Around here, the term “near beer” isn’t the same as 3.2 beer. “Near beer” refers to “non-alcoholic” beer, which has a much lower alcohol content. It has to be under 1% to be called non-alcoholic, if I remember correctly.
Liquor laws are bizarre in the US, and the state variations are worse.
IIRC, alcohol content IS measured by volume.
Except in the context of 3.2% beer, which is measured by weight. I did a calculation and figured that 3.2% was about 4.2% by volume. I believe that was confirmed by a 3.2% bottle of wine cooler which also had the 4.2% by volume measurement.
[hijack]Personally, I think weight makes more sense for two reasons. The ratio of weights will always be proportional to the molecular makeup of the beverage. Volume is affected by two things: the different volumetric expansion by temperature rates of alcohol and water, and the non volume-additivity (1 L water + 1 L ethanol do not equal 2 L, but something slightly less). The alcohol industry seems to have gotten around this measurement problem somehow.[/hijack]
[hijack #2]Kansas had/has silly alcohol laws. 3.2% malt beverages can be sold at grocery stores, so wine coolers were sold, but they were malt-based instead of wine-based. Liquor stores could not sell non-alcholic liquids, so stores a) have a fenced-off sub-store that sells Coke, and b) have mixes (like margarita mix) with 1% alcohol so it can be sold in the liquor stores.
Random wrote:
While you’re partially right in that alcohol contributes most of the calories in light beer, carbohydrates also play a part, and reducing them may significantly decrease the caloric content without affecting the alcohol content. In fact, I think many, if not most, major market light beers are actually more than 4.05% alcohol by volume (3.2/0.79, the density of ethanol).
Coors Light
Bud Light
Miller Lite
Of these, Miller Lite is highest at 3.6% by weight (4.5% by volume). There may be some rounding errors involved, but I’m sure it’s more than 3.2.
Why is your dad’s secretary buying gifts for him? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? 
If they’re friends, then they should buy each other birthday gifts. If not, neither of them should. Why would you say that he should buy the secretary a birthday present, but not the other way around?
I’m sorry, I misunderstood the OP. I didn’t notice the word “birthday” in there.
I thought the guy’s secretary was just buying him gifts at random times. My father once had a job where the guy he worked for made it clear that he expected gifts from his employees if they wanted to keep working there. I thought a similar situation might have been going on.
OTOH, a boss giving an employee a gift isn’t all that unusual. My boss hands out movie passes at well-performing employees every now and then.
Of course the gift was simply for a birthday…
but also, as a side note, I liked Leinies a lot…I had never seen or heard of it before, but I went to Kroger last night and bought some of my normal beer (Miller Lite, Harp, and Labatt Blue) and we picked up some wine (junky merlot and some peach/orange stuff)
I also noticed that Leinies was there…I’m a little angry that I didn’t see it before because we always buy beer at the same store (well, unless we’re away from home)…
I just wanted to add that I was very happy to see it was cheaper than Harps…another huge advantage for this wondeful wisconsin beer… 
You are assuring quality very well.
I can buy cases of Leinie’s for less than almost any other mass marketted beer, and yet people at the grocery store still pay more for Bud. I believe this shows that people are insane.
Now get them to go back to selling the sturdy returnable bar bottles in the sturdy returnable cardboard cases instead of these cruddy twist offs in the cheezy flimsy cases.