ALL Wines Deserve A Level Playing Field http://ift.tt/1ryWLfb

ElBanditoAlice Feiring and I don’t often agree, but today she put up a lament on the exclusion of wines she loves by “quality panels” in Canada and South Africa that I sympathize with completely.

The brilliant label pictured (love how they have used the bar code!) graces a wine that is unusual. Because it is unusual, tasters on the South Africa Wine & Spirit Board rejected it and thus the producer is not allowed to export the wine. Regardless of the fact that the wine has an international fan base, because the tasters on the SAW&SB didn’t like it, the producer is being restricted in his ability to sell it. Wines that tasters on Ontario, Canada’s Vintners Quality Alliance panel don’t care for are denied a substantial tax break that other wines produced in the province receive – making the economics of production and distribution that much more challenging. Alice and other fans of these wines are rightfully outraged.

Laws that dictate what can and can’t be in a wine, and laws that insist that the label on a wine bottle accurately reflects what is in the bottle (at whatever level of detail is deemed appropriate, and enforceable) are desirable, and protect the producer as well as the consumer. But laws that empower tastemakers to impose economic sanctions on wines that don’t fit some arbitrary “taste” standard are abhorrent.

The ONLY criterion that should determine whether a wine producer gets to market their wine in any way they choose, wherever they choose, is this: if just one consumer is willing to buy a second bottle – with the only context for their decision being that a friend recommended the wine, or Alice Feiring, or Eric Asimov, or the awesome somm at the table of their favorite restaurant.

Stop Calling Wine “Juice” http://ift.tt/1nq3g4F

Master Somm Juice TastingI admit it’s a pet peeve of mine. I acknowledge that there are more important things going on in the world of wine, like the current schmoozing at IPNC, or maybe the lack of diversity on wine writer panels at the recent blogger conference. But please, I implore everyone! For the love of God stop referring to wine as “juice”!

It’s Infantile

Toddlers drink juice. Wine is an adult beverage. When one refers to wine as “juice” in public it sounds like baby talk, and may — in truth — violate the industry’s voluntary guidelines on promoting underage drinking. Think about it.

It’s Derogatory

As slang, all other connotations of “juice” are negative. Money and influence, likely gained in an unsavory manner. Steroids. Spunk, jism, baby batter, semen. Stop it. And it is an unfortunate fact that “juice” is an apt descriptor for some wines that people reading this post may find easy to sell but wouldn’t be caught dead drinking themselves.

It’s Exclusionary

I’ll allow that industry insiders — the bro’s, the dudes and dudettes who sling this stuff for a living — use the term amongst themselves with reasonable impunity, and sometimes a nod and a wink to irony. Get it? Insiders — otherwise known to outsiders as “douchebags” — use the term. Insiders? — stop using it in public. Outsiders? — stop using it at all.

It’s Inaccurate

At the end of the day juice is to wine as fetus is to baby. As milk is to cheese. As bricks are to houses. People don’t confuse these other things, or use one word to refer to the other.

And in other news…

On a more serious note, obviously if I haven’t posted anything here since May 16th there is something else taking up all my time and attention. Premature to report, but news is coming. Until then I am throwing out random bits and little fits @jkellyca on Twitter

Anonymous

Anonymous asked:

You're being so ignorant with your tweets. Hobby Lobby is a company that isn't going to support something they do not believe in. They aren't saying for people to not use birth control or any types of birth control. They just don't want to be the ones allowing it through their insurance. The company is being bashed for doing what they believe in while ignorant people like you get upset about it. If you don't agree don't work for them. It's simple

slackmistress:

Point one:

Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Corporations get certain benefits that people don’t: tax breaks, protection from criminal charges being filed, etc.

If Hobby Lobby would like to be a PERSON WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, then Hobby Lobby should not get the protection of a corporation.

Point two:

If Hobby Lobby had the courage of their religious convictions, they would not:

If you are a human in the United States, it should not be up to your boss to decide what medicine is appropriate for you to take. It should be up to your doctor. Yes, and insurance company could deny you, but YOUR BOSS SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DECISIONS WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR HEALTH CARE.

Point three:

Hobby Lobby is totes cool with vasectomies and erectile dysfunction drugs.

Point four:

One of the points people up is that Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to cover the Morning After Pill because it’s abortion. Except that the Morning After Pill ISN’T ABORTION. The Morning After Pill delays or inhibits ovulation. IT PREVENTS PREGNANCY. This is science. But maybe you think gravity is a myth, too.

Point five:

Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses traditionally do not believe in medicine. So I imagine you ‘re okay with a business run by someone who practices these faiths to not cover your mom’s chemo, or your diabetes medication, or a blood transfusion for your child.

Point six: (bonus round!)

I appreciate that you are so confident of your convictions that you are willing to put your name on your…oh wait. You’re anonymous.

#DrHobbyLobby prescribes taking up cross-stitch. May I recommend this one?

(image from YarnBombing.com)

Since her death in 1979, the woman who discovered what the universe is made of has not so much as received a memorial plaque. Her newspaper obituaries do not mention her greatest discovery. […] Every high school student knows that Isaac Newton discovered gravity, that Charles Darwin discovered evolution, and that Albert Einstein discovered the relativity of time. But when it comes to the composition of our universe, the textbooks simply say that the most abundant atom in the universe is hydrogen. And no one ever wonders how we know.

Jeremy Knowles, discussing the complete lack of recognition Cecilia Payne gets, even today, for her revolutionary discovery. (via alliterate)

OH WAIT LEMME TELL YOU ABOUT CECILIA PAYNE.

Cecilia Payne’s mother refused to spend money on her college education, so she won a scholarship to Cambridge.

Cecilia Payne completed her studies, but Cambridge wouldn’t give her a degree because she was a woman, so she said fuck that and moved to the United States to work at Harvard.

Cecilia Payne was the first person ever to earn a Ph.D. in astronomy from Radcliffe College, with what Otto Strauve called “the most brilliant Ph.D. thesis ever written in astronomy.”

Not only did Cecilia Payne discover what the universe is made of, she also discovered what the sun is made of (Henry Norris Russell, a fellow astronomer, is usually given credit for discovering that the sun’s composition is different from the Earth’s, but he came to his conclusions four years later than Payne—after telling her not to publish).

Cecilia Payne is the reason we know basically anything about variable stars (stars whose brightness as seen from earth fluctuates). Literally every other study on variable stars is based on her work.

Cecilia Payne was the first woman to be promoted to full professor from within Harvard, and is often credited with breaking the glass ceiling for women in the Harvard science department and in astronomy, as well as inspiring entire generations of women to take up science.

Cecilia Payne is awesome and everyone should know her.

(via bansheewhale)

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union