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.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
5.26.2008
5.20.2008
Time flies...
I'm honestly not sure where the last few weeks have gone. Things have been busy, but not so much so that I can offer an excuse as to why I'm neglecting this blog.
Part of it might be that I'm struggling with how much of my personal life to share. I don't plan on sharing much of what goes on in the store, mainly because that would intrude on the privacy of my co-workers, customers, and bosses. I also intend to avoid sharing much about my family and friends, but because this is still a personal site, something of a personal nature has to be posted.
There is a fine line between paranoia and caution, and I'm having trouble walking it.
I'm also trying to avoid serious politics here - there are bloggers with much more political acumen than I, and the analysis is better left to them. However, wine is as much a political issue as it is a social and business one. Some politics are inevitable, and for me to avoid the topic entirely would be unthinkable. Just the American drinking age alone is enough material for its own blog, so is the current fight in France over the anti-drink lobby.
I could go on for paragraphs, explaining my decisions to post or not post certain articles, but I'll leave it there for the moment, and offer up a forum for discussion. How much is too much? At what point does a blog lose focus and become a loose amalgamate of opinion best suited to armchair philosophy? My previous blog became defunct because of a loss of interest in the subject, and because although it was a blog about the ability we have as people to change, I rarely wrote on that topic, instead preferring to bounce from one subject to another.
Part of it might be that I'm struggling with how much of my personal life to share. I don't plan on sharing much of what goes on in the store, mainly because that would intrude on the privacy of my co-workers, customers, and bosses. I also intend to avoid sharing much about my family and friends, but because this is still a personal site, something of a personal nature has to be posted.
There is a fine line between paranoia and caution, and I'm having trouble walking it.
I'm also trying to avoid serious politics here - there are bloggers with much more political acumen than I, and the analysis is better left to them. However, wine is as much a political issue as it is a social and business one. Some politics are inevitable, and for me to avoid the topic entirely would be unthinkable. Just the American drinking age alone is enough material for its own blog, so is the current fight in France over the anti-drink lobby.
I could go on for paragraphs, explaining my decisions to post or not post certain articles, but I'll leave it there for the moment, and offer up a forum for discussion. How much is too much? At what point does a blog lose focus and become a loose amalgamate of opinion best suited to armchair philosophy? My previous blog became defunct because of a loss of interest in the subject, and because although it was a blog about the ability we have as people to change, I rarely wrote on that topic, instead preferring to bounce from one subject to another.
4.29.2008
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:
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.
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.
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.
3.12.2008
3.07.2008
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.
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.
3.06.2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
