Learn how to write in English. Please. Chatspeak and l337 sp34k may be amusing amongst private conversations within your group of friends, but in the wider world it is merely aggravating.
Thank you,
Your Future Employer.
Showing posts with label Responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Responsibility. Show all posts
5.26.2008
Memorial Day
I wish a calm, reflective Memorial Day for you all. I'm spending it honouring my friends who are currently in the service (and cannot read this blog due to firewall restrictions), as well as those who have been lost in service to this country.
I hold great respect for you and wish you all the best. Thank you for protecting our country and our freedoms.
I hold great respect for you and wish you all the best. Thank you for protecting our country and our freedoms.
4.08.2008
Italians 'spoofing' wine
This doesn't seem to be a new story, though it is interesting that it comes on the heels of most importers raising prices. There are two stories here; One is about companies like Banfi and Antinori blending their Montalcinos (which should be 100% Sangiovese), the other about cheaper wines having chemicals added.
The latter story isn't anything new at all. To save money, cheap wineries boost certain flavours of wine with chemicals. A decade ago, we were hearing about oak chips being used to 'adulterate' wines. Everyone was up in arms over the concept that California wineries (and Australian, to a lesser degree) were putting oak chips in their must, rather than fermenting in a new oak barrel. As it has been discovered, it makes for pretty terrible wine.
What I'd like to know (and probably won't for a while) is which vineyards are accused of doing so. My guess is that it's the more commercial cheapies, which means none of my wines are affected. I should probably make some calls, though, and find out directly from my distributors whether my two cheap wines are at issue.
In regards to the former story...
Duh. There is more demand for wine these days, especially from the big guys like Banfi. Their vineyards are not getting any bigger, and their vines are getting older, and producing fewer grapes. Which means less must, which means less wine. With the current obsession by collectors of buying futures, less wine is available for public purchase. So they turn to blending to have enough wine for everyone who wants it.
Capitalism strikes again. And they got caught. Oh, big surprise. The Italians aren't very good about things like quality control (their DOC and DOCG classifications don't really mean a whole lot when it comes to quality), but they're great about policing after the fact.
I'm going to go pick up a bottle of tasty Dolcetto. They can keep doing what they want. As long as it tastes good, people will buy it.
ON EDIT: It should be Brunello, not Montalcino.
The latter story isn't anything new at all. To save money, cheap wineries boost certain flavours of wine with chemicals. A decade ago, we were hearing about oak chips being used to 'adulterate' wines. Everyone was up in arms over the concept that California wineries (and Australian, to a lesser degree) were putting oak chips in their must, rather than fermenting in a new oak barrel. As it has been discovered, it makes for pretty terrible wine.
What I'd like to know (and probably won't for a while) is which vineyards are accused of doing so. My guess is that it's the more commercial cheapies, which means none of my wines are affected. I should probably make some calls, though, and find out directly from my distributors whether my two cheap wines are at issue.
In regards to the former story...
Duh. There is more demand for wine these days, especially from the big guys like Banfi. Their vineyards are not getting any bigger, and their vines are getting older, and producing fewer grapes. Which means less must, which means less wine. With the current obsession by collectors of buying futures, less wine is available for public purchase. So they turn to blending to have enough wine for everyone who wants it.
Capitalism strikes again. And they got caught. Oh, big surprise. The Italians aren't very good about things like quality control (their DOC and DOCG classifications don't really mean a whole lot when it comes to quality), but they're great about policing after the fact.
I'm going to go pick up a bottle of tasty Dolcetto. They can keep doing what they want. As long as it tastes good, people will buy it.
ON EDIT: It should be Brunello, not Montalcino.
3.27.2008
Major Distributor, Mini Rant
I'm becoming very upset with one of our major distributors. I won't use the name, but suffice it to say, they're one of the biggest national distributors, and one of the three biggies in NYC. Two weeks in a row, they messed up my order, and while it isn't the first time, it is becoming more frequent.
This week, I asked them to pick up their most recent mistake (they delivered a 2000 Rioja Riserva instead of the 2003 regular, and the cost difference is astronomical), and said it was because they delivered the wrong wine.
The return invoice says "ordered wrong," which means they made it MY FAULT THAT THEY SCREWED UP!
I'm really sick of dealing with these people, and I really wish we didn't have to order so much wine from them. Either the orderboard workers are morons, the shippers are morons, or the warehouse workers are morons, on a regular basis.
Another example: A while back, when I received the order, one of the boxes was damp. I checked the bottles briefly, but I didn't see any obvious evidence of breakage. As I was putting out the wine, however, I had the side of one finger split open by a broken bottle FROM A DIFFERENT BOX. They had deliberately hidden where the broken bottle was so they wouldn't have to pay for it. So not only are we out the money for the bottle (luckily it was one of our most inexpensive, only costs us $3.00/bottle), but I ended up with a nice gash in one finger.
They can get away with all this crap because they're so huge, and because they carry most of the wines that people demand. If one of the smaller distributors carried on the way they do, they'd be out of business before the first complaint started coming in. If I could get away with not ordering from them, I'd probably recommend that we stop carrying their wines.
This week, I asked them to pick up their most recent mistake (they delivered a 2000 Rioja Riserva instead of the 2003 regular, and the cost difference is astronomical), and said it was because they delivered the wrong wine.
The return invoice says "ordered wrong," which means they made it MY FAULT THAT THEY SCREWED UP!
I'm really sick of dealing with these people, and I really wish we didn't have to order so much wine from them. Either the orderboard workers are morons, the shippers are morons, or the warehouse workers are morons, on a regular basis.
Another example: A while back, when I received the order, one of the boxes was damp. I checked the bottles briefly, but I didn't see any obvious evidence of breakage. As I was putting out the wine, however, I had the side of one finger split open by a broken bottle FROM A DIFFERENT BOX. They had deliberately hidden where the broken bottle was so they wouldn't have to pay for it. So not only are we out the money for the bottle (luckily it was one of our most inexpensive, only costs us $3.00/bottle), but I ended up with a nice gash in one finger.
They can get away with all this crap because they're so huge, and because they carry most of the wines that people demand. If one of the smaller distributors carried on the way they do, they'd be out of business before the first complaint started coming in. If I could get away with not ordering from them, I'd probably recommend that we stop carrying their wines.
3.12.2008
3.05.2008
Another post about "how we eat" and "those damned French"
Michael Ruhlman writes about the paradox of the French diet, and how our low-fat, low-salt, high-sugar diets are killing us.
I've been attempting to increase my intake of fresh foods, eliminating the processed, boxed, and tagged crud from my shelves and my fridge. To this end, I've kept only a few items in boxes and bags in my cabinets.
1. Wheat Thins (preferably reduced fat, I actually enjoy the taste better), to be paired with Wispride Port Wine cheese spread. I've been addicted to this combination since I was a kid, and it doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon.
2. Thomas' Hearty Grains English Muffins. Put peanut butter, cream cheese, jam, or regular old hard, aged cheddar (Cabot) on these and I'm in heaven.
3. Kellogg's Raisin Bran. Love that stuff. I know it's loaded with sugar, but good lord I love that stuff.
4. Amy's frozen dinners. Namely, the Vegetarian Lasagna (it's just so time-consuming to make, and then most of it gets frozen and forgotten. There are only two of us in the house), and a couple of the other dishes. If it's been a long day, it's easy to just throw this in the oven and wait the hour for it to be done.
5. Ben & Jerry's. 'Nough said.
6. The odd container of a Pillsbury product, like Grands' biscuits or cinnamon buns. Again, time-consuming and more than I'm really capable of handling in my little New York kitchen.
7. Fluff. Again, 'nough said.
8. Fried tortilla chips. Tostitos, usually. Paired with Muir Glen medium Salsa, great snack.
Beyond those, and the occasional chocolate bar (I love you, Dove), I think we do alright.
1. Fish. Lots and lots of fish. Mostly salmon, since we're trying to keep my heavy metal-intake down (and no, I don't mean Pantera and Slayer), tuna on occasion, shrimp, and whatever strikes our fancy at the market this week.
2. Spinach. I loves me some of that. Baby spinach, tossed with broccoli, cherry/grape tomatoes, a bit of balsamic vinegar, and a touch of feta cheese is wonderful. Add in some bell peppers and shrimp and I have a meal.
3. Asparagus. Make it and I'll eat it.
4. Whatever fruit/melon looks good. We eat a ton of berries, apples when in season, and only when we're in NH, since I'm spoiled, and some citrus in the winter, supplemented by a lot of melon.
5. Cheese. Have I mentioned how much I love cheese? I eat more of this than anything else.
6. Chocolate. Wait...does that fall under processed?
7. Occasional meat. I'm mostly vegetarian (as I mentioned in the EATAPETA post), but I also have some iron issues, so I'm not above eating a bit of meat every now and again. Mostly lamb and beef, but occasionally some bacon will find its way into a stew. If I hadn't lost the enzymes necessary to digest meat, as can happen with long-term vegetarians, I would eat it a lot more often. There aren't many ways you can substitute vegetables in a meat stew and still have the heartiness.
8. Milk. Lots of milk. Skim.
9. Whatever Jason feeds me. The man is a genius in the kitchen. Out of the kitchen too, but especially when it comes to food. In many ways, he's the one who taught me how to cook creatively.
So there you have it. A basic look at the pros and cons in my cabinets and fridge. I left out the spices, but be assured, they're in there.
I've been attempting to increase my intake of fresh foods, eliminating the processed, boxed, and tagged crud from my shelves and my fridge. To this end, I've kept only a few items in boxes and bags in my cabinets.
1. Wheat Thins (preferably reduced fat, I actually enjoy the taste better), to be paired with Wispride Port Wine cheese spread. I've been addicted to this combination since I was a kid, and it doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon.
2. Thomas' Hearty Grains English Muffins. Put peanut butter, cream cheese, jam, or regular old hard, aged cheddar (Cabot) on these and I'm in heaven.
3. Kellogg's Raisin Bran. Love that stuff. I know it's loaded with sugar, but good lord I love that stuff.
4. Amy's frozen dinners. Namely, the Vegetarian Lasagna (it's just so time-consuming to make, and then most of it gets frozen and forgotten. There are only two of us in the house), and a couple of the other dishes. If it's been a long day, it's easy to just throw this in the oven and wait the hour for it to be done.
5. Ben & Jerry's. 'Nough said.
6. The odd container of a Pillsbury product, like Grands' biscuits or cinnamon buns. Again, time-consuming and more than I'm really capable of handling in my little New York kitchen.
7. Fluff. Again, 'nough said.
8. Fried tortilla chips. Tostitos, usually. Paired with Muir Glen medium Salsa, great snack.
Beyond those, and the occasional chocolate bar (I love you, Dove), I think we do alright.
1. Fish. Lots and lots of fish. Mostly salmon, since we're trying to keep my heavy metal-intake down (and no, I don't mean Pantera and Slayer), tuna on occasion, shrimp, and whatever strikes our fancy at the market this week.
2. Spinach. I loves me some of that. Baby spinach, tossed with broccoli, cherry/grape tomatoes, a bit of balsamic vinegar, and a touch of feta cheese is wonderful. Add in some bell peppers and shrimp and I have a meal.
3. Asparagus. Make it and I'll eat it.
4. Whatever fruit/melon looks good. We eat a ton of berries, apples when in season, and only when we're in NH, since I'm spoiled, and some citrus in the winter, supplemented by a lot of melon.
5. Cheese. Have I mentioned how much I love cheese? I eat more of this than anything else.
6. Chocolate. Wait...does that fall under processed?
7. Occasional meat. I'm mostly vegetarian (as I mentioned in the EATAPETA post), but I also have some iron issues, so I'm not above eating a bit of meat every now and again. Mostly lamb and beef, but occasionally some bacon will find its way into a stew. If I hadn't lost the enzymes necessary to digest meat, as can happen with long-term vegetarians, I would eat it a lot more often. There aren't many ways you can substitute vegetables in a meat stew and still have the heartiness.
8. Milk. Lots of milk. Skim.
9. Whatever Jason feeds me. The man is a genius in the kitchen. Out of the kitchen too, but especially when it comes to food. In many ways, he's the one who taught me how to cook creatively.
So there you have it. A basic look at the pros and cons in my cabinets and fridge. I left out the spices, but be assured, they're in there.
EATAPETA
Meryl, in her infinite wisdom, is sponsoring Eat A Tasty Animal for PETA day, yet again.
I'm mostly vegetarian (basically only when I'm around family do I consume tasty, tasty animal), but I'm willing to put aside my personal convictions to show that not all vegetarians are pro-PETA. I personally find them abhorrent and disgusting, as well as hypocritical.
On that note, anyone want to do a meat-up (pun intended)? I can think of a couple places here in Brooklyn, and I welcome any recommendations.
I'm mostly vegetarian (basically only when I'm around family do I consume tasty, tasty animal), but I'm willing to put aside my personal convictions to show that not all vegetarians are pro-PETA. I personally find them abhorrent and disgusting, as well as hypocritical.
On that note, anyone want to do a meat-up (pun intended)? I can think of a couple places here in Brooklyn, and I welcome any recommendations.
2.28.2008
Controversial issues
Usually, I agree with Michelle Malkin, and I'm happy to say so. However, I've found that I just don't support the classic Conservative view on abortion. To compound the disagreement, birth control is again under attack from the same quarter. The comments on that post range from defense of cheaper hormonal birth control because abortions (or alternately, college tuition) are more expensive and more destructive long-term (oy), to declaring that all college students and young people should just abstain.
I present, as an alternative defense of cheaper hormonal birth control, the following situations.
1. A married couple, in which the woman would die if she became pregnant, and is allergic to latex (it happens more often than publicized). Her only option is hormonal birth control, but her low-cost insurance refuses to pay for it (as many do) and she cannot fit anything extra into her budget if she wishes to be able to save for emergencies.
2. A teenage girl who needs it for skin problems, but her parents don't have insurance and she is unable to get it herself, because she doesn't have a job, nor will her parents allow her to have one.
3. A woman who has tried several different hormonal treatments to limit her severe PMS-related mood swings and debilitating cramps, but is intolerant to many of the mainstream methods available. The options left are extremely expensive, and her insurance will not cover, because they deem it unnecessary, since hospitalization is not required on a monthly basis, and therefore it's cheaper for them to do nothing.
Those are just a few examples. Ask the women around you what they pay for their birth control, and they will probably tell you they can't afford it without insurance, and insurance only pays for the bare minimum.
In addition, some studies have come out recently that say women who use hormonal birth control have a lower risk of some cancers. A pound of prevention, after all.
It isn't just high school and college students who use birth control. It's the rest of us who actually need it in our everyday lives, and to deny it to us on the basis of price makes very little sense. The overall continued idiocy from many voices on this topic makes me shake my head in disgust.
I present, as an alternative defense of cheaper hormonal birth control, the following situations.
1. A married couple, in which the woman would die if she became pregnant, and is allergic to latex (it happens more often than publicized). Her only option is hormonal birth control, but her low-cost insurance refuses to pay for it (as many do) and she cannot fit anything extra into her budget if she wishes to be able to save for emergencies.
2. A teenage girl who needs it for skin problems, but her parents don't have insurance and she is unable to get it herself, because she doesn't have a job, nor will her parents allow her to have one.
3. A woman who has tried several different hormonal treatments to limit her severe PMS-related mood swings and debilitating cramps, but is intolerant to many of the mainstream methods available. The options left are extremely expensive, and her insurance will not cover, because they deem it unnecessary, since hospitalization is not required on a monthly basis, and therefore it's cheaper for them to do nothing.
Those are just a few examples. Ask the women around you what they pay for their birth control, and they will probably tell you they can't afford it without insurance, and insurance only pays for the bare minimum.
In addition, some studies have come out recently that say women who use hormonal birth control have a lower risk of some cancers. A pound of prevention, after all.
It isn't just high school and college students who use birth control. It's the rest of us who actually need it in our everyday lives, and to deny it to us on the basis of price makes very little sense. The overall continued idiocy from many voices on this topic makes me shake my head in disgust.
2.21.2008
Dunning-Kruger effect
Recently, I read this article from Barry Campbell, and was pleased to find out that the phenomenon I've encountered in my years of study (and my years of working in the service industry) has a name and has been extensively studied.
I've just come across another example of it, this one from a member of NYRA. Not that I'm overly surprised by where I found him, given my history with that organization. In this case, the person in question seems to be a relatively new member (at least since I left off working with them a few years ago), so perhaps there's hope.
Maybe this is why teens and young people are seen as being stupid or incompetent. In their need to be seen as mature and intelligent, they (we? Can I still include myself in this?) overcompensate through excessive self-confidence, bordering on arrogance. So older and more experienced heads push the younger one into a box labeled "young and stupid" and leave them there.
Seems to be a circular argument, with no real solution. Orgs like NYRA are good, just like the ACLU is good, but there needs to be temperance. At least NYRA is a bit more moderate and neutral than ASFAR (no, I'm not linking to them).
The question is, at what point will people start taking responsibility for their ignorance and working to change the circumstances. Age has nothing to do with that, only determination.
I've just come across another example of it, this one from a member of NYRA. Not that I'm overly surprised by where I found him, given my history with that organization. In this case, the person in question seems to be a relatively new member (at least since I left off working with them a few years ago), so perhaps there's hope.
Maybe this is why teens and young people are seen as being stupid or incompetent. In their need to be seen as mature and intelligent, they (we? Can I still include myself in this?) overcompensate through excessive self-confidence, bordering on arrogance. So older and more experienced heads push the younger one into a box labeled "young and stupid" and leave them there.
Seems to be a circular argument, with no real solution. Orgs like NYRA are good, just like the ACLU is good, but there needs to be temperance. At least NYRA is a bit more moderate and neutral than ASFAR (no, I'm not linking to them).
The question is, at what point will people start taking responsibility for their ignorance and working to change the circumstances. Age has nothing to do with that, only determination.
2.15.2008
France and the anti-drink lobby
Apparently, France has a very strong anti-alcohol lobby. One of their recent moves was to have a couple of major names in the alcohol business fined for promoting the consumption of alcohol in their advertising. What they mean by that specific phrase, is that the companies involved associated alcohol consumption with having a good time, rather than just stating the facts of the product, which is evidently all that French law allows.
Heineken, one of the two companies fined tens of thousands of euros, responded by appealing the decision.
They just lost.
I'm more than a bit disturbed by this prospect, especially considering that some of my favourite wines come from French appellations. This sets a precedent that is patently anti-alcohol, and is somewhat reminiscent of the early pre-Prohibition actions. Considering that there has also been a push lately to establish drinking ages throughout European countries, and I feel like we're seeing motion in the wrong direction regarding individual responsibility for self.
Heineken, one of the two companies fined tens of thousands of euros, responded by appealing the decision.
They just lost.
I'm more than a bit disturbed by this prospect, especially considering that some of my favourite wines come from French appellations. This sets a precedent that is patently anti-alcohol, and is somewhat reminiscent of the early pre-Prohibition actions. Considering that there has also been a push lately to establish drinking ages throughout European countries, and I feel like we're seeing motion in the wrong direction regarding individual responsibility for self.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
