were trading agreements that became standardized and to which most nations subscribed. It grew from there to encompass most other aspects of international relationships.

Today, the various courts of international law operate under the auspices of the United Nations. If you understand the United Nations to be to international law what the State of Illinois is to Illinois law (I live in Chicago), you can begin to see the problem. All persons, whether natural (you and me) or unnatural (corporations), are subject to Illinois law. The state of Illinois can send armed officers to take me into custody to enforce its laws. It can order my bank to give it my money. It can even kill me, legally.

With international law, sovereign nations are its subjects. What can the United Nations or one of its courts do to a member state found guilty of violating an international law? If it imposes sanctions on a nation, it relies on member states to abide by the sanctions regime. International law only works when it is in everyone’s interest to go along. When it is not, they don’t, and there isn’t much the U.N. or anyone else can do about it.

Unless, that is, they have a military and the willingness to use it. Then so-called international law can provide a handy justification for a powerful state’s military action, as it did for the Bush administration in 2003.

In an Illinois courtroom, at least ideally (and, in fact, in most cases), the law applies equally to everyone. When we cheer "the rule-of-law," we're celebrating law that transcends politics. This may be true of international law in theory, but it is always political in practice. Might makes right, which is the rule-of-law's exact opposite.

Nations voluntarily submit themselves to various bodies charged with hearing cases and making rulings about alleged breaches of international law. They can cooperate during a trial and then say, “no thank you” to the verdict, or they can say “no thank you” to the entire process. As a rule, nations abide by international law except when they don’t. When they don’t, the political part kicks in, first prodding and persuasion, then maybe sanctions, which might or might not be effective at punishing the violator, depending on the violator’s susceptibility to international pressure and on the willingness of other nations to bring it. Imagine if the IRS collected taxes that way.

It is often said the United States Constitution is not a suicide pact, meaning any right can be reasonably limited when permitting its full exercise would threaten the nation. Likewise, international law is not a suicide pact. Sovereign nations never will submit voluntarily to rulings that threaten their sovereignty, as they perceive it, and the United Nations has no independent ability to compel them to submit.

So, the United States invoked international law to defend its invasion of Iraq and the war’s opponents invoked it to condemn the invasion as illegal. Who was right? Neither? Both? Both sides had a case but, ultimately, so what? The Bush administration did what it wanted, just as the Trump and Putin administrations are doing now.

That is what “law” means when you put “international” in front of it. Ultimately, not much. 

Whiskey's Biggest Lie

 

In fact, their whiskey sucked.

Back in 2016, when Beam dropped the 9-year age statement from its Knob Creek bourbon, the brand's fans were outraged: "This is so unfair to the consumers and fans," "Flavor/Taste profile is a joke to justify keeping the same price using younger juice," "What happens to all the awards and medals that the real Knob Creek won?"

When producers make changes, many drinkers balk reflexively. Why are we so unwilling to accept change? Because those very producers have told us for years that change is bad.

In 2005, when the company now known as Suntory Global Spirits created its first major TV advertising campaign for its flagship Jim Beam Bourbon, the theme was “true to our original recipe for 209 years.”

Bulleit Bourbon, a product created within the lifetime of most persons of legal drinking age, purports to be made from an ancient recipe passed down to Tom Bulleit from his great-great-grandfather, Augustus. Mr. Bulleit blushes when asked about this story. Like the Beams, he has no parchment to show you, just a ‘tradition’ passed from father to son, and who can argue with that?

The problem with these and every other claim about an ancient, unchanged bourbon recipe is twofold. (1) Bourbon today is much better in every way than what they were drinking in 1795 or 1830, and (2) the claims are untrue, because whiskeys, like most products, are constantly changing.

Mashbills*, for example, have always been flexible. Ingredients can vary based on cost and availability. They varied widely in the pre-Prohibition era. Today there is more consistency, but there are still variations. Different batches of grain can vary in significant ways. Often products are made by combining whiskeys made from different recipes at different distilleries. Changes to stills make a difference. When energy is costly, distilleries run a thicker mash to reduce energy costs. Wood characteristics vary from tree to tree. Today, all large distilleries are run by computers. The humans just watch. Every change, however small, makes a difference in the final product.

Because there are so many variables, producers don't rely on recipes, they rely on taste. Every distillery has a library of bottles that record in liquid form how different batches have tasted over the years. Every producer has a panel of tasters whose job is to compare each new batch to the standard for that product. If a new batch doesn't measure up adjustments are made, generally by adding whiskey that possesses the missing characteristic. 

They are limited in these efforts by labeling rules. If a product is age-stated, 9-years-old for example, no whiskey may be used that is less than 9-years-old even if the profile calls for it. If it is labeled as bourbon, it must be at least 51 percent corn, and so on.

Virtually all whiskey producers strive for consistency, as do most manufacturers regardless of the product. At the same time there is a seemingly-contradictory impulse to constant improvement. This varies with product type. Technology products have to improve or die. With other products, such as whiskey, long-term consistency seems the higher value.

Thirty to forty years ago, when America was awash with whiskey no one wanted, many producers routinely put 8- to 10-year-old whiskey into their standard NAS products. They didn't publicize it because they knew it was temporary and no law required disclosure. There were few complaints. Now, however, people taste those glut-era whiskeys and pronounce modern whiskeys inferior by comparison.

Until recently, rapid demand growth outstripped the industry's supply side. Because whiskey has to be aged, you inevitably over-produce or under-produce. It is almost impossible to get it just right. The challenge is always to meet as much demand as you can with the inventory you have, and to do it as profitably as possible.

Because of that demand growth, everyone was distilling as much whiskey as they could as fast as they could. It appears now that bourbon's crazy growth spurt is over. That shouldn't mean an inevitable decline, just slower growth. Producers are adjusting accordingly.

Marketers of all kinds know a lot about consumer behavior. With whiskey, there are two sure ways to piss off your most loyal customers, raise the price or change the taste, and between those two changing the taste is worse. Everything else, including label changes, has a lower priority.

So, producers will continue to like the "nothing changes" claim, but what you should hear is "we're doing everything we can to keep everything you care about the same." That may not be as snappy, but it has the virtue of being true.

* In a multi-grain whiskey, 'mashbill' describes what grains are used and in what proportions.