Happy St. Patrick's Day, if you have the cash. If not, don't feel so glum. The more times the bartender swindles you, the less you will care about the $6 Guinness, the $5 door charge, and the obligatory tip with each round.

Bars are a ripoff.

I purchased a 30-pack of Busch at the package store earlier this week for $13.07. That's an outstanding deal at 44 cents a can. Go to a bar, and you will likely pay eight times that amount--that is, if they dare serve an affordable, uncouth beer such as Busch. It has not always been so. Fifteen years ago, one would normally pay around $2 for a 16-ounce Budweiser from the tap. Today, one generally pays double that. And way back when, bars would always have some low-end beer deal at $1 or $1.50 per beer. Times have changed, and not for the better. Other than real estate, gasoline, concert tickets, and tobacco products, I can't think of anything that has increased so much in price in so little time as beer has. I speak, of course, of bar-bought and not store-bought beer.

Out of curiosity, and in anticipation of a Friday St. Patrick's Day (a holiday I generally avoid celebrating when it falls on a week day), I phoned ten, DC-area Irish bars to inquire about the cost of Harp, which is a common beer served at such establishments. The average price is $5.11 a pint. The best deals are $4.50 for a 16-ounce glass at Bethesda's Ri Ra and $5 for a 20-ounce glass at Irish Times across from Union Station. The worst deal is $5.50 for 16-ounce pours at Fado, B.D. Mulligan's, and Flanagan's Harp and Fiddle. One establishment, The Dubliner, informed me that they don't serve Harp because it's really brewed in Canada. Alas, their replacement beer, which they assured me is straight from Ireland, eclipsed the $5 mark too.

Last week I purchased a case of Harp for $20. To buy that same amount (288 ounces) of beer in a bar--from a tap no less--one would pay $92 (plus tip).

At what point does cost become prohibitive? For me, the price of beer at bars is prohibitive. In other words, I make a point of staying out of bars because they are too expensive. By raising prices, bars--at least in their relationship with me--have lost a customer. Can I be the only one scared away by inflated prices?

In times past, poor people in cramped houses used the pub as an extra room, a spacious extension of their home. But now that one could buy a more spacious home with the bar bill, the bar culture's best customers have been excluded. And, perhaps, that was the initial thrust of extravagent beer charges: to price out the riff-raff, to attract a wealthier clientele. The $5 beer is like the rope line, only more subtle and effective. But how much beer can the wealthy drink? And how can one stay wealthy by habitually dropping $50 at every visit to the pub?

Today, while in Gettysburg, I saw a hopeful sign. It read: "Hour of Power: Fifty-Cent Pitchers, 9-10 p.m." Alas, in small print, the name "Keystone" appeared. I guess my "Keystone" gag reflex makes me a beer snob too. Is an affordable, non-low-end beer really that lofty an expectation?

When I was a young man, I might have counselled a beerhall putsch against the beerhalls: smuggle your own beers in, refill your glass when the barkeep is not looking, complain loudly of bleach from the tap contaminating your beer until the bar gives up a new glass. Alas, my outer bourgeoisie muffles the advice of my inner proletarian. Now that I am older and allegedly respectable, I suggest a more moderate approach: stay home. When enough people heed my advice, the bars will respect my wishes on pricing. That's just how the market works. People vote on price with their pocketbook. I vote "no" on expensive beer. Who's with me?

Good post! I think the main thing to keep in mind when hitting the bars is, THINK SPECIALS. Always tip the bartender well and you will be rewarded. If I purchase three mixed drinks at some bars I can get totally ripped, and that's due exclusively to handsome tipping.

Although I think you're rocking the Boston bars. I've heard metropolitan bar prices are abhorrent. One thing that's always good to do as well is a little pre-bar drinking, if you don't already know what I mean.

You think that's bad? Try drinking in a country that has a 50% import duty on all alcoholic beverages (they are, after all, harram)!

Taxes and liability are the two things that have inflated bar prices the most. Add to it huge fees for Liscense's and stiff regulation in cities. In Cities like Boston and Chicago, two of the biggest drinking towns on the planet Earth (not on Pluto)the goverment is actively working on shutting down bars that don't meet their vision of the city ( read Yuppie Puke )Less competion means higher prices. Bars are great there are just fewer good ones in between. Today I will be in NYC and will stay clear. However, bright in early Saturday I will be in MC Sorley's were women weren't allowed until the late 70's, there is sawdust on the floor, stray cats on the premise and beer is $4 for two drafts.

Happy St. Patrick's Day to all.

Dan, I agree with you that bars are extermely overpriced, but unless you have your own tap at home, there is nothing like a pint of Guinness Draught. Here in Florida (land of the "happy hour"), we regularly imbibe Ying Ling (from Pittsburgh) at $1.50 a pint. It's a good beer, and the price makes it taste even better.

I'll leave you with an Irish Toast:

When we drink, we get drunk.
When we get drunk, we fall asleep.
When we fall asleep, we commit no sin.
When we commit no sin, we go to heaven.
So, let's all get drunk, and go to heaven!

When my buddies and I were slumming in all the bars when we were overseas in Korea, we would start off drinking either Guinness or Bud, and than after around the 7th beer we would switch off to OB. OB (Oriental Brewery) was the beer of choice for the people of Korea. It was the swept up leftovers from the floors at the overseas Budweiser plants, but we didnt give a sh!t anyway cause we were trashed by than. Its always a hella good time over there, dont have to worry about driving anywhere, because public transportation is so cheap and so is the beer.

Have to agree Dan. I don't go to any place that charges a cover which leaves one of my favorite scenes of the crime Boston out. Last year, the Black Rose was charging a $50 cover. Insane. Lucky I have high friends in low places cause last year your brother got me into his place of business for the donut for the festivities.

Dan, I used to work at the Irish Times in DC. The beers were marked up on St. Patty's Day and we couldn't pump the suds fast enough. What the market will bear sort of thing, I suppose.
I have to agree with an earlier post about the cost of litigation and the associated liability insurance. The beertenders have to pay the lawyers somehow.
Happy St. Pats. I'm headed to the Claddagh in downtown Indianapolis...
Tim

My favorite place is the Hong Kong in Faneuil Hall. $1.50 drafts & $6 pitchers of Moosehead, $2 appetizers before 8:30. Unfortunately there is usually karaoke going on, but I've become adept at blocking it out.

Six retired Irishmen were playing pok*r in O'Leary's apartment when Paddy
Murphy loses $500 on a single hand, clutches his chest and drops dead at the
table. Showing respect for their fallen brother, the other five continue
playing standing up.

Michael O'Conner looks around and asks, "Ok, me lads," someone has to tell
Paddy's wife. Who will it be?"

They draw straws. Liam Gallagher picks the short one. They tell him to be
discreet, be gentle, don't make a bad situation any worse.

"Discreet??? I'm the most discreet Irishmen you'll ever meet. Discretion is
me middle name. Leave it to me."

Gallagher goes over to Murphy's house and knocks on the door. Mrs. Murphy
answers and asks what he wants. Gallagher declares: "Your husband just lost
$500 and is afraid to come home"

"Tell him to drop dead!" says Murphy's wife.

"I'll go tell him." says Gallagher.

Got to watch your goodies in the Hong Kong OB. At times (usually late) there is not a lot of difference between it and the Ramrod room. But, the prices are low. Sissy K's is cheap too. But it's a pit with dirty glasses and tap lines to boot. Donavan's too. Very reasonable for the Maaaaket.

I fear that the older I get, the less tolerent I am to low end establishments. Especially since I'm filthy rich now. But, there was a time when those were my preferred places.

One thing that's missing in today's high priced joints is atmosphere. Usually a bunch of stiffs in suits or kids on their way up that are right out of their obnoxious fraternity phase.

Another sad but true fact is that the Littlest bar will be shutting down for good next month. Sniff.

Anyone know where to get the cheapess Guinness in Boston?

I tired of the bar scene some time ago. While not of the Upper crust as asdf,lol,I do enjoy my libations from time to time. Just picked up a bottle of Knob Hill, as I'm too cheap to spend $45.00 on a bottle of Bookers. I also am going to try a micro-brew called Two Hearted Ale. It's brewed in Kalamazoo. I hope my "Homie" over in Chippewa at Leinenkugels will forgive me. No Honey Weiss today.

Couple of more things since I was too much in a rush earlier to read what you fine gentlemen wrote....

Gro: you're lucky to be in NY today. I spent two St. P's days in the apple. One in Manhattan (on business, wink wink) and one in Brooklyn. In both burroughs: no covers, no waiting lines, and multiple buy backs. It was great 'cause you could truly bar hop as you didn't feel like you had to stay at a given place because you paid a cover so high that you felt obligated to get your money's worth. NY kicks Beantown in the A when it comes to St. P's.

Fudgie: I trust that that toast was an American version of an Irish one. The Irish don't really celebrate St. P's day or give many toasts. St. P's is a church and brunch day in Hibernia and I found the real Irish to be very moderate in their drinking. In fact, in my limited travels there it did not seem to be a big part of the new Irish culture at all.

OB: there aren't many places to get cheap Guinness in Boston especially pon St. P's day, but the last time I was in Foley's around Christmas time, it was $3.75 for a proper pint. Drydock is pretty cheap too $4.00. Purple Shamrock was pretty decent years ago but haven't been in there since the 21 year olds took over and I think since they gone up.

Happy St. Patty's Day! (almost forgot)

Dan,

From an O'Connell to a Flynn - Happy St. Patrick's Day.

This was a great column. I have found a good bar here in Germany - and it's not the tacky wanna-be Irish bar.

It's a bar in the basement of the local Catholic College Students' Association, the crowd is mixed (as young as 1st year college student - here that's 19 or 20 - and as old as my old friend Franz-Bernd, who's about 44). Everyone is friendly, and they are open from 7:30 in the evening until 1:00 on weekdays and 2:00 on weekends (and sometimes longer once you get to know the bartenders).

I drink half-liters of Karlsberg (with a K and not with a C - German beer brewed about 30 minutes south of here) for 2 Euros and 10 cents per half-liter.

That's about 16.9 oz. - but with even the worst exchange rate last year, in U.S. dollars, that would be about $2.80 per half-liter. Right now, it's about $2.52. That's a humane price, and you can hang out with your friends too.

When I used to live back in D.C., I started going your route though, and I would do it again if I were there again: I bought Black Label ice cold in cans down at the 12th Street (NE) Liquor Store for about $2.60 per six pack, until they discontinued it (or so I was told), and then I started drinking Miller High Life out of the glass bottle for I think at that time (2004) about 2.90 or 3.10 a six-pack.

These prices you're talking about are really absurd.

We're not just talking about pricing bums out of the bar, we're talking about pricing the blue-collar working man and the scribblers among us out too!

Dan,

I went to a bar (Fado's) in Atlanta on Friday night, and must tell you that I had previously read your post on exorbiant beer prices. I ended up paying $11 for a 32 ounce glass of Harp's, and then $10 for a refill. I felt horrible for paying a $10 cover charge, but they had an awesome U2 coverband.

Dan, since you beg answers to your questions, I'll try some.

"1. Doesn't Rand's promiscuous use of the dollar-sign imagery indicate a materialist outlook?"

Answer: In a word, no. Here, and correct me if I am wrong, you are referring to materialism as a love of things material, with a negative connotation. This is a great question because it can help clear up the disagreement and also shed light on why these people that have been arguing with you are not simply against all things anti-Randian.

Part of the reason they may seem like they are arguing against anything anti-Randian is because Rand tries to portray ideals as black and white as possible. The $ is used as a great many positive things, but not as very many negative things. I don't even remember where it was, so you might as well bash me if that's all you're looking for, but there is a brief passage in which Rand explicitly states, without any space for reading between the lines, something to the effect that a materialist (in the love of things material sense) is essentially a depraved person that does not understand material products of human minds. In context, she is comparing the Producer who uses his mind and in his pursuit of happiness material things can be bought only after having finished the pursuit and with hardearned money to the depraved who expects from material things the security and wealth that is the human mind that made them. In other words, she does not support just going out of your mind in love with material things, because she rejects such as depravity, unnecessary if you understand what is of true value (humanity in its highest form).

She also contrasts the nature of the material wealths of the depraved and the Producer. The depraved throws fancy balls (note Dagny Taggart's astonishment that the people at one of those parties expected the material wealth to give them their glory rather than reflect it...reflection being superfluous and non-essential) and collects tons of fine luxury items; the Producer collects modern minimalist furniture (humor). Really, the "Good guys" drive the best cars and have the best furniture, but they seem to buy the best of each thing, and no more. They do not own museums and multiple luxury cars, but a single Renaissance painting and a Hammond car.

Furthermore, the $ is most prominent in Mulligan's hidden valley, but with a few exceptions, the formerly richest people become hog farmers and wheat harvesters. Only Mulligan has a 2-story house, though he essentially owns the place. Now, you cannot possibly argue that in this place the dollar sign is most prominent, materialism also is? Materialism was most prominent in the balls all the "good guys" despise attending; in the valley of the dollar, people are minimalist in material goods but are wealthy in mind and spirit.

Of note also is the character of Howard Roark who designs cost-efficient buildings by the rule of form follows function, in contrast to his colleagues that design on the rule of "let's throw every lavish obscenity from the Greeks into a building to give it its splendor." Roark's buildings are great not for their material construction (apart from being durable), but instead, primarily for the mind behind their design that considers their application and purpose.

So no, in length, the use of the dollar sign in and of itself, in context of her work, is not a sign of Ayn Rand promoting materialism. Could their relatively frequent appearance compared to those intense warnings against materialism mislead a poor reader to believe she is pro-materialism? Sure, in the sense that a poor reader can read the Bible and yet miraculously become a Satanist or a member of a radical Christian sect that promotes racism and hatred. Could she have chosen a better symbol? Not really, without making something up that would be foreign. The use of the dollar sign is supposed to inspire us to think about the money in our pockets, not how to use it.

"2. Doesn't the world made into a wasteland at the end of Atlas Shrugged--reread the last eleven lines--remind you a bit of the Afghan Communist who said: "We'll leave only one million Afghans alive--that's all we need to build socialism"?"

Ok, let's get one thing clear for starters. Though the population of New York is indicated to be around 7 million, seemingly suggesting the setting be in the 30's, Rand herself declared that essentially, Atlas Shrugged is a tale of a sort of apocalypse, occuring in the future, IF at all. The condition for the Producers giving up on the world is when the world reaches the ultimate extreme of total dictatorship, as it does for presumably every European country and eventually for the USA under the "Washington boys." Rand saw the conditions of the USA as part freedom, part control, which is true, at face value - thus we have law enforcement and taxes and laws and all sorts of rules. Rand has even been accused of being an anarchist, though I'm unclear as to what degree of control she deemed necessary or desireable (presumably less control than even the conservatives of today want). Anyway, I digress - Atlas Shrugged is set specifically when the Looters run so rampant and the government becomes a dictatorship so bent on hunting down the most productive individuals that society is stagnating and imploding. D'Anconia's warning that the Looters are facing a horrible end (in the middle of the book) is not Rand exaggerating...it is the premise and the setting. As it is, Bush has imposed more control on the American people, but not in any seriously evil way, not in the sense that you go to work by force and are forced to work worse than everybody else. Some people do so by choice, but that's another matter. Bottom line is that Atlas Shrugged takes place, according to Ayn Rand and indicated by all the communist dictatorships, in the imminent end of the world.

So, it IS a matter of saving the productive, the hard-working, the responsible, the moral...and watching the self-destruction of the Looters. We are talking about desperate times - note that there really are only a handful of people that are counted as "the good guys," compared to our current society in which there are quite a few hard-working and honest people, of various races and religious affiliations, of various degrees of socialist attitudes, so many that you can't possibly fit them into a valley between a couple mountains. But to the gas chambers go? A good joke perhaps, playing on the rather not-uncommon misperception that Rand was a fascist...but the book was written to inspire us to think about our values and what we stand for, though it is intensely against those that wish to live the lives of others through not working and morally binding others to work for them. Now seriously, there aren't all that many of this last type either, not at all probably that would read the book. (Kim Jong-Il also forces others to work for him, and Rand damns his sort, yet he would never read her book...the question is, do WE damn him? Hussein was also not a benevolent dictator, so knocking him out was good...but Rand would be fully against any form of exploitation of the Iraqis, should there be any from the United States.)

Is it anything like the Holocaust that the Chambers' quote refers to (gas chambers and all)? Umm...not really. The Jews didn't destroy themselves and contrary to minority belief, the world would not have ended if they survived. Therefore, the context is entirely different. Think of Atlas Shrugged as an answer to a "What if?" question, dealing with the special case of the destruction of the world through communism and extremist moral ideology, much as other philosophers dealt with problems of utopias as special cases in the "Why not?" category. I hardly think Rand would want to kill any productive members of society that just so happened to reject part of her theory, even if they were communists, since the world has potential to get better so long as there is enough work getting done and progress being made. A theist/homosexual/communist/socialist/environmentalist/etc that adheres to a moral code that at least rejects the idea of man as a totally worthless being, if not favor the idea that he is a heroic being, is just fine, though perhaps not ideal. (Note: The Fountainhead, being a study for Atlas Shrugged, also takes place in a world more like that of Atlas Shrugged than our world today.)

3) Your third question had to do about pointing out flaws or defects in Ayn Rand's work.

One obvious defect is that it can be misleading. Honestly, several theses have been mashed together in Atlas Shrugged, more than I would try to weld together in any book of mine. But then, it's essentially a novel, for entertainment purposes, and I read it as such - not as a challenge to my religious affiliation, my homosexuality, or my not beating my wife. Umm, well, ok, it's not fair for me to claim to be theist, married, or gay, or male, without you verifying it...personally...(humor). Some major things that irk me:

1) Does Dagny Taggart have to take so long to "get it"? The book would have been 200 pages shorter if she were a bit more realistic and able to think for herself some more.

2) What's with all this funky sex? How come nobody gets pregnant? Why is sex so important to a philosophy of values, when life without sex is possible whereas life without values is rather difficult?

3) Cigarettes are NOT the appropriate symbol of man's mind with a spark of fire. My mind, as we all know, is a sea of fire, a true storm, an inferno, which does not burn out or leave me intoxicated with 800 poisons. (Rand also thought cancer was a psychological malady, when of course it's caused by cancer gnomes or cigarettes.)

4) Racism. It really isn't necessary to make so many comparisons with blond hair and gold. She wasn't even blond haired.... She is just asking to be compared to Hitler and the whole Aryan supremacy concept. In context of the thousand pages free of such racial comments, such descriptions, most likely put in there merely to let us imagine the characters, Rand is not a racist. However, in those handful of pages in which she describes the "good guys" in appearance, she doesn't do the philosophy justice. Really, such descriptions aren't substantial...they may have well been an Asian John Galt, like Jon Wong, with no problem, or no description at all, which would shorten the book.

5) Fiction. Of course, it's a work of fiction. But there were historically great people much like some of those mentioned. In fact, back in the frontier days, there was indeed just one railroad run the way Nat Taggart ran the railroad, down to the detail of the bridge across the Mississippi. Rand got her ideas from real people, yet the book is fiction. Reality always hits people more ruthlessly than fiction.

6) Obviously, a more concise, logical paper on objectivism would have been more effective, but then, fiction writer she was. Even Chambers might have less of a problem if this work remained theoretical, instead of exploring applications (such as the characters and companies). Dan, you and Chambers seem to be against ideology in terms of the archaic definition of "visionary speculation of the ideal," which objectivism in part is, but since it is also in the normal sense of the word a philosophy and collection of ideas and values by which an individual can easily live life, without being perfect or ideal, Rand is rather down to earth to begin with. I really don't see that much of an issue with this work of fiction intended as entertainment. If it disturbs you, or if you don't understand, or if you get bored, you can always just quit. If you take offense, such as for her being against theism, you might want to look into what you do agree with, and whether that is more important. For example, the world would be a better place if some theists killed less people and didn't seek pleasure through damning others, as some of them do. Really, person A being atheist or theist has little to do with you and me. If person A forces you and me to work as poorly and as morally degrading as possible, however, it begins to matter. Do the religious necessarily demand incompetence? Are all heterosexual men competent? Does blond hair prevail among business owners? Will beating my wife please her more? These are the questions we must ask ourselves, in order to sift through some of the "entertainment" to get to the philosophical core. Personally, however, I found Atlas Shrugged to be entertaining, despite being stretched rather long.

**

Hoped that helped clear things up. You see, people, there's no need to get your pants in a wad about this. Note: I just noticed the last comment was over a year ago and nobody's listening. oh well.

Dan,
There is a place near LI that is selling 99 cent Yuengling and Miller Lite. While the Miller Lite is undrinkable, the Yuengling most certainly is. Email me and join us over there sometime.

I will do that, Unusual Candor. Strangely, Miller L-i-t-e is better than MGD and MHL. The champagne of beers, unfortunately, is anything but.

Gee, Dan, you should visit Erie County, Pennsylvania. 300 bars competing with one another sure as heck keeps pricing down... Depending on which bar you go to, a pint of Guiness costs anywhere from $2.50 to $4.50 and cover charges are unheard of.

Asdf-
The Irish don't really celebrate St. P's day or
give many toasts. St. P's is a church and brunch day in Hibernia and I found the real Irish to be very moderate in their drinking. In fact, in my limited travels there it did not seem to be a big part of the new Irish culture at all.

You are completely crazy.
Everything you say here is 100% false. look up nationmaster and try to think before you write next time.

Pretty neat site pman. But, what am I looking at to prove your rebuttal? As you know, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Only thing I can go on (and, yes it's subjective) is knowing many people from the Emerald Isle and spending two St. P days there (in Galway and Cork). And, it wasn't no big thang. Plus, never heard a toast, once. Maybe hanging with the wrong folks? Dublin might be another story but Dublin isn't Ireland. In fact, Dublin was settled by the Danes and to this day has much more of a Danish flavor than the rest of the country. And you know how those vikings like to get hammered and get nasty!

look for beer consumption per capita.
Were you there in '02 when we had the mad cow scare?
..."Dublin was settled by the Danes".. wrong again ,this time try wikipedia.
Again you should really think before writing.

Think you need a long drink.

Finally, a truthful statement from asdf!

So, how does per capita consumption relate in any way to consumption on St. P's day? Highly doubt it is relative. Also......

Dublin’s official date of establishment was in 988 A.D. although evidence of it’s existence dates back to the second century in which it was named Eblana. Norman Vikings were the first settlers of the city, and many artefacts, old walls and buildings have been uncovered on the first site, Wood Quay, in the present City Centre. The town was captured in the 9th century by the Danes. The rebellious Irish wrested control of Dublin from the Danes on a number of occasions during the next three centuries, notably in 1052,1075, and 1124. In 1171 the Danes were expelled by the Anglo-Normans, led by Henry II, king of England.

1:asdf-"..and I found the real Irish to be very moderate in their drinking.." per capita consumption relates to this statement.
2:The vikings were defeated in 1014.
3:who the hell were "norman vikings"?!?
4:The name 'dubh linn' predates viking settlement.
5:referring to Vikings as 'Danes' is inaccurate.
6:once again,Wikipedia-it's dummy proof.
7:stop wasting my time and go argue with el nino.. he's a much easier target.

Ay carumba pman! Must I continue to break things down into the most minute details for you to be happy or to understand that I'm right? Sorry, don't have the time or the inclination. One thing is clear: you are an angry little person. Time for that drink now. Cheers.