Fermentation: The Daily Wine Blog

Crops, Blogs and Politics

FRIDAY's HEADLINES

1. European Wine Bloggers Conference Underway.
Another good sign for the vibrancy of the wine blogosphere. In Spain they are investigating what it means to be a wine blogger, how to be a wine blogger, where the medium is going and where it will end up. You can follow the conference via video and a comments section. This kind of conference is a first. The second conference of its type will happen on October 24-26 in Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, CA.

2. Pennsylvania Wine Shipping
All signs seem to point to Pennsylvania not passing direct shipping legislation. The proposed new law would have out of state wineries (not retailers) taking orders and sending the wine to state stores where it would be picked up for a fee. Many employees of the state stores, the distributors and consumers don't like the legislation for very different reasons. It's a good sign that consumers and many wineries have come out against this rigged system that really only helps consumers in a nominal way. Pennsylvania will have to address their shipping issue at some point. But it doesn't look like it will happen with the current legislation.

3. Tennessee Takes Up Direct Shipping—Again
Tennessee is set to take up again the issue of selling wine in grocery stores as well as over the Internet. TN is one of those state where consumers must go to a liquor store to get wine rather than the grocery store, where they also happen to pick up their foods. It's also a state where it's a felony, like rape, to ship a bottle of wine directly to a consumer. The bill that got tabled in committee earlier this year is a good one. It allows consumers to buy wine and have it shipped directly to them from in-state wineries, in-state retailers, out-of-state wineries and out-of-state retailers.

4. CA Harvest Ready to Ramp Up
The CA harvest is nearly ready to go into full swing. Numerous wineries I've spoken to say they will likely begin picking grapes seriously next week. Sauvignon Blanc is almost perfectly ready in the warmer areas of the North Coast of California. Chardonnay will likely be coming in to. We are told the crop will be slightly smaller than average generally, very much smaller than normal in some varieties, and probably heavier than normal for a few varieties. Massive, record breaking heat has hit the North Coast over the past couple of days. This isn't want the grape growers really want.

On The Wane

It's fairly unusual for this blog to reprint comments for the sake of a new post. But in this case, I think it's warranted, despite my better judgment—which some would say is on the wane and they may prove to be right

dhonig, a commenter on this post, and a fine wine blogger, wrote the following as a response:

"The whole thing boils down to a claim that it is "unethical" to commit to writing an unbiased review as a condition to receive a bottle of wine. When pressed as to exactly why that is unethical, how it devalues the unbiased review, the answer is, uselessly, "because it is unethical." Sure, it is said in different ways, but those ways are nonsensical. "It makes you an Rodney Strong employee." Really? How? Did Dr. Debs get a W-2? Did she get a 1099 as a contractor? Does her family depend upon her ongoing relationship? No? I didn't think so....

"Tom, you are wrong.  You are not only wrong, you are hurtful, condescending, and even pedantic."

When a client comes to Wark Communications, the relationship that evolves usually works like this:

-The CLIENT agrees to give me something

-I, in exchange, agree to do something in a given time frame.

-There is no guarantee that they'll like what I give them.

-They usually do.

Like it or not, a person who writes about or reviews a product they have no association with is working as a reporter, a critic, a commentator. There is a silent agreement that has always existed between the writer and their audience: The audience will give their time to the writer because they believe the writer is working on their own time, not on the time or on the condition of the subject of their work.

This silent agreement is the foundation of both reporting and criticism. Whether or not the content of a writer's work is an honest assessment of their subject, when this agreement is broken, the writer risks breaking down the most important thing this agreement is supposed to facilitate: trust.

Was the breech of journalism's and criticism's conventions and ethics that surrounds the experiment with Rodney Strong so terrible that it puts some sort of nail in the coffin of wine blogging? No. But it is the kind of crack that gives keen observers of wine blogging an opportunity to claim the blogging medium is "not reporting", "not real criticism", "not real journalism", "easily corrupted".

So what! This is all insider baseball and it doesn't harm my readers. It's no big deal to those who look to wine blogs for inspiration and education and entertainment. And no one's positive impressions were bought. It's just wine anyway.

All true.

But the "so what" of it is this: There are people who believe, passionately, that there is a real possibility that the unique idea of the "citizen wine writer" exemplified for the first time by the wine blogosphere can actually make a substantial change for the better in the way people talk about, enjoy, understand and appreciate wine. The chance of this change actually occurring depends entirely on the wine blogosphere and its citizen journalists being seen as honest brokers; as ethical commentators; as free from liabilities that come with being trapped by the common accusations of compromise that are often flung at traditional wine publications—deservedly or not.

What I think is this. I think a mistake was made in demanding that bloggers write about this wine in exchange for receiving it. And I think a mistake was made in demanding that the wine be written about within a certain time frame as a condition of receiving it. I think this mistake was made due to exuberance that results from realizing that wine blogs can indeed be exactly as I described them above and that by participating in what is a noble experiment, that potential to change how wine is appreciated might be confirmed sooner rather than later.

No one has been accused of being "dishonest or stupid", not at this blog, dhonig. They've been accused of making a mistake; of not thinking something through; of not readily seeing the consequences of not thinking something through.

I'm one of those people who does believe passionately that wine blogging has the potential to change for the better the way wine is appreciated. I actually get a little giddy when I see a really well done blog post or come across a newly discovered blog that I think is really well done and valuable. And I really hope this comes through to my readers because I learned that it is an unquestionable fact of life that giddiness breeds giddiness. And the more people that get giddy about wine blogging and its potential, the sooner that potential is reached.

As a result, I find my self writing about blogging and blogs fairly often. But I write about everything I see. So let me make a suggestion regarding these observations I try to make: They are always clearer when you take off the rose colored glasses.

One final thing, dhonig:

PEDANTIC:
1.ostentatious in one's learning.
2.overly concerned with minute details or formalisms

For the record, the target of an insult is suppose to be offended by it.

On Press Sampling—Giving and Taking and Ethics

I am absolutely fascinated by the initial discussions that have resulted from Rodney Strong Winery's program of sending samples of a new wine to a selection of wine bloggers. The PR initiative is described here by Dr. Debs, here by Tim Elliot of ACAN Media, and here by Jeff at The Good Grape, and here by Mike Duffy of Winery Website Report.

What appears to be different or unique about Rodney Strong sending samples of its new Rockaway wine to wine bloggers is this:

1. It was sent to wine bloggers before the traditional wine review publications get theirs.
2. Bloggers would only get samples if they agreed to publish a review and to publish their review within a small window of time.

The first of these two things is notable, but I'm not sure it's as groundbreaking for the credibility of bloggers as some have suggested. Anyone who hasn't understood for at least the past year that wine bloggers will in time draw equal attention with traditional publications from wineries and wine companies that want to manipulate and use the media to the advantage of their bottom line simply hasn't  been paying attention.

As for the second point (bloggers agreeing to recieve the wine sample under the condition that they review it and do so in a particular time frame) I see the value of insisting on this in terms of trying to measure the impact of blogger reviews (and I hope that impact will be measured and reported). However, I'm not sure bloggers shouldn't be ashamed of themselves for agreeing to these terms—assuming they want to be seen as part of the long tradition of independent journalism and professional criticism that strives to maintain a measured and necessary distance from their subject that allows them to entertain and inform their readers through the appearance (and reality) of not being unduly influenced by their subject.

That said, someone needs to give an award to Rodney Strong Vineyard's PR department. If you know you have a wine that is better than average, it should only be a lack of resources and budgeting that prevents you from sending out press samples to anyone who will take them. The odds of getting a bad review are so low today that one risks very little.

I've overseen sampling programs for wineries for almost 20 years. Almost every list of journalists I recommend receive samples that I've sent to clients has been pared back by the client. I always make my case to them as to why they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by seeking 3rd party endorsements. But all too often that list of 80 or more journalists and bloggers and editors seems a bit too long to them.

However, one thing I've never done is offer a sample to a writer or blogger or journalist with the caveat that they must review the wine and must do it in a particular time frame. The reason I've never insisted upon this is because I wanted to get the wine reviewed. I've known hundreds of wine and food writers, wine reviewers and editors at wine publications over the years. I honestly can say I've ever known  one that would agree to these kinds of conditions. That's not to say that all of these people embrace the full load of ethics that that a  writer or reviewer could possibly embrace. Rather, it's an assumption on my part that the writer or reviewer does, at least, embrace the bare minimum of ethics and self respect.

I'm not sure the explanation for bloggers accepting Rodney Strong's conditions for receiving samples is a testament to the brilliance and persuasive power of the Rodney Strong PR department, the gravitas and influence in the blogging community that Jeff at the Good Grape, who helped Rodney Strong organize this project, possesses, or the desperation among bloggers to want to claim legitimacy and parity with the traditional wine media.

But let me be clear about what I'm saying, from a publicists perspective. We (wine publicists) are required to do anything in our power to advance the bottom line of our client or employer. We don't break the law. But sometimes we look for cracks in the system to advance this cause. We look for novel ways to overcome what we assume is the desire of the media to do their reporting free of influence from the object of their reporting. We don't succeed at this very often, which is credit due to writers; and maybe it's unexpected credit due to publicists too. This is me talking with my publicist hat on.

But to put my blogger hat on, I think it's important to reiterate that while there are substantial differences between bloggers and the traditional media, there are also reasons for bloggers to adopt the conventions of traditional journalists—at least some of them.

The differences between bloggers and traditional media are obvious. We don't have teams of editors to satisfy. We don't have investors to take into consideration. We don't have quarterly profit reports to issue. We don't, generally, have advertisers that we don't want to offend. We don't, generally, make our living by blogging. Due to all these differences there is an perceived independence that accrues to bloggers that doesn't so automatically accrue to the traditional media. This is an asset of extraordinary value that can't be overestimated. Whether or not its appropriate for a wine publications to be accused of kowtowing to its advertisers, they will be accused of this because the circumstances for it occurring are all in place. However,  this accusation can never legitimately be aimed at wine bloggers simply by virtue of the architecture of their medium.

But this isn't a reason for wine bloggers to stridently disassociate themselves from the traditional wine media. There is a great deal in the traditions of journalism that should be recommended to the wine blogger. The most important is not just the appearance of objectivity, disconnect and distance from your subject matter, but the reality of it too.

While there is such a thing as an "embargo" in world of journalist/PR interaction whereby the journalists agree not to report a story until after a specific time, and while their is such a thing as agreeing to "talk off the record", I've never encountered a reviewer who agreed to train their eye on a product under the condition that they write about it and that they do so within a specific time frame.

Do you know why this is?

Because it requires the writer to work on behalf of their SUBJECT, rather than on behalf of their AUDIENCE.

I have no doubt in my mind that the various reviews that different bloggers produced under these conditions were honest assessments of the Rodney Strong wine. None. I know most of the bloggers that took part and I can't imagine any of them skewing their review of the wine just for the sake of being a part of the Rodney Strong experiment, to be on the inside, to assure future samples of wine or for any other reasons. And as I said above, I do appreciate the experimental quality of this program; the attempt to guage the impact of wine reviews in blogs.

I do think, however, that by agreeing to work on behalf of their subject they risk compromising the inherent independence that wine bloggers possess. I'm not sure I'm altogether qualified to make the points I make above. Lord knows, I've done unethical things in my life. My glass house is pretty damn breezy.

But I just might be qualified, sitting as I do at the juncture of PR and Blogging, and having sat in both places probably longer than most folks at any point at the intersection. So what I know is this: Compromise begins by tilting one's head toward the devil on the other shoulder.   

Considering the Winolitical

It's the quadrennial political convention time and my thoughts run to the political. The first presidential election that engrossed me from start to finish was 1984 (my guy got slaughtered). I couldn't get enough of the debate, speeches, political strategy, platform development, etc. I'm watching it all now, again, and as always it is great theater.

But what I'm wondering is this: What if the nation elected a Wine President every four years. What if this president represented the American wine drinker and wine industry and advocated specific policy goals and positions? Would there be parties? Certainly!. But what kind of Winolitical Parties would there be and what would they stand for? And what chance would each of the Winolitical Parties have of winning the nationwide and industry vote for Wine President.

I'm wondering if it might look like this:

1. THE PARTY OF QUALITY

Platform:
-America should be concerned first with producing the highest quality wine.

-A Wine's life begins once rated, and not before.

-Complete, barrier-free access to wine was the Founder's intention. All barrier to free trade in wine should be removed immediately

-The Individual is the creative force in wine and should take precedent over considerations of terroir

-America should immediately develop a Grand Cru-like system of ranking its wines based on vintners, not land or vineyards or appellation.

-Wine Education should take place in the home, and not be subsidized by the government

-Wine is Wine! We will fight to tax all wine at the same rate, regardless of its alcohol content.

Convention City
Monkton, Maryland

Party Nominees
Robert Parker, Jr., President
Eleanor Heald, Vice President

2. PEOPLES WINE PARTY

Platform
-The PWP will continue its fight to expose the Party of Quality and The Wine Traditionalists and elitists who only have their own interests in mind

-The PWP will fight to detach wine education from the elitist stigma it has been fashioned with by self serving wine snobs

-The PWP will fight to create a wine world in which the life of a wine is recognized to begin at the moment it is bottled.

-Americans must open their eyes to the wines of the world, taking a multicultural approach to their consumption.

-The price of wine has been kept artificially high and out of reach from average Americans. The PWP will continue to advocate for increasing the tax burden on expensive wines and using the proceeds to subsidize the consumption of "peoples wines".

-We support an immediate moratorium on the planting of vineyards that are designed to produce less than 7 tons of grapes per acre. Alternatively, we support a substantial increase in fees on owners of such vineyards. Low yield vineyards keep the supply of wine artificially low.

Convention City
Fresno, California

Party Nominees
Fred Franzia, President
Ralph Nader, Vice President

3. AUTHENTIC WINES NOW

Platform
-Wine is product of Mother Earth. Treat Mother Earth well while producing her finest gift and Mother Earth will deliver us fruit of authentic character that defines our lives and cultures, Dude!

-Excessive ripeness and alcohol in wine only masks the authentic qualities bestowed upon wine by the magic of the earth. We continue to advocate a boycott of wine with over 13% alcohol.

-The life a wine begins when the earth is tilled.

-Ranking and rating wine strips it of its meaning. We continue to support a "Ratings & Review Tax" to deter this harmful practice.

-Single vineyards owned by individuals produce the finest wines and ought to be encouraged though our tax policies.

-We support the elimination of all taxes on wines produced in a biodynamic method with only modest taxation on organically produced wines.

Convention City
Portland Oregon

Party Nominees
Randall Graham, President
Al Gore, Vice President

Potential

I've been reviewing the various blogs linked up here at Fermentation, looking for those blogs that I tend to overlook or have not fed into my blog reader. I came across "FERMENTED THOUGHTS", authored by Nicholas Solga.

Nick's blog defines what for me is most frustrating in the world of wine blogging: Wine Bloggers with a GREAT sense of what makes for a fine blog post, a CACHE of insider's knowledge, an INVITING personality, and WONDERFULLY useful reviews—BUT WHO DON'T POST OFTEN ENOUGH TO ACHIEVE WHAT I THINK IS HUGE POTENTIAL!!

First, take a look at the average length of Nick's posts at Fermented Thoughts. They are perfect. Just long enough to cover the subject, but not too long to keep me from moving along to something else as I need to. I could improve Fermentation if I just followed his lead.  And note also that Nick is in the Wine Business and clearly has access to lots of wines as well as insight on what makes the industry work. Finally, his writing is engaging and nicely personal.

Oh, one more thing. If you take a look at the ONE AND ONLY video that he's recorded of himself reviewing a wine (It's posted above here), I hope you'll find that it's really very well done. Nick should do more of these.

Unfortunately for Nick (and for me) (and for you), he doesn't have free time on his hands like I do. Poor Nick has only posted 32 times since March.

Nick's has a wonderful style that is perfectly suited for wine blogging. Read Nick's Fermented Thoughts. It's well worth your time. And if you like what he does, see if you can't coax him into doing more.

It Just Might Work!!

It has been a battle. For no other reason than I have ties to the country and I love the language, I've been trying to convince my kids that they should take and learn French in High School. I finally convinced my daughter, who is not yet in High School. I got to her by appealing to her appreciation of beauty and foreign adventure.

The son has been a bit of a challenge, however. None of the arguments I've tried have been able to walk him back from his, "Why am I going to need French" response.

I think I found a new argument.

In the past I prevailed upon his affinity for wine. I've been tasting wine with my son from a very young age. He sniffs, tastes, swallows then tells me what he tasted and smelled. He's pretty good at it. In fact, back in grade school when we started doing this he showed an affinity for putting words to flavors and aromas.

So I explained, "the world of wine is really based on a French vocabulary! The names of the grapes are french, son. And words like 'Clos and Chateau' are all over wine. You can't really appreciate wine if you don't understand its traditional language."

To which he responded, "I don't need to read French to know if it's red or white".

True. But what's more important than his brilliant observation is that I haven't done a good job teaching him the real pleasure in going beyond red and white.  But that's neither here nor there...for now.

Being as stubborn as he, I've not been willing to give up. I'm not willing quite yet to let him, at the mere age of 14, get away with winning an argument. So I've kept my mind open, looking for new and better arguments. I think I found one, of sorts.

Having lunched at Boulevard recently with a friend (it's still a fabulous restaurant), and having consumed a nice Pastis and Barbera with my Salmon Carpaccio and Bavette of Kobi, I needed to use the restroom.  Instructions given to me were, "through the door, through the next door, down the stairs, to the right, down hall."

When I got there I saw two doors labeled: "Hommes" and "Dames". No pictures!

I'm tempted to take my son to Boulevard, fill him up on Diet Pepsi, then send him to the restroom with the hopes that, having not known the difference between "hommes" and "dames" he'll walk in on a crowd of dames adjusting themselves.

It just might work!

Arrogance, Fraud & What's To Come

Yeah, the Wine Spectator got used. Toward what purpose I'm not sure. But they did get used by granting an wine list award to a fictitious restaurant. The upshot is that the Awards will be more closely monitored. I'm not real up in arms over the "scandal".

But that's just me. As Steve Heimoff points out, "The reaction has been fast, furious and worldwide, with the weight of opinion running heavily against Wine Spectator."

Not a surprise. Everyone appears to like to see the influential among us get a comeuppance. It seems that the degree of comeuppance that the powerful sometimes experience is exactly equal in weight and measure to how much more important we each feel we are for having observed the comeuppance. Human nature.

ARROGANCE IS PART OF THE GAME--EMBRACE IT
But, Steve struggles with an explanation for why the Wine Spectator is being pounced on so hard and why there appears to be so much ill feeling against the magazine. But he does have an idea:

"The one thing I can come up with, at least from my California point of view, is that there’s a body of opinion in this State that Wine Spectator is arrogant."

Someone needs to say it: Any publication that takes on the task of critiquing and judging an activity that does not come off as somewhat arrogant probably isn't doing a very good job. If you are a critic, if you are judging others works, if you are reviewing other's products and you don't possess a certain amount of natural arrogance that is greater than the average person, they you have no business being in that line of work. What would a wine review publication that didn't possess arrogance sound like?

"This Cabernet was pretty good, somewhat enjoyable, and similar in nature to hundreds of other cabernets that are pretty good and somewhat enjoyable."

Yea! Gimme more of that, would ya. Compelling!!!

THE REAL PROBLEM IS WHAT THE FRAUD WILL INSPIRE
The problem the Wine Spectator has within the wine industry, however, goes well beyond the proper arrogance it possess, but which many don't like. There has, as long as I've been in this business, been a strong feeling among winemaker and marketers, that you can get better scores in the Wine Spectator if you advertise. This view always seems to be held by those that get 84-87 points. It's also utterly ridiculous. I ran and crunched the numbers. It just ain't so, but it does give further explanation as to why there appears to be, again as Steve Heimoff observes, "glee" among those who are witness to the magazine's faux pas.

That said, if you really want to appreciate the impact of this episode and the way it has traveled outside the wine world and into the mainstream media, imagine what kind of actions it will breed. I will not be surprised to see this particular example of fraud inspire others to do something similar, but with a twist. If I were a wine reviewer or a wine magazine, I'd be on the look out for two wines labeled differently that are in fact the very same wine and looking for the reviewer to give two divergent scores. I'd be on the look out for the same thing if I ran a wine competition.

A Moral Failure

I'm at a loss to understand how one can commit the moral failure of demanding that while a 20 year old be allowed (encouraged!) to stand toe to toe with another man and attempt to kill him for his country, he not be allowed to sip Pinot Nor.

This is the position of MADD, AKA "Morally Absent Day after Day" "Mothers Against Drunk Driving".

It's about time: A group of college presidents are asking that our nation re-evaluate our 21 year-old drinking age. I'm not sure exactly what motivates them to take this brave, but nearly suicidal, position. However, I'm willing to bet it has something to do with the fact that in addition to trying to control binge drinking on campus, they are also required to police binge drinkers on campus. If common sense ruled, these colleges would have more time to spend explaining why binge drinking isn't such a great idea.

I have to be honest, my position on the drinking age is affected not one iota by fears that if it is lowered to where it should be, 18 years old, more drinkers might die in car accident. It doesn't even enter my equation. I'm much more concerned that the 21 year-old drinking age probably does more to extend a childhood mentality among those that should be expected to act like adults.

See, here's the thing. If the 21 year-old drinking age reduces drunk driving, as MADD insists and some studies show, then wouldn't a 35 year-old drinking age reduce drunk driving even more? What in the world is stopping MADD from advocating a 35 year-old drinking age? What is it that makes an 18 year old too immature to be trusted with a Cabernet, but mature enough to shoot an Iraqi in the face with a large caliber side arm? I'm just not sure I can pinpoint that difference.

I wonder if Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD knows the answer to that question? She apparently is possessed of a great deal of information. Why just the other day she declared unequivocally about the colleges to which the brave administrators advocating discussion belong that, "It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses."

I certainly hope she's right.

John McCardell, a former president of Middlebury College in Vermont and a member of the college presidents calling themselves the Amethyst Group said, "It is a law (the 21 year old drinking age) that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory."

How is it that a group of 18, 19 and 20 year-olds could have so much more common sense than the president of MADD?

It strikes me that if we are really going to take MADD's advise and treat adults like children in the area of drinking alcohol, we really should be intellectually honest and go all the way by prohibiting anyone under 21 from entering the military, voting, or, when they break the law, trying them as adults. The 21 year-old drinking age is a moral failure by the United States. Not the only one, to be sure. But one that should be taken note of.

Wine Writer Gone Wild

Have you ever noticed that big time wine writers and wine reviewers rarely make fun of themselves and their profession, despite the fact that when you back up and really observe what reviewers do, it's kind of funny: The lengths they go to inoculate themselves from bias, the formality, the special glasses, the palate cleansers. All the things that go into tasting, rating and reviewing wine has to be kind of absurd for someone on the outside looking in.

But the potential for real comedy lies in wine writer making fun of his profession for an audience of wine geeks and wine professionals. The potential for inside jokes is just truly great.

We finally have a wine writer willing to do just this, and I take pride that I may have somehow done something to inspire it. But what makes it work is that he's among the best and most experienced wine reviewers.

You can find Steve Heimoff's send up of wine reviewers HERE (click on the link...it'll get you to the video)

I'm particularly fond of Steve's send up of the notion of bagging wine and tasting it blind.

It doesn't really take much bravery on Steve's part to pull off this video. His place in the wine reviewing world is safe. He has no ladders to climb. As the Wine Enthusiast Magazine's West Coast Editor and as one of the folks with the most experience reviewing wine for a consumer audience in America, the Wine Enthusiast has a real prize on their hands with Steve.

Steve's video reminds us that those of us in the Wine Industry and those who are close to it often suspend our incredulity in order to get our work done. Let's face it, despite the talent of someone like Steve or the other top wine reviewers in America, and despite the talent of America's many fine tuned palates, we aren't doing brain surgery. We aren't fighting fires. We aren't saving lives. We aren't educating the next generation. We are talking about wine.

Whether you appreciate Steve Heimoff's parody of himself (and others), you have to give him kudos for saying what often goes unsaid 

Comedy in Pennsylvania

There has been a lot written of late about Pennsylvania's need to come into compliance with Granholm v. Heald by addressing the issue of Direct Shipping. But none of the commentaries and articles have been quite as good, quite as pointed and quite as funny as that published by the WillDo blog at the Philadelphia Weekly.

"In the beginning, God created man and the ethyl alcohol molecule. Later, man discovered the ethyl alcohol molecule was psychoactive. In other words, he discovered how to get drunk."

This isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for wine, but the article does get better. It's not parody. It's not satire. It's just good old fashioned ridicule.

Currently legislation under consideration would have direct shipments of wine from out-of-state wineries required to be sent to state stores, not directly to residents' homes. Of course the latter makes too much sense. But as the writer of this article notes:

"The state once banned out-of-state wineries from shipping directly to consumers in Pennsylvania, because that makes sense."

At this point, the entire direct shipping debate, no matter where it occurs, no matter what policies are under consideration, has almost become a parody of itself. Where states are shutting down shipping by retailers or where restrictions are placed on shipment, it's almost as though lawmakers and those whispering in their ear are trying to figure out exactly how silly they can sound, how funny they can look, how badly they can screw the consumer, and how many lawsuits they can spawn.

The sponsor of the current bill has actually said that he wants to put a limit on the number of out-of-state wineries that could ship by providing that only those wineries that make 80,000 gallons of wine or less would be eligible to ship wine. This means any winery producing more than 34,000 cases per year would be excluded. That's not the real problem. The real problem is that in justifying the production limit in protectionist terms, violate the U.S. Constitution's Commerce clause.

I personally don't think the legislation will pass this year and will have to be brought back up next year. No one likes it. Pennsylvania wineries oppose it, Pennsylvania consumers oppose it, Pennsylvania wholesalers oppose it, Pennsylvania state store employees oppose it and, based on the column in WillDo, God probably opposes it too.