Freddy's: Brooklyn Beer Boycott + Best of Cringe
Subject: Freddy's: Brooklyn Beer Boycott + "Best of Cringe"
via email: "My favorite prohibition-era bar, Freddy's, Brooklyn, is boycotting all Brooklyn Brewery beer as of tonight. If you have a blog, post the word about this anti-Ratner-arena-complex protest -- Freddy's would appreciate it."From: donald o`finn
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:00:35 -0400
FREDDY`S BACKROOM
Just want to let the family know that @ 8:00 tonight (Monday), that Freddy's will be pouring out the last Barrel of Brklyn Lager. We feel that we have to do this due to the Brklyn Brewery’s support of the Ratner Project that threatens not only our wonderful Freddy's, but (we believe) this entire Neighborhood of Brklyn as well.
We had hoped that the Brooklyn Brewery would take a stand with us, on, what we believe is the correct side of the issue for Brooklyn, but the Brewery disagrees with us, and instead stands to make a lot of money if (or when ) they sell Brooklyn Beer in the arena. We are merely one small account to the Brooklyn Brewery, but this is our home, our lively “Hoodâ€ÂÂ, this is a culture, and a thriving community. This is a prohibition era bar that “Time Out†has said, “is as near a perfect saloon experience as you'll ever encounter.â€ÂÂ, and called us The perfect neighborhood bar.
We believe that neighborhoods are best served by natural and organic small entrepreneurial development (as in the case of Park Slope,) and that huge corporate development is not the way to go.
EVENT listings
FREDDY`S BACKROOM
Never a cover
485 Dean St. @ 6th Av. Brklyn
(718) 622-7035
_________________________________________________
Wed 4/5
9:00 Cringe Reading Night:
Get your voyuerism/nostalgia fix in one fell swoop, with real live readings from the readers' own old teenage diaries, letters, and zines. Angst? Humiliation? Breakup poetry where rain rhymes with pain? Check, check, and check. You'll laugh, you'll cringe, but most importantly, you'll go home thinking your grown-up money or relationship woes ain't got nothing on reliving fourteen.
Comments
-
Subject: Re: Freddy's: Brooklyn Beer Boycott + "Best of Cringe&q
dailyheights wrote: Wed 4/5
Oh, dear. I am embarassed to admit that this is a direct reference to a poem circa 1983 that I actually read at Cringe once. Unless someone else at Cringe has also rhymed "rain" and "pain," which is entirely likely.
9:00 Cringe Reading Night:
Get your voyuerism/nostalgia fix in one fell swoop, with real live readings from the readers' own old teenage diaries, letters, and zines. Angst? Humiliation? Breakup poetry where rain rhymes with pain? -
Subject: Re: Freddy's: Brooklyn Beer Boycott + "Best of Cringe&q
We feel that we have to do this due to the Brklyn Brewery’s support of the Ratner Project that threatens not only our wonderful Freddy's, but (we believe) this entire Neighborhood of Brklyn as well.
I drank Brooklyn lager pretty regularly until FFFP suggested a boycott, and since then I've really enjoyed choosing around it (best part was rediscovering Fat Angel). I was one of those people who tended to pick BL because I felt like I was supporting local beer; it never occured to me that that went hand-in-hand with supporting megadevelopment, eminent domain abuse, and New Jersey basketball. -
damn New Jersey basketball!
-
Writeups of the boycott in "The Real Estate" and Brooklyn Papers.
http://therealestate.observer.com/2006/04/you-can-take-the-brooklyn-out-of-freddys-.html -
I still think the boycott is unfair and the anger at Brooklyn Brewery misplaced.
-
Carnivore wrote: I still think the boycott is unfair and the anger at Brooklyn Brewery misplaced.
Brooklyn Brewery thinks they're going to end up "the official beer of the Brooklyn Nets" or some crap like that. In actual fact, the arena will serve Bud and Bud Light for 8 dollars per twelve ounce cup, and allow Brooklyn Lager to have two or three kiosks somewhere in the concourse.
LOCK YOU POURS!! -
Carnivore wrote: I still think the boycott is unfair and the anger at Brooklyn Brewery misplaced.
I still think Hindy and the Brewery's support of destroying Freddy's and throwing old women out of their homes is unfair! -
ratnerville4ever wrote: I still think Hindy and the Brewery's support of destroying Freddy's and throwing old women out of their homes is unfair!
However you want to spin it. It's a lot of hyperbole and it's disingenuous. Do you think that maybe self-interested business calculations have anything to do with Freddy's opposition to the Ratner plan?
I guess I'll have to get my Brooklyn Brewery beer at ...oh right... any other bar in the neighborhood. -
Carnivore wrote: I still think the boycott is unfair and the anger at Brooklyn Brewery misplaced.
can you 'splain this? I tend to agree with you, but I don't know much about it
and you smart
anyway, I think it's the wrong target.
B'klyn Brewery doesn't have any pull in Ratnerville. As far as I know, they are a really decent local biz making some quality beer.
Black brewmeister!
First biz to go with that windmill energy thing!
Not evil to their employees!
Actual business creating non-service-industry jobs in NY! -
pitu wrote: can you 'splain this? I tend to agree with you, but I don't know much about it
Thanks, pitu! :oops:
and you smart !
Rather than rehash this again, here's the link to the thread where we discussed this before:
http://dailyheights.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2399 -
Carnivore wrote:
Spin it? Hindy supports Ratner's project, has held Nets/Atlantic Yards promotional event at his place of business. If "Atlantic Yards" is built, it would displace Freddys and would displace 87 year old Victoria Harmon who has lived in her home on Pacific street for 60 years. Where's the spin?
However you want to spin it. It's a lot of hyperbole and it's disingenuous. Do you think that maybe self-interested business calculations have anything to do with Freddy's opposition to the Ratner plan?
What are Freddy's "self-interested business calculations" other than, uh, trying to stay in business and continue running the successful business they've built? -
ratnerville4ever wrote: Spin it? Hindy supports Ratner's project, has held Nets/Atlantic Yards promotional event at his place of business.
You're repeating the same arguments from the other thread. Adding the drama of the old lady doesn't make Brooklyn Brewery responsible for Ratner's development (which, as I've said before, I'm against, particularly if he resorts to abuse of eminent domain). Hindy is a "supporter" in the broadest sense. He has spoken out in favor of the project because he thinks he'll ultimately sell more beer if it goes through, which will help him continue running the successful business he's built. You still haven't shown any evidence that he's a financial backer of the project. We shouldn't be boycotting people just because they disagree with us.ratnerville4ever wrote: What are Freddy's "self-interested business calculations" other than, uh, trying to stay in business and continue running the successful business they've built?
Exactly. I'm not saying there's anything nefarious about it. I just wonder whether they'd be supporting the boycott if they were located 1 block away, outside the footprint. -
testing
-
dailyheights wrote: testing
12341234 12345678 9
Sorry. I am listening to Philip Glass this AM. -
metulj wrote: [quote=dailyheights]testing
12341234 12345678 9
Sorry. I am listening to Philip Glass this AM. -
I still think the boycott is unfair and the anger at Brooklyn Brewery
Unfair?
Hardly.
Why? Because the main purpose of the so-called "boycott" is not to hurt Brooklyn Brewery or anyone who sells their wares. It is to send a message. A message to Brooklyn Breweries that some of their loyal customers are disappointed in their support. A message to the people who are hard at work trying to prevent a disastrous project and disastrous precedent that you are in solidarity with them. A message to yourself that sometimes a cause is worth giving up something you dearly love so that you'll actually think about it.
Do wineries and liquor stores ever go out of business during Lent?
Of course not. The fact that a couple hundred people decide not to order Brooklyn Brewery beer for awhile doesn't hurt anyone.
Think of it as "conscientuous abstinence."
I love Brooklyn Lager, but I have decided to abstain from ordering it for the time being. I'm doing it for me and my compatriots who are working for a better future for Brooklyn.
I frankly don't care what Hindy thinks. -
We shouldn't be boycotting people just because they disagree with us.
Unh? Carnivore, you can't possibly mean this. Why the hell else would we boycott UNLESS there was a disagreement? Does this mean that people who oppose babies in bars are should still drink at Soda even though they disagree with the policy? -
Exactly. I'm not saying there's anything nefarious about it. I just wonder whether they'd be supporting the boycott if they were located 1 block away, outside the footprint.
I'm located 1 block away outside the footprint and I support the boycott.
I'm still dumbfounded that Hindy and friends spent a few hours drinking at Freddy's on St. Patrick's Day. I actually heard the guy say "Wow, this is really a great bar!?!" Really? Thanks for your support! Then the photographer with him whipped out a camera with a bigass flash started taking pictures of the group. What a warm and fuzzy publicity piece that'll be! -
pensodyssey wrote:
I absolutely mean this. It's one thing if the money you spend is going to go to aid a cause that you think is unjust (e.g. spending money at Domino's Pizza = supporting operation rescue, because the owner gives money to this cause). Boycotting a business just because of their opinion is wrong. The analogy of babies at Soda is not apt, because in that case, the product itself (a bar experience with babies) is the thing to which some people are opposed. I wouldn't expect a vegetarian to buy Boars Head meats, but I would think it was unfair for them to boycott an organic produce purveyor just because that purveyor believed that flag-burning should be unconstitutional and had written an editorial about the issue.We shouldn't be boycotting people just because they disagree with us.
Unh? Carnivore, you can't possibly mean this. Why the hell else would we boycott UNLESS there was a disagreement? Does this mean that people who oppose babies in bars are should still drink at Soda even though they disagree with the policy? -
supporting operation rescue, because the owner gives money to this cause). Boycotting a business just because of their opinion is wrong. The analogy of babies at Soda is not apt, because in that case, the product itself (a bar experience with babies) is the thing to which some people are opposed. I wouldn't expect a vegetarian to buy Boars Head meats, but I would think it was unfair for them to boycott an organic produce purveyor just because that purveyor believed that flag-burning should be unconstitutional and had written an editorial about the issue.[/quote wrote:
Boycotts are 'wrong' if they are based on the political or social stance of the object of the boycott? News to me. This is a free market society; Ratner and/or Hindy are taking advantage of that to make themselves some bank, bank that would come at our expense (both financially and quality-of-life-wise). So, we're using our God-and-Hamilton given rights to take that bank away from 'em, as much as possible. Or, in the words of the godfather, the hardest working man in showbidness, "You got to use what you got to get what you want".
Beyond which, I don't see how any boycott for any reason can be 'wrong' in a free society. You're familiar with the phrase, "Don't like it? Go somewhere else.", right?
It's fairly simple. Hindy wants the arena. The arena means no Freddys. Ergo Freddys doesn't want Hindy. Nothing 'wrong', 'immoral', or 'illogical' about that. -
Boycotting people based on their point of view alone discourages open discourse and contributes to the polarization of our society. Of course you are free to boycott whomever you choose, but I personally believe that boycotts should be reserved for situations where there is a direct link between the money you're spending and supporting the cause you're against.
-
Carnivore wrote: Of course you are free to boycott whomever you choose, but I personally believe that boycotts should be reserved for situations where there is a direct link between the money you're spending and supporting the cause you're against.
And that's why I boycott Brooklyn Brew. Because there is a direct link between the money I spend, and the cause I'm against. That direct link is Hindy, the dude who owns the brewery that supports the arena being built. And whether or not he has contributed money to Ratner is moot, because I guarantee you the public support of prominent Brooklynian Brooklynite Businessmen is far more important to Ratner than a few thousand dollars, a.k.a. Ratner toilet paper. Now he can say, "Look! The people of Brooklyn want us there!"Carnivore wrote: Boycotting people based on their point of view alone discourages open discourse and contributes to the polarization of our society.
You're right. We should just talk about it, and continue to feed money to people who will act against our interest. After all, it's the discourse that determines how this will come out, not money. -
Then there is always the overarching fact that Brookyn Brewery beer is pretty damn bad. Combine that with their shit community views, what's not to boycott! As for me, I will stick with my old stand by: Schaefer.
-
As for me, I will stick with my old stand by: Schaefer.
I thought you were "restricting" the amber life-fluid anyway Metulj. I seem to recall that you said it ruined your girlish figure.Boycotting people based on their point of view alone discourages open discourse and contributes to the polarization of our society.
WTF? The polarization existed prior to the boycott. I think you have a sequencing error in your logical operating system. People don't get polarized because of boycotts. There are only a few possible outcomes of a boycott:
1) The boycotters fail to follow-through and it's a big nothing
2) The boycotters follow through, but their gesture is more about feeling good about the cause and demonstrating solidarity. No economic damage is done to the boycottee.
3) The boycotters inflict econmomic pain on the boycottee an he/she responds to the pressure.
I don't see increased polarization anywhere in that equation. You may, for example, think the people who threatened to boycott CBS because of the "slanderous" Reagan biopic were assholes, but I don't see how their actions increased polarization.
My views on other peoples views don't change because of what they refuse to buy. They change because of the views they hold. Those views may drive the boycott as a tactic, but I would rather homophobes shun Disney movies than start lynching gays.
After all, it's their money. -
Dope on the Slope wrote:
Shut up damn you. Joules is down in Knoxstantinople for the week putting her sewing team through their paces. Someone has to pay for my rock-n-roll lifestyle, for christ's sake. If I have to watch the kids for a week, I'll be damned if I can't pound a few cold ones.As for me, I will stick with my old stand by: Schaefer.
I thought you were "restricting" the amber life-fluid anyway Metulj. I seem to recall that you said it ruined your girlish figure.
Anyhow, you look like David Brooks after a bender. And I am a fat dollop of goo. What?
We're having a prom at our place May 20th. Look for the invite. No seriously: A prom. What's a grup to do? Put your requests in. OK. Back to my dissertation. -
Boycotting people based on their point of view alone discourages open discourse and contributes to the polarization of our society.
I don't know how old you are but we forced my college to divest from South Africa back in the 80s. You know, it may have been a drop in the bucket, but it wasn't my drop anymore. You can spin a boycott anyway you want, but if I know that my dollars are not headed to that mess being perpetrated down the hill, then I am happy. Anyhow, I can't stand pro basketball, hate arena rock and won't take the kids to whatever children's "Snow White on Skates" dreck they'll put in at the arena. -
metulj wrote:
You stopped dollars from going to South Africa in college. You won't stop any dollars from going toward the arena with the boycott because there are already no dollars going toward it from Hindy.Boycotting people based on their point of view alone discourages open discourse and contributes to the polarization of our society.
I don't know how old you are but we forced my college to divest from South Africa back in the 80s. You know, it may have been a drop in the bucket, but it wasn't my drop anymore. You can spin a boycott anyway you want, but if I know that my dollars are not headed to that mess being perpetrated down the hill, then I am happy. Anyhow, I can't stand pro basketball, hate arena rock and won't take the kids to whatever children's "Snow White on Skates" dreck they'll put in at the arena. -
Carnivore wrote:
Wanna bet Brooklyn Beer is on tap when the Nets tip off?
You stopped dollars from going to South Africa in college. You won't stop any dollars from going toward the arena with the boycott because there are already no dollars going toward it from Hindy. -
metulj wrote: Wanna bet Brooklyn Beer is on tap when the Nets tip off?
Of course Hindy may benefit from the arena if it's built (although I think pensodessey was right on when he pointed out that that's probably not what most people would be drinking). That's why he would like it built. That still doesn't mean that the money I spend on his beer is going toward the arena. This isn't a matter of apathy on my part; I've participated in plenty of boycotts. It's just that this boycott is directed at the wrong person, and even if "effective" in that it made Hindy change sides, it would have absolutely no effect on whether the arena is ultimately built, which I thought was the underlying goal here. -
This all seems like a fart in the wind to me.
As a veteran of numeroeus boycotts, including the United Farm Workers grape campaign and anti-apartheid efforts, I can tell you that one essential element to gain public support is missing: Visibility of Violations
How is it that you hope to engage the public's outrage when there are no preceived violations of ethics or anything else?
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds