I don't want to besmirch a brand of beer, but I've noticed a common thread in crime photos from recent trials I've covered.
Two cases in as many months - the Bryan Brown trial and the Jorge Reyes Rowe trial - prosecutors said alcohol was involved. In both cases, the beer in photos from the scene is Bud. Why?
First, I thought it was because Budweiser is cheap and goes down as fast as a glass of ice water. In both cases, the beer was bought in bulk, I figured, so that low price could count for something.
But a survey of my friendly corner store last night showed Bud is, in fact, one of the most expensive cases on the shelf ($14.99). Compare to $10.99 for Milwaukee's Best. The corner store only sells Lone Star (full disclosure, that's the beer I decided on) in tall boy 6-packs for $4.69. A 6-pack of bud was $6.19.
Is it because Bud is popular? Because it's widely available in cases? I just don't know. But when you spend hours a day listening to testimony and looking at evidence, you just start to wonder about this stuff.
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
7 Comments
Follow LeslieWilber
Comments
.
Uh oh, someone didn't take statistics in college, did she? True the field involves math, but rocket science it isn't.
Say you want to do a random survey that is accurate with a margin of error of 5% If the total number of people are in your target population is 100,000, then to conduct a survey with a confidence level of 95%, you must you must take 383 samples. For higher confidence, say 99%, you would need 659 samples.
The more samples in the survey, the more accurate your results.
However, drawing a conclusion from the presence of Bud cans at two crimes scenes in Victoria County has an accuracy level of, well effectively zero. Your conclusion is total horse hockey.
Scientifically unfounded beliefs about use of this type of alcohol or another, are widely held. Back in the corrupt old days of New York City's Tammy Hall, one of the biggest crook politicians in town, Jim Plunkett, told a newspaperman that he could always tell when a German has fallen into rough company if he forsakes beer and takes to drinking whiskey with Irishmen.
My own belief based on purely anecdotal evidence is that people who drink gin are the ones most prone to go mean and violent when inebriated.
As for beer, the great Chicago newspaperman and muckraker of political scandal, Mike Royko, wrote that to him all beer tastes like the secret brewing process involves running it through a horse first. (Royko was a scotch drinker.)
March 4, 2009 at 10:32 p.m..
"I never met a beer I didn't like" Will Rogers
March 4, 2009 at 9:19 p.m.That's it. I'm going to grad school.
March 4, 2009 at 6:50 p.m.Hey, I wonder if there are statistics in re: to what beer is involved in relation to different crimes. Maybe Harvard is doing some type of case study. Hee hee hee. Perhaps, it's something in the hops used during the brewing process. I'll take Shiner over Bud any day. :-)
March 4, 2009 at 6:48 p.m.Wait a minute. When I moved to Texas, they told me Lone Star was the national beer. I started drinking it to avoid treason charges (and to save money).
March 4, 2009 at 5:34 p.m.Tequila has always been my choice of beverage when I am considering foul play. However the King would work fine for trivial misdemeanors.
March 4, 2009 at 2:16 p.m.Prost to the King!!!
It is because Budweiser is the King of Beers. Publicly defaming the King as you have could be considered an act of treason. Better watch you back.
For the record, I do not like the King of Beers, but recognize his authority as such.
March 4, 2009 at 1:50 p.m.