The fight against the anti-alcohol lobby continues

Today's story comes from Decanter, where finally someone is stepping up and saying that the Lobby is doing something foolish for the French (and world) economy.

The person working against the Lobby is Marie-Christine Tarby, president of the alcohol lobby group Vin & Société who says the following:

'We are in an absurd situation where we have to defend the place of wine in French society.'

She also called for the drunk driving laws to remain at their current level so as to not put an undue influence on bottle service in restaurants.

All I have to say about this is that it's about time. I've been waiting for something like this to happen, given that France has appeared to be going the way of the 1910's USA. One would think they would learn from our mistakes, and realize that demonising alcohol, or any mind-altering substance, has the opposite result from the one desired. It makes the substance more enticing to those whom it is prohibited to. A great example is to compare American youth with European youth, especially those raised to believe alcohol is a complement to environment, food, and situation. The European youth tend to have a better viewpoint of the dangers of alcohol, tending to avoid the levels of alcoholism and binge drinking that American youth are experiencing in record numbers.

As European countries tighten their laws about alcohol, they are seeing an increase in drunk driving, alcohol-related deaths, and alcoholism. Rather than realizing there's a correlation between the two things, they respond by tightening things more. America is doing the same, though I believe we've just about reached the end of the tightening, as evidenced by recent bills to allow military to purchase and consume alcohol, as long as they're over 18. NH just had one killed in committee, though the presentation of such a bill is a step in the right direction.

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.

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.

Spitzer.

I didn't vote for him.

That's really the extent of my opinion on the issue.

Want more? Go read Elisson, who has much to say, and says it well.

I aspire to his wordplay.

Nanny-Statism strikes again

I found this article on Fox News, though I imagine it's discussed elsewhere, about London attempting to protect people from themselves again.

Go ahead and read the article. I'll wait.

Done?

HOW STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO WALK INTO A LAMPPOST WHILE TYPING A TEXT MESSAGE?!

I text more than I should, mainly because I need a new phone, as my battery is shot. But I have never walked into a lamppost because of typing out a message or dialing a phone number. I've walked into scaffolding posts because I was caught up in a conversation with a friend walking next to me, but I've never been so distracted by my phone that I would do something so patently stupid.

How about, instead of protecting people from themselves, you let them walk into the posts so they learn some common sense?

Ach. I give up. People will always be stupid, and politicians will always try to protect them from their own stupidity.

Foot, meet Mouth

I have this talent for saying things that will get me yelled at or shunned. By sheer virtue of opening my mouth, I am likely to either offend or confuse someone. I'm not as self-aware of this as I was in my teen years, but I still can't seem to look as good as Simon Cowell when I shove my toes so far back into my throat I can feel my sinuses.

Anyway, now that wonderful picture is in all your minds, so I'm going to head off and try to remove my toenails from my tongue. They aren't very tasty.

Amazon to partner with Satan

Ok, not really The Adversary, at least not in a religious sense. Wine.com has, in the past year or so, the company known for it's innovation in interstate wine mailing has been running a sting operation, targeting small retailers, intending to shut down their above-and-beyond concept of customer service by asking them to mail wine to states where it's illegal to receive out-of-state wine shipments unless you are a wholesale distributor/importer, then reporting them to the state authority. Not only have they pushed the envelope when it comes to what a private company (even a massive corporation) can legally do, they are doing so, not out of respect for out-of-date laws, but to eliminate their competition. It is, in brief, an anti-trust issue.

However, this is about the story that popped up as soon as I opened Decanter's news section this morning. Amazon moves into wine with wine.com.

I like Amazon. I use them often, and not just for books. Hell, I have several different wishlists, and they grow on a monthly basis. So this story causes a problem for me. I feel the need to join with a number of other bloggers who refuse to buy from Wine.com as a result of their sketchy business practices. But, with Amazon now partnering with them, I feel like Amazon has become the enemy.

Huh, that reminds me of the South Park episode where we first see Satan and Saddam in bed together.

Anyway, I'm just not sure what to make of all this. There's far too much imbalance of power in the wine industry, most of which comes from these outdated and nanny-statish laws in effect in many states.

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.

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.

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.

Hypocracy

Wow, so I really shouldn't say I'm so tired of arguing, then start an argument with someone.

I'm a hypocritical idiot. As usual.

I am tired of arguing though. I'm even more tired of people trying to shut me up because I don't agree with them. And I have a headache for the ages. And no more coffee. So I'm going to take myself off now, and do paperwork.

From Crackle: Penn Says - Disagreeing Doesn't Make You Evil