Wine is Chemistry

[Julian Macassey]

For years, I have told people that California wine
particulary is tweaked with applied cjemistry. This upsets
people, why I don't know. Now on the Daily Beast are a couple of
articles about the fudging of vino.

Recently there was also a Wall St Journal article about
the "rating" of wine.

What does it all mean? Drink what you like and can
afford.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-18/the-great-wine-cover-up/full/

http://tinyurl.com/nt889m

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-03/how-wine-became-like-fast-food/full/

http://tinyurl.com/yzgyyrs

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533840282653628.html

[Michael Sierchio]

Post by Julian Macassey
For years, I have told people that California wine
particulary is tweaked with applied cjemistry. This upsets
people, why I don't know. Now on the Daily Beast are a couple of
articles about the fudging of vino.

Burgundy is fudged (captalization, pitching sugar) and the very
expensive Grange Hermitage has artificial tannins added.

Not all California wine is ridiculous - just most of it.

- M

[Julian Macassey]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:10:59 -0800, Michael Sierchio

Post by Michael Sierchio

Post by Julian Macassey
For years, I have told people that California wine
particulary is tweaked with applied cjemistry. This upsets
people, why I don't know. Now on the Daily Beast are a couple of
articles about the fudging of vino.

Burgundy is fudged (captalization, pitching sugar) and the very
expensive Grange Hermitage has artificial tannins added.
Not all California wine is ridiculous - just most of it.

As the stories relate, they are all fudged. Actually in
defence of California wines, the vitners here are after
consistency. They seem to achieve it rather well.

My fave quote from the Wall St Journal article is:

"During the trial it came out that the Bordeaux wine merchants
regularly defrauded foreigners. One vat of wine considered
extremely inferior, for example, was labeled "Salable as
Beaujolais to Americans.""

[Steve Pope]

Post by Michael Sierchio
Burgundy is fudged (captalization, pitching sugar)

You forgot to mention wine from North Africa.

S.

[Julian Macassey]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:00:53 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope

Post by Steve Pope

Post by Michael Sierchio
Burgundy is fudged (captalization, pitching sugar)

You forgot to mention wine from North Africa.

Some Algerian is sold as French, some is sold as
Algerian. Much of it makes you long for a nice glass of Two Buck
Chuck.

[Tony Lima]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:42:25 GMT, Julian Macassey

Post by Julian Macassey
For years, I have told people that California wine
particulary is tweaked with applied cjemistry. This upsets
people, why I don't know. Now on the Daily Beast are a couple of
articles about the fudging of vino.
Recently there was also a Wall St Journal article about
the "rating" of wine.
What does it all mean? Drink what you like and can
afford.

[urls snipped]

We attended a day of seminars on pinot noir as part of the
Pinot on the River weekend. One issue that came up was
smoke in the wine from the fires around the Anderson Valley
(in 2008 I believe). Several winemakers used reverse
osmosis to separate the water and alcohol from the rest of
the wine. The water-alcohol mixture contained the smoke
elements which could then be removed. Combine the de-smoked
water-alcohol with the other wine elements and presto,
smoke-free wine.

The winemakers did admit this was horrendously expensive. -
Tony

[Karen]

Post by Tony Lima
We attended a day of seminars on pinot noir as part of the
Pinot on the River weekend.  One issue that came up was
smoke in the wine from the fires around the Anderson Valley
(in 2008 I believe).  Several winemakers used reverse
osmosis to separate the water and alcohol from the rest of
the wine.  The water-alcohol mixture contained the smoke
elements which could then be removed.  Combine the de-smoked
water-alcohol with the other wine elements and presto,
smoke-free wine.
The winemakers did admit this was horrendously expensive. -

Even if this wasn't expensive, the winemakers would probably tell the
consumer that it was.

Karen

[Tony Lima]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:21:02 -0800 (PST), Karen

Post by Karen

Post by Tony Lima
We attended a day of seminars on pinot noir as part of the
Pinot on the River weekend.  One issue that came up was
smoke in the wine from the fires around the Anderson Valley
(in 2008 I believe).  Several winemakers used reverse
osmosis to separate the water and alcohol from the rest of
the wine.  The water-alcohol mixture contained the smoke
elements which could then be removed.  Combine the de-smoked
water-alcohol with the other wine elements and presto,
smoke-free wine.
The winemakers did admit this was horrendously expensive. -

Even if this wasn't expensive, the winemakers would probably tell the
consumer that it was.
Karen

No reason to lie to the dozen or so folks in the room ... -
Tony

[Mark Lipton]

Post by Julian Macassey
For years, I have told people that California wine
particulary is tweaked with applied cjemistry. This upsets
people, why I don't know. Now on the Daily Beast are a couple of
articles about the fudging of vino.
Recently there was also a Wall St Journal article about
the "rating" of wine.
What does it all mean? Drink what you like and can
afford.

Ah, but the wines that many like are manipulated all to hell and back.
Honest CA winemakers (of which there are precious few) will tell you
that reverse osmosis, microoxygenation, MegaPurple and oak chips are in
widespread use, especially in the large production facilities. (Which is
not to say that all are equally vile or without merit -- micro-ox. is
just a high-tech version of racking and used with care doesn't mitigate
the production of an "honest" wine).

In certain circles, these techniques go by the name of "spoofulation"
and are met with derision. The opposing camp goes by the name of
"natural wine" and has been growing in popularity for the last decade.
Terroir wine bar in SF, for instance, carries only those so-called
"natural" wines and recently sponsored "Natural Wine Week." It's safe
to say, though, that many wine consumers aren't going to find those
wines easy to like, as they are variable, inconsistent and often sport
non-frooty flavors (the horror!). Eric Asimov, the wine writer for the
NY Times, provides the background:

<http://thepour.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/just-what-makes-a-wine-natural/>
<http://thepour.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/san-francisco-natural-wine-week/>
<http://thepour.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/natural-wines-redux/>

Mark Lipton

[Steve Pope]

Post by Mark Lipton
Ah, but the wines that many like are manipulated all to hell and back.
Honest CA winemakers (of which there are precious few) will tell you
that reverse osmosis, microoxygenation, MegaPurple and oak chips are in
widespread use, especially in the large production facilities.

So it's not my imagination that California wine quality has gone
steadily downhill in the last couple decades. I think it was also
mentioned here that nearly all California wine now undergoes malolactic
fermentation, whether it needs it or not.

I've mostly stopped drinking the stuff. There are too many good
Spanish and Italian wines in any given price range.

Steve

[spamtrap1888]

I've mostly stopped drinking the stuff.  There are too many good
Spanish and Italian wines in any given price range.

For everyday use, I have become very fond of the Portuguese red from
Alandra, available either in bottles or a three-liter box, from local
Portuguese liquor and/or grocery stores.

[Mark Lipton]

Post by Steve Pope
So it's not my imagination that California wine quality has gone
steadily downhill in the last couple decades. I think it was also
mentioned here that nearly all California wine now undergoes malolactic
fermentation, whether it needs it or not.

Most would argue that overall, the quality of California wine has never
been higher, if by that you mean that wines at all levels are devoid of
obvious flaws. Moreover, if what one wants out of a wine is something
that can be bought and drunk with pleasure in the same day, then the
current paradigm is a suitable one. Like you, though, I have very fond
memories of the wines being made in CA back in the '70s and '80s and,
like you, have been largely disappointed with the change in direction
exhibited in CA (and elsewhere) winemaking in recent years, not to
mention the obscence pricing that many of them indulge in.

There are also those stalwarts whose wines have NOT succumbed to the
siren songs of spoofulation and stratospheric pricing: Steve Edmunds of
Edmunds St. John, Rod Berglund of Joseph Swan, Cathy Corison, Jason Haas
of Tablas Creek, the folks at Navarro, Bob Lindquist at Qupé, the
irrepressible Randall Grahm of Bonny Doon, Jim Clendenen of Au Bon
Climat, Randy Dunn and their spiritual Godfather Paul Draper of Ridge.
There are also many recent startups who cleave to the earlier traditions.

Your comment regarding malolactic fermentation is puzzling, though. All
red wines go through ML as part of their development. CA Chardonnay has
been made with full ML for a long while now, and it's not my preference,
but I see the pendulum swinging back with the popularity of NZ Sauvignon
Blanc and Italian Pinot Grigio, both of which are made without ML in
almost all cases.

Mark Lipton

[Steve Pope]

Post by Mark Lipton

Post by Steve Pope
So it's not my imagination that California wine quality has gone
steadily downhill in the last couple decades. I think it was also
mentioned here that nearly all California wine now undergoes malolactic
fermentation, whether it needs it or not.

Most would argue that overall, the quality of California wine has never
been higher, if by that you mean that wines at all levels are devoid of
obvious flaws. Moreover, if what one wants out of a wine is something
that can be bought and drunk with pleasure in the same day, then the
current paradigm is a suitable one. Like you, though, I have very fond
memories of the wines being made in CA back in the '70s and '80s and,
like you, have been largely disappointed with the change in direction
exhibited in CA (and elsewhere) winemaking in recent years, not to
mention the obscence pricing that many of them indulge in.
There are also those stalwarts whose wines have NOT succumbed to the
siren songs of spoofulation and stratospheric pricing: Steve Edmunds of
Edmunds St. John, Rod Berglund of Joseph Swan, Cathy Corison, Jason Haas
of Tablas Creek, the folks at Navarro, Bob Lindquist at Qupé, the
irrepressible Randall Grahm of Bonny Doon, Jim Clendenen of Au Bon
Climat, Randy Dunn and their spiritual Godfather Paul Draper of Ridge.

Thanks.

What about current-generation Ridge wines? Full of Mega-purple or not?

And Robert Sinskey, I suspect he does not use chemical tricks
but I'm not certain.

Post by Mark Lipton
There are also many recent startups who cleave to the earlier traditions.
Your comment regarding malolactic fermentation is puzzling, though. All
red wines go through ML as part of their development. CA Chardonnay has
been made with full ML for a long while now, and it's not my preference,
but I see the pendulum swinging back with the popularity of NZ Sauvignon
Blanc and Italian Pinot Grigio, both of which are made without ML in
almost all cases.

Thanks. I did not know that all red wines go through ML.

Steve

[Don Martinich]

Post by Steve Pope
What about current-generation Ridge wines? Full of Mega-purple or not?

If Ridge is still using submerged cap fermentation on their reds they
are getting plenty color the natural way.

Post by Steve Pope
Thanks. I did not know that all red wines go through ML.
Steve

Better in the barrel than have it happen spontaneously in the bottle.

D.M.

[Steve Pope]

Post by Don Martinich

Post by Steve Pope
What about current-generation Ridge wines? Full of Mega-purple or not?

If Ridge is still using submerged cap fermentation on their reds they
are getting plenty color the natural way.

Post by Steve Pope
Thanks. I did not know that all red wines go through ML.

Better in the barrel than have it happen spontaneously in the bottle.

Is this a side-effect of wineries using less sulfur? I think that,
in the old days, they would sulfur the wines to prevent bottle ML,
and you could truly get a no-ML red wine.

Steve

[Mark Lipton]

Post by Steve Pope

Post by Don Martinich
Better in the barrel than have it happen spontaneously in the bottle.

Is this a side-effect of wineries using less sulfur? I think that,
in the old days, they would sulfur the wines to prevent bottle ML,
and you could truly get a no-ML red wine.

Spontaneous refermentation in the bottle is a rare occurrence unless you
drink a lot of Coturri wines ;-) Yes, sulfite addition is used in part
to suppress any bugs that might lead to refermentation. Filtration is
also used by some to remove stray yeast and bacteria. Some "natural
wine" producers do go the low- or no-sulfur route, but that's a risky
one for the reasons you point out. Those no-sulfur wines have to be
kept below 14°C at all times to prevent nastiness and there's still a risk.

Mark Lipton

[rone]

Post by Mark Lipton
Your comment regarding malolactic fermentation is puzzling, though. All
red wines go through ML as part of their development. CA Chardonnay has
been made with full ML for a long while now, and it's not my preference,
but I see the pendulum swinging back with the popularity of NZ Sauvignon
Blanc and Italian Pinot Grigio, both of which are made without ML in
almost all cases.

Not all CA chard undergoes MLF. Many in the Santa Cruz Mountains
appellation don't.

rone

[Mark Lipton]

Post by rone

Post by Mark Lipton
Your comment regarding malolactic fermentation is puzzling, though. All
red wines go through ML as part of their development. CA Chardonnay has
been made with full ML for a long while now, and it's not my preference,
but I see the pendulum swinging back with the popularity of NZ Sauvignon
Blanc and Italian Pinot Grigio, both of which are made without ML in
almost all cases.

Not all CA chard undergoes MLF. Many in the Santa Cruz Mountains
appellation don't.

True. In part, that's what I meant about the pendulum swinging back.
Producers like Stony Hill, Ch. Montelena and Grgich Hills never indulged
in the full ML orgy, but they were the exceptions.

Mark Lipton

[Steve Pope]

Post by Steve Pope
So it's not my imagination that California wine quality has gone
steadily downhill in the last couple decades. I think it was also
mentioned here that nearly all California wine now undergoes malolactic
fermentation, whether it needs it or not.
I've mostly stopped drinking the stuff. There are too many good
Spanish and Italian wines in any given price range.

Now is a good time to mention three very good Italian wines
I've had recently -- ranging in price from $30 to $70, they
in my opinion all blow away similarly-priced Californians.

(And almost by coincidence, I have learned that all three are wines
for which at least one recent vintage earned the top "Three Glasses"
category from Gambero Rosso.)

2005 Nero D'Avola "Sagana", Cusumano ($30)
2004 Montefalco Sagrantino, Perticaia ($50)
2005 Nero D'Avola "Milleunanotte", Donnafugata ($70)

These are all substantial, high-extract reds and I am guessing with
no megapurple-type boosting going on. Hard to say for sure of course.

Steve

[Tim]

Post by Steve Pope
Now is a good time to mention three very good Italian wines
I've had recently -- ranging in price from $30 to $70, they
in my opinion all blow away similarly-priced Californians.
(And almost by coincidence, I have learned that all three are wines
for which at least one recent vintage earned the top "Three Glasses"
category from Gambero Rosso.)
2005 Nero D'Avola "Sagana", Cusumano     ($30)
2004 Montefalco Sagrantino, Perticaia    ($50)
2005 Nero D'Avola "Milleunanotte", Donnafugata  ($70)

Since you so often espouse the leftist line, does it ever occur to you
how many children in Bangladesh, or Sudan, or Chad, or Bumfuckistan
you could "save" with what you spend on these $70 bottles of wine?

(Personally, I don't worry, But my tastes run to $3 bottles of wine.
And I think saving children in breeder nations just makes their future
problems worse....hey, that means I ought to support saving children
in Breederstan, Bumfuckistan, Sudan, etc. Nawwww.)

But, still, I wonder how someone who incessantly argues the liberal,
commie line can with a straight face then pontificate about $70 a
bottle wines.

--TIm May

[Ciccio]

Post by Tim
Since you so often espouse the leftist line, does it ever occur to you
how many children in Bangladesh, or Sudan, or Chad, or Bumfuckistan
you could "save" with what you spend on these $70 bottles of wine?
(Personally, I don't worry, But my tastes run to $3 bottles of wine.
And I think saving children in breeder nations just makes their future
problems worse....hey, that means I ought to support saving children
in Breederstan, Bumfuckistan, Sudan, etc. Nawwww.)
But, still, I wonder how someone who incessantly argues the liberal,
commie line can with a straight face then pontificate about $70 a
bottle wines.

Hence, the term "liberal guilt."

Ciccio

[Steve Pope]

Post by Ciccio

Post by Tim
Since you so often espouse the leftist line, does it ever occur to you
how many children in Bangladesh, or Sudan, or Chad, or Bumfuckistan
you could "save" with what you spend on these $70 bottles of wine?
(Personally, I don't worry, But my tastes run to $3 bottles of wine.
And I think saving children in breeder nations just makes their future
problems worse....hey, that means I ought to support saving children
in Breederstan, Bumfuckistan, Sudan, etc. Nawwww.)
But, still, I wonder how someone who incessantly argues the liberal,
commie line can with a straight face then pontificate about $70 a
bottle wines.

Hence, the term "liberal guilt."

Hah. I neglected to read to the end of the thread before replying
to Tim.

In any case, it's an empty criticism; and American of median
income can afford to drink a $70 wine while still donating
comfortably above average amounts to humanitarian causes. Especially if
he/she skips purchasing the SUV, 2500 square foot megahome, nest full
of spawn requiring private education, etc.

Steve

[Ciccio]

Hah.  I neglected to read to the end of the thread before replying
to Tim.
In any case, it's an empty criticism; and American of median
income can afford to drink a $70 wine while still donating
comfortably above average amounts to humanitarian causes.  Especially if
he/she skips purchasing the SUV, 2500 square foot megahome, nest full
of spawn requiring private education, etc.

Yeah, and then the next person with liberal guilt, will say he's OK,
because he has only a 2500 square foot home, and not a 5,000, square
foot megahome...a Cadillac Escalade instead of a Hummer..."a zero
population growth" of only two kids, etc.

Ciccio
________
Remember Pearl Harbor...
If you're reading this,
thank a teacher.
If you're reading this in English,
thank a veteran.

[Steve Pope]

Post by Ciccio

Post by Steve Pope
In any case, it's an empty criticism; and American of median
income can afford to drink a $70 wine while still donating
comfortably above average amounts to humanitarian causes.  Especially if
he/she skips purchasing the SUV, 2500 square foot megahome, nest full
of spawn requiring private education, etc.

Yeah, and then the next person with liberal guilt, will say he's OK,
because he has only a 2500 square foot home, and not a 5,000, square
foot megahome...a Cadillac Escalade instead of a Hummer..."a zero
population growth" of only two kids, etc.

This is a reduction-to-absurdity argument: if spending $70 not on
humanitarian causes is fine, then so is spending $70,000.

The argument doesn't wash though, because in this case, size matters.

Steve

[Ciccio]

Post by Steve Pope
This is a reduction-to-absurdity argument: if spending $70 not on
humanitarian causes is fine, then so is spending $70,000.
The argument doesn't wash though, because in this case, size matters.

What's absurd is that you're missing the issue. I am referring to the
phenomenon of "liberal guilt" whereby liberals adhere to liberalism
primarily motivated by the guilt of having X while others are
starving, suffering, etc. The phenomenon occurs with liberals at
various economic strata. "Activists" raising money know that and
exploit the shit our of it by various "guilt trips."

Ciccio

[Steve Pope]

Post by Ciccio
I am referring to the
phenomenon of "liberal guilt" whereby liberals adhere to liberalism
primarily motivated by the guilt of having X while others are
starving, suffering, etc. The phenomenon occurs with liberals at
various economic strata. "Activists" raising money know that and
exploit the shit our of it by various "guilt trips."

I don't think collective guilt is limited to liberals.

Why do your suppose conservative, church-going bible thumpers
support charities? Same concept, except perhaps with less
introspection and more groupthink surrounding deities and afterlife.

Steve

[Ciccio]

Post by Steve Pope
I don't think collective guilt is limited to liberals.

I don't think so either. I never said it was, did I? If, however, you
want to change the subject and divert how fucked up liberals are by
pointing out how fucked up conservatives are, so be it. That still
doesn't make liberal any better...

I've known that for quite a long time, ever since asshole "liberal"
LBJ and "conservative" Tricky Dickhead. Both of them grabbed us and
tried to get us killed for no good reason, except to further their own
political ends. Just like Bush and Boy Wonder.

Ciccio

[Geoff Miller]

Post by Steve Pope
I don't think collective guilt is limited to liberals.

It may not be, in a literal sense. There are probabla
y isolated examples of the phenomenon among right-wingers,
human nature being what it is. But generally, collective
guilt is far more characteristic of liberals than it is of
conservatives.

Post by Steve Pope
Why do your suppose conservative, church-going bible
thumpers support charities?

Because of a sincere, *voluntary* desire to help other
people, as opposed to doing it out of guilt. That's why
"liberal guilt" is a common figure of speech, but "con-
servative guilt" isn't. Kind of like how "knee-jerk
liberal" is part of the common lexicon, but no one ever
hears the phrase "knee-jerk conservative."

Post by Steve Pope
Same concept, except perhaps with less introspection
and more groupthink surrounding deities and afterlife.

When it comes to groupthink, liberals have more than a
bit of a leg up over conservatives. That's because
conservatives, as a group, are far less likely to care
what other people think about them and their views thaa
n liberals are.

You may have noticed that liberals are quite fond of
broadcasting their virtue by sporting bumper stickers
on their cars, and by driving Priuses. How many Priuses
have you ever seen with, say, pro-Bush or McCain/Palin,
or anti-abortion, bumper stickers on them?

Hint: Simply holding the same views on an issue as
others do isn't groupthink. Holding the same views
*because* others do is groupthink.

By the way, Steve, you still haven't explained to me
why you believe I'm a "hater" because I'm a conservative.

I've got the liberals' number as far as that "conservatives
are haters" thing is concerned. I've come to the conclusion
that it dates back to the JFK assassination, when the Left
couldn't come to terms with the fact that their president
was killed by one of their own: a Communist. And so they
created the myths that Dallas was a "city of hate," and
that Kennedy was killed as the result of a right-wing
conspiracy.



Geoff

--
So how's that whole "hopey-changey" thing
working out for you?

[Dan Abel]

Post by Geoff Miller

Post by Steve Pope
I don't think collective guilt is limited to liberals.

It may not be, in a literal sense.

Post by Steve Pope
Why do your suppose conservative, church-going bible
thumpers support charities?

Because of a sincere, *voluntary* desire to help other
people, as opposed to doing it out of guilt. That's why
"liberal guilt" is a common figure of speech, but "con-
servative guilt" isn't. Kind of like how "knee-jerk
liberal" is part of the common lexicon, but no one ever
hears the phrase "knee-jerk conservative."

ditto

[Michael Siemon]

In article

Post by Geoff Miller

Post by Steve Pope
I don't think collective guilt is limited to liberals.

It may not be, in a literal sense.

Post by Steve Pope
Why do your suppose conservative, church-going bible
thumpers support charities?

Because of a sincere, *voluntary* desire to help other
people, as opposed to doing it out of guilt. That's why
"liberal guilt" is a common figure of speech, but "con-
servative guilt" isn't. Kind of like how "knee-jerk
liberal" is part of the common lexicon, but no one ever
hears the phrase "knee-jerk conservative."

ditto

:-)

If Miller's note was not deliberate parody, it should have been!
A more delusional self-image is almost impossible to imagine, and
would not be believed if not self-constructed.

[Wayne E. Amacher]

In ba.food Geoff Miller <***@lava.net> wrote:


: Steve Pope <***@speedymail.org> writes:

:> I don't think collective guilt is limited to liberals.

: It may not be, in a literal sense. There are probabla
: y isolated examples of the phenomenon among right-wingers,
: human nature being what it is. But generally, collective
: guilt is far more characteristic of liberals than it is of
: conservatives.


:> Why do your suppose conservative, church-going bible
:> thumpers support charities?

: Because of a sincere, *voluntary* desire to help other
: people, as opposed to doing it out of guilt. That's why
: "liberal guilt" is a common figure of speech, but "con-
: servative guilt" isn't. Kind of like how "knee-jerk
: liberal" is part of the common lexicon, but no one ever
: hears the phrase "knee-jerk conservative."


:> Same concept, except perhaps with less introspection
:> and more groupthink surrounding deities and afterlife.

: When it comes to groupthink, liberals have more than a
: bit of a leg up over conservatives. That's because
: conservatives, as a group, are far less likely to care
: what other people think about them and their views thaa
: n liberals are.

: You may have noticed that liberals are quite fond of
: broadcasting their virtue by sporting bumper stickers
: on their cars, and by driving Priuses. How many Priuses
: have you ever seen with, say, pro-Bush or McCain/Palin,
: or anti-abortion, bumper stickers on them?

: Hint: Simply holding the same views on an issue as
: others do isn't groupthink. Holding the same views
: *because* others do is groupthink.

: By the way, Steve, you still haven't explained to me
: why you believe I'm a "hater" because I'm a conservative.

: I've got the liberals' number as far as that "conservatives
: are haters" thing is concerned. I've come to the conclusion
: that it dates back to the JFK assassination, when the Left
: couldn't come to terms with the fact that their president
: was killed by one of their own: a Communist. And so they
: created the myths that Dallas was a "city of hate," and
: that Kennedy was killed as the result of a right-wing
: conspiracy.



: Geoff

: --
: So how's that whole "hopey-changey" thing
: working out for you?


Wow! Geoff.

That's about the neatest most concise stereotype I have ever seen. It's
really neat how it all fits together. Everything in its place, nothing
left to chance. It's just marvelous!

Perish that a liberal (whatever that is) should ever think conservative
thoughts. Perish that a conservative (whatever that is)should ever think
liberal thoughts. Let's all go down together.

Wayne

[Peter Lawrence]

Post by Geoff Miller
I've got the liberals' number as far as that "conservatives
are haters" thing is concerned. I've come to the conclusion
that it dates back to the JFK assassination, when the Left
couldn't come to terms with the fact that their president
was killed by one of their own: a Communist. And so they
created the myths that Dallas was a "city of hate," and
that Kennedy was killed as the result of a right-wing
conspiracy.

I always thought most of the circumstantial evidence of JFK's assassination
pointed towards a mob hit. A payback to the Kennedy clan for being
double-crossed by them. The right-wing conspiracy theories never made any
sense.

Either Oswald acted alone, or if it was a conspiracy, it probably involved
the mob.


- Peter

[Ciccio]

Post by Peter Lawrence

Post by Geoff Miller
I've got the liberals' number as far as that "conservatives
are haters" thing is concerned.  I've come to the conclusion
that it dates back to the JFK assassination, when the Left
couldn't come to terms with the fact that their president
was killed by one of their own: a Communist.  And so they
created the myths that Dallas was a "city of hate," and
that Kennedy was killed as the result of a right-wing
conspiracy.

I always thought most of the circumstantial evidence of JFK's assassination
pointed towards a mob hit.  A payback to the Kennedy clan for being
double-crossed by them.  The right-wing conspiracy theories never made any
sense.
Either Oswald acted alone, or if it was a conspiracy, it probably involved
the mob.

I believe Oswald acted alone. Yes, he was a commie, but he was also a
Marine[wince]. There's a quote by Army Gen. Pershing, and made more
famous in the movie "Full Metal Jacket" ... "The deadliest weapon in
the world is a Marine and his rifle." OORAH!

Ciccio
_________________
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men
stand ready in the night to visit violence on those
who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill

[Michael Siemon]

In article

Post by Ciccio

Post by Steve Pope
This is a reduction-to-absurdity argument: if spending $70 not on
humanitarian causes is fine, then so is spending $70,000.
The argument doesn't wash though, because in this case, size matters.

What's absurd is that you're missing the issue. I am referring to the
phenomenon of "liberal guilt" whereby liberals adhere to liberalism
primarily motivated by the guilt of having X while others are
starving, suffering, etc. The phenomenon occurs with liberals at
various economic strata. "Activists" raising money know that and
exploit the shit our of it by various "guilt trips."
Ciccio

And "conservatives" raise money by exactly the same strategies,
but of course without any reference to _liberal_ hot buttons, just
conservative ones. So? Indeed, religious appeals for funding of
"overseas missions" have always appealed to these tropes, whether
the religious body in question is wildly right wing or totally out
there on the left (only, on the left there tends to be inherent
suspicion of the very notion of overseas mission being anything but
exploitation of the "target"... -))

For "liberal guilt" read "conservative anger". Bizarre phenomena
(and less prevalent on each side than the other side would like to
think :-)) indeed. Reducing people you don't agree with to simplistic
morons is, well, simplistic.

[Ciccio]

Post by Michael Siemon
In article
And "conservatives" raise money by exactly the same strategies,

DUH! I never said that guilt bullshit is limited to liberals. Indeed,
the latest example, Boy Wonder, is showing there's not much diff
between the two. E.g.,Don't ask, don't tell is still alive and well.
He's going to send more good Americans senselessly to their deaths. No
wonder the asshole's approval rating is poor...people see through his
bullshit.

Ciccio

[Michael Siemon]

In article

Post by Ciccio

Post by Michael Siemon
In article
And "conservatives" raise money by exactly the same strategies,

DUH! I never said that guilt bullshit is limited to liberals. Indeed,
the latest example, Boy Wonder, is showing there's not much diff
between the two. E.g.,Don't ask, don't tell is still alive and well.
He's going to send more good Americans senselessly to their deaths. No
wonder the asshole's approval rating is poor...people see through his
bullshit.
Ciccio

Humans is humans. A non-liberal bitching about liberals being human
is mostly pathetic.

[Steve Pope]

Post by Michael Siemon

Post by Ciccio

Post by Michael Siemon
In article
And "conservatives" raise money by exactly the same strategies,

DUH! I never said that guilt bullshit is limited to liberals. Indeed,
the latest example, Boy Wonder, is showing there's not much diff
between the two. E.g.,Don't ask, don't tell is still alive and well.
He's going to send more good Americans senselessly to their deaths. No
wonder the asshole's approval rating is poor...people see through his
bullshit.
Ciccio

Humans is humans. A non-liberal bitching about liberals being human
is mostly pathetic.

It's mostly that they idea, suggested by Tim and supported by
Ciccio, that there is something conflicting about a liberal
drinking a $70 bottle of Italian wine, is pretty absurd. I think it's
simply that the conservatives just want all the good stuff for themselves.

Speaking of good Italian stuff, I am anxious to try out the
new pizza restaurant in the city, Tony's, opened by the Pyzano guy.
I was sort of hoping to go there last Thursday evening,
prior to seeing the noteworthy Italian neo-classical pianist/composer
Alessandra Celletti perform in North Beach, but they don't
take reservations and I didn't want to risk blowing the evening's
schedule, especially after seeing the Guardian just did a piece
on them.

But by all acounts, they have really good Naples pizza, and I
gotta get there soon.

Steve

[Ciccio]

Post by Michael Siemon
Humans is humans. A non-liberal bitching about liberals being human
is mostly pathetic.

I wasn't criticizing some liberals for being human, but INHUMAN. You
know, by keeping gays relegated to second class citizens and sending
many more Americans to their deaths over bullshit, just like the
fucked up conservatives did. What's pathetic is a liberal not bitching
about how inhuman is a liberal who does such.

Ciccio

[Michael Siemon]

In article

Post by Ciccio

Post by Michael Siemon
Humans is humans. A non-liberal bitching about liberals being human
is mostly pathetic.

I wasn't criticizing some liberals for being human, but INHUMAN. You
know, by keeping gays relegated to second class citizens and sending
many more Americans to their deaths over bullshit, just like the
fucked up conservatives did. What's pathetic is a liberal not bitching
about how inhuman is a liberal who does such.
Ciccio

Odd; none of the points you mention here occurred in your earlier
notes. And I have to suppose that you are totally ignorant of the
various liberal/progressive/what-have-you blogs that indeed condemn
all the things you suggest above are to be condemned in the current
conduct of American hegemony. None of these were topics of the posts
you responded to, I should also note. Since you characterize the
"conservatives" as "fucked up", I suppose you would not characterize
yourself as "conservative" any more than you would as "liberal".
That's fine, as far as it goes, though you have seemed to me to
present yourself mainly as anti-liberal, and indeed implicitly
conservative, in most of your "political" commentary here. Myself,
as a socialist (indeed, a Christian socialist, to push a few other
buttons...), I regard the "full spectrum" of American politics as
truly pathetic.

Be that as it may, your negative take on "liberal" seems to be a
remarkably random and content-free characterization, all things
considered...

[Ciccio]

Post by Michael Siemon
Odd; none of the points you mention here occurred in your earlier
notes.

Nothing odd about it. The earlier notes were relating to the more
limited issue of liberal guilt emanating from enjoying a good life
that failed to befall many other people. In essence, my observation of
how inane that is.

Post by Michael Siemon
And I have to suppose that you are totally ignorant of the
various liberal/progressive/what-have-you blogs that indeed condemn
all the things you suggest above are to be condemned in the current
conduct of American hegemony.

I am aware of that. Just as I am aware that there are large segments
of liberals who defend Boy Wonder's egregious actions and egregious
inaction. Just as I am aware of conservatives/Republicans who condemn
the inhumane religious right and others who have contorted, warped,
and perverted conservatism.

Post by Michael Siemon
None of these were topics of the posts you responded to, I should also note.

I also note that liberals often avoid the topic of their leaders'
inhumane conduct.

Post by Michael Siemon
Since you characterize the "conservatives" as "fucked up", I suppose you would not > characterize yourself as "conservative" any more than you would as "liberal".

Nowhere near as I used to. I changed to a registered independent some
time ago. I grew tired of fighting against the tides of inhumanity
that not only exist, but have become stronger, in both of the major
parties/political movements.

Post by Michael Siemon
That's fine, as far as it goes, though you have seemed to me to
present yourself mainly as anti-liberal, and indeed implicitly
conservative, in most of your "political" commentary here.

I think it's been fairly equal depending upon the issue. The common
thread typically being minimizing, but certainly not eliminating,
governmental intrusion upon the most sublime right to be let alone.

Post by Michael Siemon
Myself, as a socialist (indeed, a Christian socialist, to push a few other
buttons...), I regard the "full spectrum" of American politics as
truly pathetic.

I find the full spectrum of politics everywhere as truly pathetic.
That's an offshoot of government being evil. A necessary evil, but an
evil nevertheless. Thus, it should be minimized and strictly
controlled. America does a better job of that than most, though there
is still room for great improvement.

Post by Michael Siemon
Be that as it may, your negative take on "liberal" seems to be a
remarkably random and content-free characterization, all things
considered...

The operative term being "seems." It is not at all random and often
with content. That you choose to ignore such, is on you.

Ciccio

[Steve Pope]

Post by Tim

Post by Steve Pope
Now is a good time to mention three very good Italian wines
I've had recently -- ranging in price from $30 to $70, they
in my opinion all blow away similarly-priced Californians.
(And almost by coincidence, I have learned that all three are wines
for which at least one recent vintage earned the top "Three Glasses"
category from Gambero Rosso.)
2005 Nero D'Avola "Sagana", Cusumano     ($30)
2004 Montefalco Sagrantino, Perticaia    ($50)
2005 Nero D'Avola "Milleunanotte", Donnafugata  ($70)

Since you so often espouse the leftist line, does it ever occur to you
how many children in Bangladesh, or Sudan, or Chad, or Bumfuckistan
you could "save" with what you spend on these $70 bottles of wine?

Sure, I evaulate all the time what fraction of my income I must
donate to charities involves in humanitarian and/or humane activities
so as to not to feel liberal guilt.

(BTW I think if you knew my total spending profile you might actually
be approving of my level of underspending and thrift. But I'm
not going to try to communicate this.)

Post by Tim
And I think saving children in breeder nations just makes their future
problems worse....

You'll be pleased to know many Earth Firsters agree with you.

Steve

[Julian Macassey]

Post by Mark Lipton
Ah, but the wines that many like are manipulated all to hell and back.

First of all, American consumers demand consistency. They
expect it in cheese, beer, bread and wine. As all of these depend
on tinme, temperature, weather and other fudge factors,
manufacturers (not artisans), find ways to create consistency.

You don't hear so much about good and bad vintages these
days, and almost never about California wines. The tweaking fixes
that. Not enough acid? Not enough sugar? No problem.

Vintners have also learned to produce a wine that the
Wine Spectator will love.

[Mark Lipton]

Post by Julian Macassey
First of all, American consumers demand consistency. They
expect it in cheese, beer, bread and wine. As all of these depend
on tinme, temperature, weather and other fudge factors,
manufacturers (not artisans), find ways to create consistency.

Many moons ago, I worked for Shell Development in Modesto. We would
occasionally get lab techs who'd previously worked at Gallo who told
horror stories about wine being put down enormous ion exchange columns
to basically strip out most of the flavor, only to then have it added
back in at a later stage to achieve the sought-after flavor profile. At
the time, we poo-pooed such practices as something that only a jug wine
producer like Gallo would engage in. Little did we imagine that it was
a harbinger of practices to come. Mr. Clark Smith at Vinovations is the
philosophical descendent of the Gallo Bros., and making a very good
living at it, too.

Post by Julian Macassey
You don't hear so much about good and bad vintages these
days, and almost never about California wines. The tweaking fixes
that. Not enough acid? Not enough sugar? No problem.

Addition of sugar is both illegal and unnecessary in California (not
unrelated, BTW) thanks to the degree-days those CA vines see. The major
fixes these days are acidification, dealcoholization and use of
MegaPurple to overcome overcropping.

Post by Julian Macassey
Vintners have also learned to produce a wine that the
Wine Spectator will love.

and the Pope of Monkton, Mr. Robert M Parker. And 'taint just here that
it's happening: winemaking in France, Spain and Italy has adjusted in
response to "American" tastes. The Napa Valley is no greater a vinous
freakshow than Priorato, Monsant or St. Emilion.

Mark Lipton

[Michael Sierchio]

Post by Mark Lipton
Addition of sugar is both illegal and unnecessary in California

Adding grape juice, or concentrated grape juice, is tantamount
to adding sugar. As you say, California wines usually don't
suffer from being made with underripe grapes - usually they're
quite overripe.