Roberts is proving to be an interesting Chief Justice.
Analysis
The Supreme Court, leaving a clear impression that foes of abortion have at least a limited constitutional right to succeed in having close, one-on-one encounters with patients seeking that medical service, struck down on Thursday a seven-year-old Massachusetts law that created a “buffer-zone” around every abortion clinic in the state. The law, the Court said, went too far to silence the messages of abortion opponents outside clinics even when those messages are quiet, intended to be courteous attempts to dissuade patients.
One potentially wider implication of the ruling is that it may also imperil “bubble zones” near clinics — invisible no-entry zones that float around individual patients as they approach a clinic. That seemed to be at least hinted by a potential future line-up of Justices, different from Thursday’s array, should a new “bubble-zone” test case arise.
The lead opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in McCullen v. Coakley went to considerable lengths to suggest ways that cities or states could pass new laws to protect patients’ access to abortion facilities. But all of those approaches, it appeared, would be to thwart actual obstruction, physical intrusion, or actual intimidation of patients, not the kind of “counseling” that the Court found threatened by the Massachusetts law.
What the First Amendment does protect, the Roberts opinion made clear, is gentle persuasion, at least when that is carried out on the public sidewalks and roadways next to an abortion facility. Citing data by abortion foes who insist they engage only in benign counseling, the Chief Justice said they have had “far less frequent and far less success” in getting even to talk to patients personally or hand them literature since the buffer zone was imposed.
“It is no answer,” the Chief Justice wrote, “to say that [abortion counselors] can be seen and heard by women within the buffer zones. If all that the women can see and hear are vociferous opponents of abortion, then the buffer zones have effectively stifled [the] message [of counseling].”
Concluding that sidewalk counselors working the sidewalks around abortion clinics are “not protestors,” the Court’s main opinion said that “they seek only to inform women of various alternatives and to provide help in pursing them. [They] believe that they can accomplish this objective only through personal, caring, consensual conversations.”
The opinion thus put state and city governments on notice that, while they may act to ensure public safety around and abortion patients’ access to medical facilities providing such services, they cannot do so by making entirely off limits to counselors the areas closest to the clinics that include public sidewalks and roadways.
This, then, was a ruling about “buffer zones.” The Court’s main opinion did not consider the continuing validity of a prior case about anti-abortion protests, dealing with the somewhat separate issue of “bubble zones.” In its decision in 2000 in Hill v. Colorado, the Court had upheld a state law that limited close contact with persons entering or leaving an abortion clinic, by setting up a ”buffer zone” and, within that zone, making it illegal to approach a person closer than eight feet (a “bubble zone”) without that person’s consent, to engage in counseling or literature distribution.
After this new ruling, it appeared that even a “bubble zone” might be vulnerable to challenge, at least when the patient was shielded from counseling on a public sidewalk or roadway near the clinic. The Chief Justice’s approving remarks about the First Amendment right to engage in counseling in public arenas appeared to contradict some of the reasoning of the 2000 decision.
In a future test case on “bubble zones,” it would appear that four Justices who on Thursday wanted to strike down the Massachusetts law on broader grounds than those used by the Chief Justice might well be prepared to vote to strike down a “bubble zone.” In fact, three of those four Justices called specifically on Thursday for overruling of the Hill v. Colorado precedent. Those three were Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of a separate opinion, joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., did not call for an overruling of the Hill precedent, but did object in an opinion for himself that the Chief Justice’s opinion in the Massachusetts case did not go far enough.
The Chief Justice’s opinion was joined in full by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. That opinion did not discuss the Hill precedent — presumably because some of the Justices joining it would have objected.
Thus, whether that precedent might be in jeopardy in a future case could depend upon whether the Chief Justice could be persuaded to join the four Justices who did not join his Massachusetts opinion but who might seek to enlist his support in an effort to protect close encounters in the “bubble zone” context, too — an extension of the new decision beyond the “buffer zone” context.
Yesterday was the one-year anniversary of Wendy Davis’ filibuster on the floor of the Texas Senate. You probably remember it — if not (or even if so), go read Andrea Grimes’ write-up on the events that took place in the Texas Capitol last year with the perspective that 12 months can bring.
Anyway, as anniversaries often do, this one was commemorated with a party. I was busy around the Capitol last year, covering the events for the Austin Chronicle, and I made a lot of friendships with people who are really important to me know as a result of that time. Some of those friends organized this party, and brought in speakers — the marquee name being State Senator Leticia Van De Putte, the Democratic party’s current nominee for Lt. Governor, who galvanized the infamous shouting at 11:47pm last year by asking, “At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?”
It was a remarkable moment, made even more powerful by the context of the evening from Van De Putte’s perspective (she had to leave her own father’s funeral to get to the Capitol to vote against the bill). It essentially launched Van De Putte’s statewide career.
I admire the Senator’s willingness to come to Austin to stand for that moment, at personal sacrifice, and it won’t surprise anyone who’s read much of anything I’ve ever written to know that I’m planning to vote for her in November.
Which might make the next bit sound a little like a #humblebrag to some people, but it isn’t: During her brief remarks last night at the event, she took a moment to single out some of the people who were at the Capitol, and she closed it out with, “Our number-one guy, Dan Solomon.” Which was a bit of a thrill, because I worked very hard that summer and it is really nice to hear someone with a microphone recognize you for it, especially when that person is someone you admire.
But it’s also weird, as a journalist, to hear a politician who you are at least nominally tasked with reporting on (I’ve never covered Van De Putte or her campaign, but I have covered the legislature) publicly declare that you’re, like, on the team. Because I don’t feel like I’m on the team.
At least, I’m not on Team Van De Putte. I was on team “let’s talk about how shitty this vile bill that was being railroaded through using arcane legislative tricks designed to make it easier to get hurricane relief to people in emergencies is” last summer, though, and I was glad that the Senator was on that team as well. And I imagine, since I’ve never written about her in any other context, that that’s what she had in mind when she used that possessive “our” up there. But it’s also weird, because there are certainly situations where Van De Putte and I could be on different teams, and a part of me worries that it’ll be hard for people to trust that because of this identification.
On the other hand, one thing that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about in the year since all of the activity at the Texas State Capitol last year is the notion of advocacy in journalism — because it’s unavoidable, primarily, and because I didn’t get into this to pretend to be a convenience store security camera without a viewpoint, guided by a notion of “objectivity” that favors “balance” over truth.
One can be balanced, of course — you just interview someone from Side A, someone from Side B, and say, “Who the heck knows what the truth is, you decide.” But you can’t ever really be unbiased — and I’m not sure anyone would want you to be. But advocacy seeps into all journalism, simply because it’s written by people with viewpoints.
Every sportswriter who covers the NFL is a political writer, because there’s a team in that league whose name is widely accepted by both the public and the courts to be a racial slur. If they choose to refer to that team as “the football team from Washington,” they’re making a political decision; if they choose to call them the Washington Redskins, they’re also making a political decision. If you write about the World Cup and you don’t mention the Favelas that were destroyed to prepare for the event, you’re practicing advocacy journalism; if you write “The Ten Best Episodes Of The Cosby Show" and you don’t include the fact that Bill Cosby has been accused of rape by multiple people, you’re advocating for the idea that those charges aren’t relevant to a discussion of his work; etc, etc, etc.
So if all journalism is advocacy journalism because it’s written by people who have ideas about the world, it’s probably better to be honest about it. Which is why I was comfortable writing such a baldly first-person piece about the filibuster and HB2 last year — the bias was there regardless, and I wasn’t more likely to put my thumb on the scale in favor of my “side” as someone who was open about what he believed than I was as someone who tried to hide it.
I don’t think of myself as Leticia Van De Putte’s “number one guy” (I didn’t know that she had any idea who I was until last night), though, like anyone else would presumably be, I’m flattered by the shout-out — and she may learn why not, over time, as both of our careers continue in Texas. I figure that if you’re going to talk about the importance of reporting honestly and truthfully, part of that is being honest and truthful about how you personally feel about things, so your readers have that information when they read what you have to say, as well — in the end, that’s truth that matters in reporting, too.
I think they went through a lot of trouble to make it look sort of like a gas-powered bike, to not much good.
Outside of Harley-Davidson's Lower Manhattan store on Monday, a group of Harley enthusiasts leaned against the railing of a construction canopy, smoking cigarettes and chatting about work while they waited in line to be one of the very first people in the world to take a ride on Harley's newest motorcycle. The bike they were waiting for wasn't the latest loud, hulking monument to two-wheeled American chrome though: this was something altogether different.
Harley was introducing Project LiveWire, its first electric motorcycle, and it had brought over a dozen of them to its Manhattan store for a limited preview of the bikes before they go on tour around the US for the rest of the year, beginning today.
LiveWire is far from the type of bike that Harley enthusiast are used to. It has a single gear, a touchscreen dashboard, and no gas to speak of. Oh, and it's quiet. Really, really quiet.
"At first, it was a shock," says George Pelaez, a member of the Harley Owners Group's New York City chapter. But Palaez, like many of the other HOG NYC members in attendance, found a lot to like in LiveWire, despite its striking differences. "The technology is unbelievable," he says.
Even though LiveWire won't be going on sale — Harley says that it's only looking at rider feedback at the moment — LiveWire is ready and impressive to ride. It tops out around 92 miles per hour and can get from zero to 60 in under four seconds, according to a Harley representative. For now, it isn't meant to take you all that far though: its range is around 55 miles in an economy mode and around 33 miles in a "power" mode. Charging time is about 3.5 hours.
Harley executives aren't interested in talking specs, though. They stressed that what they care about right now is getting rider feedback — including finding out who this bike is actually for. "That’s one of the most interesting things we’re gonna learn," says Harley marketing chief Mark-Hans Richer. "The breadth of this experience." This isn't a bike for most Harley traditionalists, after all, so the question may be what new, younger riders are looking for.
"It can be a totally different sound as long as it delivers those same emotional characteristics."
Richer says that LiveWire is Harley's acknowledgement that there's a growing customer interest in electric vehicles. Harley believes that there's still a lot of development needed before they’ll take off, and presumably, Harley thinks it can help electric motorcycles do just that.
But Harley's challenge isn't just technical: it's emotional. It's recreating the feel of a grumbling V-twin engine and all the power that comes with controlling one. LiveWire certainly gives its drivers plenty of control — riders were calling it agile, sporty, nimble — but its sound is something very different.
LiveWire is nearly impossible to hear when out among New York City traffic. When revved indoors, however, it lets off a high-pitched whine that sounds more like an oversized vacuum than a vehicle.
"It's different, right? It's hard to ignore that," Richer says. Harley knows how important a bike's sound is, but it isn't committed to recreating the classic roar. "If it ends in the same place of, 'Wow I really feel cool on this, and other people turn their heads when I go by and love the sound, and it makes a statement, and it's got character and attitude,' then that's where it wants to be. That's where it needs to be."
"It can be a totally different sound as long as it delivers those same emotional characteristics," Richer says.
Members of New York's Harley Owners Group didn't mind the change in tone, but they did mind the near absence of sound altogether. "It looks great. It's a good introductory bike for those who can’t drive standard," HOG member Louis Diaz, Jr. says. "Only drawback: it doesn’t make noise."
"I wanna ride it more. I wanna open it up."
"For safety, you need a little noise," Hector Ponce, another HOG member, agrees. "You need the cars to hear you, especially taxis. They’re insane."
Ponce thinks that with little perceptible noise coming from a bike like LiveWire, a rider is guaranteed to get into an accident eventually. "I wanted to get one for my son," he says. "The reason I won’t do it is a safety reason: no noise."
Harley dismisses the safety argument, however, saying that it's something of a misconception. Even so, Richer says, when riding around New York on LiveWire, "They heard me coming."
Either way, there's a good chance that motorcycle riders will want to give LiveWire a try. We brought along our friend Christaan Felber, a photographer and motorcycle enthusiast, to take LiveWire for test drive. He's been riding around on a 1965 Honda CB77 Superhawk for a few years now, so jumping up to the LiveWire literally took him five decades into the future.
Felber was pretty thrilled with LiveWire's handling and feel. As soon as he jumped off the bike after doing just over a mile and a half in dense New York City traffic, his first comments were, "I wanna ride it more. I wanna open it up."
"It’s not what you think of a motorcycle."
"It’s just so easy to ride," Felber says. "You’re not thinking about clutch. You’re not thinking about shifting. It’s so fun."
As someone who's into classic bikes though — and into fixing them up — Felber's distinctly aware of the emotional shortcomings of an electric machine. "It’s like the difference between a record and an MP3," Felber explains. Records may have imperfections, but that doesn't mean they're worse. In fact, that's part of the appeal.
"The sound of it, the tone," Felber says. "It’s not what you think of a motorcycle."
Felber's reaction seemed to be, by and large, the one shared by Harley enthusiasts who in attendance. The refrain was that LiveWire was quite appealing, but it wasn't quite for them.
Figuring out what can change existing riders' minds may be part of what Harley is after as it gets feedback on the bike. LiveWire has been in development for about four years, and Harley isn't saying how long it might be before it prepares a new version (or, for that matter, if that version will actually go on sale).
The market for electric vehicles is growing though, and Harley realizes that it's worth paying attention to — even if that means adapting. For now though, it doesn't plan on throwing its history out the window. Electric vehicles are merely an opportunity for it, says Michelle Kumbier, Harley’s senior VP of motorcycle operations, "We don’t see a time that they're going to replace our traditional combustion engine."
Photography by Sean O’Kane. Video production by Billy Disney.
Hint: Use the 's' and 'd' keys to navigate
Media and enthusiasts flocked around LiveWire as Harley CMO Mark-Hans Richer prepared to ride it.
Forget dials: a touchscreen serves as LiveWire's dashboard.
Much of what's inside LiveWire is hidden from view.
Inside Harley's store, one LiveWire stood suspended on a platform used for lifting bikes up from a lower level.
A number of Harley Owners Group members came out for the debut too.
Many of the HOG members wore clothes representing its New York City chapter.
In the back of Harley's store was a stationary LiveWire that anyone could get on just to rev the engine.
The mounted LiveWire was fully functional — it just wasn't going anywhere.
LiveWire's touchscreen displays its speed, remaining battery, and how much distance it has left in it.
A LiveWire model was out on the show floor alongside Harley's other bikes.
Harley had riders watch a safety video before they could hop on.
After the video, Harley instructed riders on how to use LiveWire — and what they weren't allowed to do on it.
Harley cycled through pack after pack of test drivers for a few hours.
Christaan Felber takes the wheel outside of Harley's store.
Harley put everyone in its branded jackets before they took off.
John Oliver outlines what, exactly is problematic about Dr. Oz and the nutrition supplement industry. Then he invites George R.R. Martin, Steve Buscemi, the ...
So, it appears that this fungus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudoinia_compniacensis , is associated with ethanol. The idea that people are suing because there are dark spots on their stuff which may or may not be related to distilling seems pretty frivolous to me, given that mold and lichen are EVERYWHERE and the black spots appear on people's siding everywhere, and this species is apparently rather slow-growing.
Do you have black fungus growing on your gutters or siding? Do you have to clean black spots off your siding with a pressure washer? Does your car's roof get black dots on it? Contact us. We are currently conducting scientific tests in affected locations.
We've designed this site to answer questions you might have about whiskey fungus and the lawsuit we've filed on behalf of affected homeowners, businesses, and residents.
What is whiskey fungus?
Whiskey fungus is a black fungus that grows when ethanol is released into the atmosphere. Technically, it's called Baudoinia compniacensis.
Why is it called whiskey fungus?
Distilleries release ethanol into the atmosphere during the process of distilling and aging liquor. Whiskey fungus is called whiskey fungus because it was first noticed growing on and around distilleries in Europe during the 1800s. Wired Magazine published a good article about whiskey fungus last year.
What does whiskey fungus look like?
Whiskey fungus appears as black dots, spots, and stains, often on the siding and gutters of a home, on a car's roof and hood.
If the whiskey fungus spotting in these pictures looks familar, please contact us today.
Why does whiskey fungus grow around distilleries?
Whiskey fungus flourishes around distilleries because the process of distilling and aging liquor discharges ethanol into the environment. The whiskey fungus uses the ethanol to grow.
Why is whiskey fungus a problem?
Whiskey fungus causes staining and damage on the surfaces on which it grows. It damages homes and cars and diminishes property values. To clean whiskey fungus from their homes, homeowners are required to clean their homes with corrosive and abrasive pressure washers and chemicals.
So, is it whiskey fungus that is on my car, gutters, and siding?
Maybe. We are working with experts to identify all of the areas of Louisville that have been affected by whiskey fungus. Please contact us if you think your property or car has whiskey mold on it.
Is whiskey fungus dangerous to human health?
We don't know. Whiskey fungus is a relatively unstudied organism. Right now, we do not know of any studies that link whiskey fungus to a specific disease. We will be following any developments in this area of scholarship. Please fill out the contact form with your email address and we'll update you with what we learn.
Who did we sue and why?
We sued Diageo Americas Supply, the Brown-Forman Corporation, and Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc.
Diageo, Brown-Forman, and Heaven Hill, operate distilleries and store aging spirits in warehouses in multiple locations in Louisville.
We sued these companies because the ethanol they produce and discharge into Louisville's neighborhoods is causing whiskey fungus to damage people's cars, businesses, and homes.
What neighborhoods are affected?
We are still trying to determine exactly how widespread the problem is. The houses and cars in the neighborhoods surrounding these distilleries and warehouses—Shively, Hallmark, Algonquin Park, California, Taylor Berry—show signs of whiskey fungus damage. But, we don't know whether other areas are affected. Generally, if you can smell spirits, there is enough ethanol in the air to allow whiskey fungus to grow.
We have created a map of the locations of the defendants' factories and warehouses. Please contact us if you think whiskey fungus has damaged your home, car, or business.
View a larger map of the Defendants' operations in Louisville, Kentucky
Is the fungus limited to Louisville?
Absolutely not. Whiskey fungus will grow wherever there is enough ethanol in the air for the fungus to grow. The defendants are large companies with diverse products. They operate facilities—distilleries and aging barns—all across America. Louisville residents have sued on behalf of those residents who live near the Defendants' ethanol-emitting facilities across Kentucky.
If you live near a distillery or aging facility in another town and suspect whiskey fungus on your property, please contact us immediately.
Who are the lawyers representing the homeowners, car owners, and business owners?
What about Icelandic whisky? Well, if you’re Egill and Hali Thorkelsson, two brothers from Iceland, you have to make it up. Being the first producer of whisky in Iceland gives them the crare opportunity to define a whole new category of national whisky. Founded in 2009, the Eimverk Distillery has set out to do just that.
Being first offers many advantages, but it also brings with it some specific challenges. Iceland has no malting facilities, no proven yeast strains, no native mash bills. While understandably tight-lipped about their yeast sourcing, they are eager to talk about their mash bill. One of their main goals was to produce a traditional-ingredient spirit, and they use 100% Icelandic-grown barley. A hardy, dense grain, the cold climate concentrates the nutrients and flavors into a smaller package than warmer climate varieties. Another major challenge is that Iceland is, according to Egill, a vodka and schnapps nation. Reykjavik, Iceland’s largest city and capitol, has just one whisky bar.
Hali and Egill Thorkelsson
A tour of the distillery shows that this is definitely a labor of love. From the repurposed milk chillers to the custom-made still (named Elizabeth, after their grandmother), the whole operation takes place in a space the size of a large garage. They store their barrels off-site in the Icelandic countryside. They currently run at about 30,000 liters per year with the capacity to double that. Every third week the process is shifted to make a batch of gin, again using only locally grown ingredients. When asked how they learned to make whisky, they both laugh, “YouTube!”
They do, however, have years of experience home brewing their own beer, and just as importantly, they have the Icelandic spirit of adventure. It is appropriate that their single malt expression will bear the name of one of the island’s first explorers, Hrafna-Flóki (Floki of the Ravens); Flóki to his friends.
Elizabeth
At this point, it might be tempting to wonder about their ability to be a serious entrant into the whisky marketplace. It might be instructive to note that their gin, Vor (Icelandic for spring), recently won “Double Gold” at the San Francisco World Spirits Competition this year. It’s more tempting to think they may be on to something, Iceland being perhaps the best place for such a micro-distillery. “How many micros in the US can have a bottle in every store in the nation?” Egill asks.
Careful not to rely too much on the instructive merits of YouTube, their niece, Eva, is finalizing professional training in Scotland. Formal training can only get you so far, however. The rest comes from a lot of trial and error, or as Egill calls it, “playing.” Experimenting with over 160 recipes, the process was to “taste a lot of whisky, get a lot of opinions, and make a lot of mistakes.”
So sometime in 2017, the first bottle of Icelandic single malt whisky, “Flóki,” will hit the shelves. Their standard expression will be a 3 year old aged in bourbon barrels that is “not complex, with a few key ingredients to make it very drinkable.” It will also be organic and eco-friendly. All their power is geothermal, and the only pesticide used is a little thing they like to call “winter.”
Sara at the Dillon Whiskey Bar with a cask of Flóki
But what about the defining of a unique, Icelandic expression? “I like smoked,” Egill admits, and Iceland has plenty of native peat. He notes that traditional Icelandic methods of smoking usually are, er…dung-related. This might be one area where he’s willing to deviate from traditional practices, but he rules nothing out. The normally straightforward master distiller becomes ambiguous when pressed for more details, but hints that something might be bottled before the single malt is introduced.
For the curious, adventurous, or just plain impatient world traveler, you can try some slighty-aged Flóki (1-12 months in virgin oak, medium plus char) from their pre-release 4.5 liter mini-casks at Dillon Whiskey Bar in Reykjavik.
This whiskey fungus business is weird. Imma have to look into it.
Diageo still doesn’t have a name for its new Shelby County distillery, but the liquor giant somewhat revealed its American whiskey strategies at a public gathering at the Shelbyville Country Club on June 10.
Diageo officials said they’re investigating the possibilities of moving its Stitzel-Weller stills from Shively to the new location. These stills have not been used since the early 1990s, but produced some of the greatest bourbon ever made. Meanwhile, Diageo has tapped Vendome to build a 60-foot-tall column still, and Fluor Engineering to construct single story warehouses, which will be 27 feet tall and 55,000 square feet, with slight heat in the winter to keep the fire protection sprinklers from freezing. The heat will not influence aging, officials said.
The “Before” shot
The 300 acre, $115 million distillery will yield a projected 750,000 9-liter cases or 1.8-million proof gallons annually, but the officials were quick to point out that this volume is just an early estimate and the selected site—Benson Pike—offers growing room.
As for the upcoming master distiller, well, Tom Bulleit, founder of Bulleit Bourbon, had something to say about that. “It wouldn’t be me. I’m just the founder, just the business guy like Bill Samuels [of Maker’s Mark],” Bulleit said. “It will take two or three years just to get going. There will be a great national distiller here, a representative of Kentucky.”
Whether Diageo recruits a current master distiller from another company or pulls in George Dickel master distiller John Lunn (who has been known to be looking over Stitzel-Weller) remains to be seen. But all indications point toward this new facility being solely an American whiskey producer.
Diageo spokesperson Alix Dunn said the distillery will be used to make Bulleit and “innovative products in the pipeline.” It will most certainly not be used for distilling or aging George Dickel Tennessee Whiskey, Dunn said, adding “we can’t do that.” Diageo recently proposed a Tennessee whiskey law change that would allow the use of used barrels. Brown-Forman, the makers of Jack Daniel’s, said this was an effort to age George Dickel in Kentucky, among other things. Tennessee lawmakers said they will study the issue after the summer legislation ends. [UPDATE: the Tennessee legislature's investigation into this matter ended abruptly last night after Lunn testified that the liquor stored in Kentucky would be blended with other spirits and not used for George Dickel.]
As for why Diageo chose to build a new distillery instead of repairing the historic Stitzel-Weller facility, Dunn said, “It made the most sense for the future to start fresh on a new site that allows for more options as needed.” It’s also worth pointing out that the closest residential area to the proposed single story warehouses is about one mile away with the surrounding areas zoned for agriculture. This puts the new facility at a significant distance from potential whiskey fungus litigants.
“We’re not right on top of other people,” Dunn said of the proximity of the distillery. “[Whiskey fungus] is not something we’re in agreement with, but it remains to be seen what the courts have to say about it.”
Tom Bulleit (left) talks with local folks at the meeting
It also remains to be seen what the future holds for Bulleit. Diageo has not named the Shelby County distillery, though the founder tipped his hat to the fact he might be campaigning for it to become the Bulleit Distillery.
Bulleit bourbon has been one of the most important growth brands, especially in the cocktail culture, and owns the wells in core markets like San Francisco. Bulleit Bourbon sold 600,000 cases last year. Bulleit says his immediate goals for the brand is to roll out a private barrel selection program this fall at Stitzel-Weller, where Bulleit bourbon and rye are currently aged, as well as at two other locations. Neither he nor the other Diageo officials knew exactly how much Bulleit would be aged at the new location, saying there are many steps left to be taken.
The Diageo facility has received the support of the Kentucky governor as well as local and county politicians. A public hearing will be held on June 17 at 6:30 pm in Shelbyville.
At the June 10 gathering, during the first two hours, nobody opposed the distillery. In fact, most locals seemed incredibly enthused, including the Radcliff Farm owners who grow corn for one of Diageo’s competitors. (They didn’t say who.) “It’s going into a beautiful area, very peaceful,” said Jim Tafel, the farm owner. “They’ll have nice neighbors.”
Sounds a lot like Diageo are trying to do right by the community, but I can't exactly blame them for being skeptical.
Despite the Shelby County planning commission unanimously approving the $115 million Diageo Distillery, nearby residents plan to continue protesting if several local issues are not addressed.
Diageo officials explained their company’s distillery plans, including state-of-the-art fire protection measures, significant economic benefits, and environmental considerations that include the planting of 2,450 native trees and a bio retention basin. But at the June 17 public hearing, several citizens offered cynicism toward Diageo’s claims and raised several issues over odor, traffic, noise pollution, water usage, black fungus, and sewage.
At the center of the community’s issue is the Guist Creek Lake, a 317-acre reservoir five miles east of Shelbyville. Diageo plans to use 180,000 gallons a day from the lake and says feasibility studies indicated this will not impact local water supplies.
But Bill Roberts, a 25-year resident of the Guist Creek Lake area, says past droughts have impacted its usage. “I can remember twice the lake was so low Shelby County had to keep the farmers from pumping water for their crops,” Roberts said. “How can [the county] allow another company to take 180,000 gallons a day from that lake and use it?”
The water commission determined the distillery’s lake usage would take out less than two inches of level, said Guy. L. Smith, executive vice president for the company, who was the lead Diageo presenter at the hearing. “If there was a drought, we’d be a part of the community that would be sensitive to that and would not just carry on,” Smith said.
There’s also the issue of the lake residents tapping into the new infrastructure.
“For 25 years they’ve been telling us we’re going to get sewers and fire hydrants,” said Linda Casey Stevenson, a resident who lives two blocks from the proposed distillery entrance on Benson Pike. “Diageo is coming in and they’re building all this. But we will not be allowed to hook into that. Obviously, they have declared Shelby County is open and for sale.”
Resident Linda Casey Stevenson is concerned about drought.
Stevenson says she’ll continue to voice her opinions.
But there’s little that can be done. Smith says Diageo plans to be breaking ground in three months and wants to support the community as “good neighbors.” Diageo is now pursuing approvals for building permits, but it’s met all county and state requirements to begin the project, Smith says.
In addition to the area’s tree plantings, the company says it went above and beyond the county’s newly adopted zoning requirements for a distillery, which required at least 25 percent of the property to be dedicated to agricultural use or preserved as a conservation area.
Diageo said it will have a zero waste to landfill and that at least 100 acres will serve as a natural barrier to the operation. Diageo also explained buildings will fit in the natural landscape and will contain fire as well as alcohol leaks.
Company officials said in the case of a fire or massive barrel leaks, the warehouse’s concrete dikes would contain the fire or liquid. The water retention basin would act as a secondary containment area, they said.
“The entire area of disturbance in the distillery area and warehouses is drained to the water bio retention basin,” said Kevin Young, a site planner working with Diageo. “All storm water goes through a filtration system before it exits the site. This is not required by [the zoning], but something we’re doing above [requirements].”
These extra efforts have not gone unnoticed. Outside of the Guist Creek Lake residents, Shelby County Tourism and residents expressed support for the new distillery.
“I appreciate the dilemma of [residents] and their concerns. However, this distillery has gone above and beyond what most companies try to do within our regulations and to support this community,” said Shelby County resident Katy Shabdue. “I’m very much in favor of this.”
Only one resident claimed to have an issue with the whiskey fungus. The young man presented the commission with a picture of black mold. The commission did not address him and later voted in favor of the distillery.
Construction is expected to be completed within three years, Diageo says. The company still has not named the distillery.
This is my old friend Amanda. You really need to click through and look at her work. I'll see if I can get the bookmarklet to digest some of her gallery...
Congratulations to Anke, winner of our Spring Giveaway! She will receive a limited edition cast of Nostos, which will be available for purchase at a few different venues this year (pictured in-progress, clay model).
I was assigned to create a piece inspired by a dreadfully cool short story written by the infinitely badass writer Chelsea Cain, for the benefit of the Action/Adventure Theatre company. It was a blast!
The narrator is a nameless drifter who hides in strangers’ car trunks, and then continues on from wherever they park. Just to find the next place. Maybe a better place. A different one, anyway!
We’ve received a large number of requests to add a bookmarklet feature to The Old Reader. Today we are excited to be launching this functionality for our premium users. We will likely roll this functionality out to all users at some point in the future, but do not currently have a timeline in place.
The bookmarklet is quickly and easily added to your browser bookmarks and allows you to send a copy of any web page to your TOR account. Those pages are saved in the new bookmarklets section and are also searchable and sharable.
We know a lot of our users will be excited to see this new functionality and we look forward to your feedback. Thanks for using The Old Reader!
GWEN IFILL: The president used the power of executive authority again today, this time to protect a wider expanse of the central Pacific Ocean.
Jeffrey Brown has the story and why scientists believe the area needs special safeguards.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: If we drain our oceans of their resources, we won’t just be squandering one of humanity’s greatest treasures. We will be cutting off one of the world’s major sources of food and economic growth.
JEFFREY BROWN: President Obama announced his plan to create the world’s largest marine preserve in a video message delivered today at a State Department conference on oceans conservation.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: And like Presidents Clinton and Bush before me, I’m going to use my authority as president to protect some of our most precious marine landscapes, just like we do for mountains and rivers and forests.
JEFFREY BROWN: Today’s directive would add to U.S. marine monuments in the Central Pacific designated by President George W. Bush during his administration. President Obama’s proposal could expand protection areas around seven islands and atolls in the U.S. territorial waters from 50 miles to 200.
And while final boundaries have not yet been determined, the executive step would expand the sparsely inhabited Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument from almost 87,000 square miles to more than 780,000. That would put drilling, fishing and other activities in the new preserves off-limits.
Some Republican lawmakers, like House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, claimed the move was an overreach of presidential powers. In a statement, he said: “This is yet another example of how an imperial president is intent on taking unilateral action, behind closed doors, to impose new regulations and layers of restrictive red tape. Oceans, like our federal lands, are intended to be multiple-use and open for a wide range of economic activities that includes fishing, recreation, conservation, and energy production.”
The president also today issued a memorandum to federal agencies to develop a program that would ensure all seafood sold in the U.S. is both sustainable and traceable. In the meantime, any expansion of the Pacific marine reserves will be implemented later this year, after a public comment period.
The U.S. controls more than 13 percent of all ocean areas overseen by countries, and today’s action was being watched by international observers as well as on Capitol Hill.
We’re now joined by Joshua Reichert. He is the executive vice president of the Pew Charitable Trusts, where he directs environmental initiatives. And Juliet Eilperin, who reported this story for The Washington Post.
And welcome to both of you.
JULIET EILPERIN, The Washington Post: Thanks so much.
JEFFREY BROWN: Joshua Reichert, let me start with you. Tell us more about this area of the ocean, and why is it important to protect?
JOSHUA REICHERT: Well, it’s one of the most isolated, remote areas of the ocean that’s under the jurisdiction of the United States.
And because it’s isolated and hard to get to, these islands and atolls have been uninhabited essentially forever. So the amount of ocean life that they contain is absolutely remarkable. It’s a staggering assemblage of fish, sea birds, marine mammals, and critical habitat that’s needed by a wide variety of species that occupy these areas.
JEFFREY BROWN: I suppose one would wonder, if it’s so little remote and so little used, why does it need protection, as opposed to other places?
JOSHUA REICHERT: Well, the world is shrinking.
And areas that 50 years ago were considered to be absolutely inaccessible today are not that way. And I think, over the short to medium term, these areas will be opened up and they will not be nearly as remote as they are today. Fishing vessels now ply these waters on a regular basis, and, 50 years ago, they didn’t.
JEFFREY BROWN: Juliet, what can you tell us about the decision and the process to take this action, and in this way, through an executive action?
JULIET EILPERIN: Well, first, when you look at the issue starting with the executive action, that this is something that presidents have done for decades.
Under the Antiquities Act, they have had this authority for roughly 100 years to essentially designate — designate lands for protection — or waters — without congressional approval. So that’s nothing new. What is interesting is President Obama, who has used that authority 11 times already to protect areas on land, had never used it in the ocean.
And what it reflects is actually a renewed focus on this driven by two members of his administration, John Podesta, his counselor who has worked on ocean issues for several years and really was pushing for this, and Secretary of State John Kerry, who hosted the conference you referenced over the last two days.
Both of them were looking for the president to do something big, symbolic on this issue.
JEFFREY BROWN: And I referred in the introduction there to some opposition quickly voiced by Republicans. Are they seeing this differently from what President Bush did?
JULIET EILPERIN: Well, it’s an interesting question.
I talked to Chairman Hastings about this, and one thing I asked is since President Bush actually created the initial monument in 2009, I asked him whether he had voiced concern then. He replied that he had not weighed in at all because he had not been on the Natural Resources Committee at that point.
But there was very little outcry from congressional Republicans when President Bush undertook several steps to declare parts of the ocean off-limits.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, so let’s — starting with you, Joshua Reichert, what does it mean to declare a wide swathe of ocean a monument? What will not happen or what will happen there? How do you even protect — how do you do that?
JOSHUA REICHERT: The management plan — there needs to be a management plan that’s created for these areas, but I think the assumption here is, is that all extractive activity within the parameters of these monuments will be prohibited.
So the production of oil and gas, fishing, deep-sea mining, and these are — so, they’re areas that are designed to be set aside. And as Juliet indicated, the Antiquities Act has been used by presidents over the past century to protect areas like this.
JEFFREY BROWN: Do you know how much the plan is already set? Or is this what happens over the next period?
JULIET EILPERIN: This plan is not set, and they will have to work through it. They are going to get some public input. What’s interesting is, partially because this is something that really came together in recent weeks, is that there isn’t a detailed plan.
And, also, since the president could do this by themselves, there’s no designated time for how long they take public comment, but certainly they will be basically waiting to hear from folks over the next couple of months.
JEFFREY BROWN: And I know you reached out for a reaction from people in the fishing industry. So, what did they have to say about this?
JULIET EILPERIN: So, the members of the recreational fishing industry have some concerns about this — they received an exemption when this monument was created under President Bush — just because they don’t like the precedent of prohibiting sports fishing in any area.
And so they will be looking to keep that exemption and they are a little concerned about it. What’s interesting, the tuna industry, which operates in this region, hasn’t been public about where — how they will weigh in, but I’m quite confident they will express their concerns about this to the administration.
JEFFREY BROWN: What about how this plays out with other countries? How does it jibe or not jibe with what other countries are doing? Would there be questions about the U.S.’ rights in an area like this to take an action like that?
JOSHUA REICHERT: This is all within the jurisdiction of the United States, so there won’t be questions like that.
I think that what we’re seeing and what we have been seeing over the course of the past decade or two is a growing recognition of the value of the world’s oceans to people and the fact that they’re in trouble, and so that there has been more effort made over the course of the past several decades to protect areas of the ocean than has ever been made before.
The decision by a sitting president to designate an area as a national monument requires the balancing of different kinds of interests, economic, biological, cultural, aesthetic. And, clearly, in this case, two presidents have made a determination that the value of these areas far transcends the amount of profit that can be eked out of them every year by commercial fishing.
JEFFREY BROWN: Do you think that — to Juliet — that there might be more to come here in terms of more actions like this, specifically in the oceans? You were talking about actions that affect…
JULIET EILPERIN: Right.
I think that’s actually an intriguing part of what President Obama said in his video today. He talked about the idea that he would use this authority in the future. And so I think we could expect that there would be further action.
And it also was interesting that, whether you’re talking about the president or his deputies, they were emphasizing the economic value of the ocean and arguing that there is in fact more economic benefit by putting part of it off-limits. And so I think we will see them making that case and using that in selected instances.
JEFFREY BROWN: Are you expecting to see more?
JOSHUA REICHERT: We are.
JEFFREY BROWN: You are.
JOSHUA REICHERT: And, in fact, we have been trying to over the course of the past five or six years to encourage the governments, various governments, the United States and others, to begin to construct the first generation of the world’s great marine parks similar to what was done on land.
JEFFREY BROWN: And, meantime, Juliet, briefly, there is this comment period coming, so anybody in industry or outside may weigh in, hijack this may change a bit.
JULIET EILPERIN: Absolutely.
So, that’s one of the interesting things, that the Commerce Department and the Interior Departments will be presumably holding some hearings, hearing from folks, and they will ultimately decide. They could go out to 200 miles from shore or they could pare it back. And so that’s what we will be watching in the weeks and months to come.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Juliet Eilperin and Joshua Reichert, thank you both very much.
If you want to know what makes a whiskey a bourbon, you can look it up. Scotch? Look it up. Canadian? Look that up.
Diageo still doesn’t have a name for its new Shelby County distillery, but the liquor giant somewhat revealed its American whiskey strategies at a public gathering at the Shelbyville Country Club on June 10.
