Fermentation: The Daily Wine Blog

The Intersection of Wine and the Penis

The relationship between wine, this blog and penis enlargement seems to be growing.

(And I suspect the previous sentence will only increase the size and frequency of comments on this blog about the "devices that gain 1-3 inches in your penis size".)

Now, as everyone knows, size doesn't matter, whether we are talking about penises or wine. This is a fact despite all the growth in concern over penis size expressed on a number of blogs and the tendency over the past couple of decades in the world of wine reviewing to express excitement about wines said to possess significant girth and length.

Personally, I've never been concerned with size or girth. Nor, as far as I know, have any of my very good friends, who also tend to appreciate not the size, but the way a wine fits into the occasion. Still, there appears to be great interest in the issue of size as evidenced by the recent spat of comments on Fermentation by anonymous wine lovers who understand the potent link between wine and penis size.

Nothing else could account for this insightful comment that has shown up on a number of posts on this blog: "penis enlargement products and penis enlargement reviews that discover top penis size enlargement pills, patches, oils and devices that gain 1-3 inches gain in your penis size at www.penissizeenlargement.net." Though clearly excited about the potential of gaining 1-3 inches with pills, patches and devises, this prolific commenter is challenged where grammar is concerned. But I'll let that pass because I believe one should encourage the growth of passion where ever possible.

However, to-date, I've seen no research that suggests wine can do anything to enlarge a penis. In fact, the best research tends to suggest that when taken in somewhat copious amounts, wine can actually decrease its size, or at least its functionality. But this research only takes into account the effects of drinking wine and not the manual application of wine on to body parts. I look forward to this latter form of research.

So, since there appears to be great interest among readers of this blog in the interaction of penises and wine, I'll try to keep a close eye on any research that enlarges our body of knowledge on this topic. To do anything else would simply amount to shafting my readers.

Truth and Dare and Wine

I've always enjoyed playing games, partly because of my competitive nature but also because a good, well-designed game can reveal a lot about the players. And I like revelation.

The first game (not sport) that I was really good at was "Quarters". For some reason I was coordinated in such a way that I could bounce that quarter into a glass of liquid repeatedly. I was scary-good! In college I was the ringer that would be placed in quarters games where money was at stake. It wasn't quite a living, but I was good at it.

Quarters is, of course, a drinking game. I hadn't thought about my Quarters Career in a long time until the other night when I was prompted to recall not just my successes at forcing other people to drink too much after challenging me, but also the moment years ago when I came face-to-face with a person who made my skill look pathetic and also made me look pathetic after being trounced. This defeat put an end to my professional Quarters career. But the memory made me begin to think about games that are good to play with wine on the table.

The following list may just be a list of some of my favorite games. But It's also a list of games that are fun to drink to. Wine is a good accompaniment to these games not because the games demand someone being forced to drink, but because a little liquid lubrication always makes these games more interesting.

1. Jenga
In my experience, there is a certain advantage to having a little bit of wine in your system as you attempt to build a larger structure of blocks by removing blocks from the lower level of the structure. The herky-jerky motion that can be disastrous to the building process isn't quite so pronounced after a hand-calming couple of glasses of Rhone.

2. Apples to Apples
Simple game. Players match one of the nouns they have on one of seven cards with an adjective provided by the person who will judge which of the nouns presented by the players provides the most entertaining match. This is a very revealing game; revealing of players' wits, historical knowledge, cultural knowledge, and even their current disposition. Again, a little wine often helps loosen the players willingness to make odd, but revealing matches. I've learned a great deal about many people playing this game for hours over many bottles of wine.

3. Truth or Dare
Truth or Dare isn't really a game, is it. Nevertheless, it is turn-based, questions are asked and deeds are done. The rules tend to be flexible and often change as the game goes forward. Truth or Dare is a game that held great significance for me  and my personal development in my pre-teen and teen years. It has also been a game that has cropped up now and again in my adult years. One version of the game has the person who chooses either "truth" or "dare" drinking a shot of very strong alcohol if they choose to not answer the question or do the dare they say they will do. I'm not a fan of this rule. That said, I can't imagine playing truth or dare today without a good glass of wine nearby.

4. Scattergories
For those of you who know and have played this vocabulary game, you'll probably have noticed that it's a game that also tests one's ability to sell a dubious proposition to your game mates. You have to have a certain amount of wine in you to go about trying to convince a group of people that a "Pommaria" is the name of a tiny, red, stone fruit beginning with the letter P that is only grown on the island of Corsica where it is made into a liqueur that isn't exported.

5. Pictionary
Face it, how much fun is it to watch a person who has had three or four glasses of wine try to draw a picture of "Thought Police"?

The Three-Tier System and Consumer Access To Wine

The three-tier system of having a “distributor” in between the producer of wine and the wine retailer was put into place after prohibition to prevent the abuses associated with “tied houses” prior to prohibition. Unfortunately this system has merely served to duplicate the corruption that it was created to fix.

Prior to prohibition, suppliers wielded so much power they could control retailers by threatening not to supply them. Retailers became “tied” to particular alcohol producers. The "tied" retailers were forced to sell a single manufacturer’s product. Producers also forced retailers to promote their brands without regard to public safety. These circumstances exasperated alcohol abuse problems and were often cited by Prohibition’s advocates as one of the key problems with alcohol in America.

To assure this measure of control and this kind of abject corruption would not happen after repeal of prohibition, most states mandated the “second tier” to sit between the producers of alcohol and the retailers of alcohol. They created the state-mandated monopoly known as the “wholesaler tier”.

Today, almost 75 years after the Repeal of Prohibition, every state has only a very small number of wholesalers that control the flow of alcohol. They determine which brands will be sold in wine stores and restaurants. The obscene power once wielded by producers of alcohol over 70 years ago today is in the hands of alcohol wholesalers.

Because most states mandate that alcohol flow from the winery to distributor to retailers, distributors find themselves in the enviable position having a monopoly on how wine is distributed in each state. This, for obvious reasons, has made them enormously powerful and wealthy. As the numbers of wholesalers in America has dwindled, usually as a result of buyouts and mergers, that enormous power has concentrated in a handful of distributors that operate in multiple states. 

Additionally, because there are such a small number of alcohol wholesalers in each state that must, by law, be used by producers to get their wines to retailers and restaurants, the wholesalers are under no pressure to provide high quality service, as they would be if they were subjected to competitive market forces.

A number of consequences flow from these circumstances:

-In most states few wholesalers are responsible for “marketing” hundreds, if not thousands, of wines, which they are unable to do for all the brands with any care or success

-Retailers and restaurateurs are at the mercy of the small number of wholesalers who provide them with wine. The retailers and restaurants must choose only from the wines that wholesalers provide. This is despite the fact that there are many other wines they’d like to carry on their shelves and menus but are by law prevented from purchasing because they must deal only with wholesalers.

-Restaurateurs and retailers, just as in pre-prohibition times, often feel obligated to not criticize and follow the directions of the wholesalers for fear they will be “cut off” from the limited supply they actually have access to.

In essence, the corrupt circumstances that the three-tier system was meant to clean up after Prohibition ended now exist again, only with the wholesalers in charge.

While the corrupt circumstances of pre-Prohibition are with us again, much else has changed. Today there are upwards of 5000-plus wineries in the United States, with producers located in every state. America has become a wine-drinking nation with per capita consumption continually rising over the years and with America poised to overtake France in total consumption.

Yet, just as more wholesalers are needed to handle the demand and the growing number of producers, their number has been reduces to usually no more than three or four distributors in each state handling all distribution. In some cases, such as Texas, two wholesalers (Glazers and Republic) control 99% of the market.

An ‘hourglass” scenario has been created whereby the wholesalers occupy the squeezed middle of the glass. This position of enormous control has generated massive profits and has made them so powerful they are now able to completely control not just the distribution of wine, but the laws that are created to govern the distribution of wine.

Since 2000, Wholesalers, their political action groups and their associations have spent nearly $60,000,000 in campaign contributions on the state level. In addition, millions of dollars more have been spent on lobbyists on the state and federal level.

In 2006, for example, in Texas, alcohol distributors contributed more than $3,750,000 to political candidates and politicians. The only economic interests that outspent alcohol distributors in 2006 were Attorneys and Law firms, Oil & Gas, and Home Builders. Alcohol wholesalers outspent all unions combined in Texas, securities and banking interests, and insurance interests. Alcohol wholesalers in Texas outspent the combined contributions of gambling interests and casinos, retailer interests, all food and non-alcoholic beverage interests, tobacco interests, and tourism interests.

It is difficult to correlate campaign contributions with favorable treatment in the halls of government. However, it should be noted that in numerous states, legislation that can only be called favorable to alcohol wholesalers is regularly introduced and passed.

This trend is particularly clear in the areas of consumer access to wine. Alcohol wholesalers have proven to be advocates of the consumer, but only as long as the consumer is purchasing alcohol that wholesalers first made money on by distributing it to retailers and restaurants.

Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, as the number of wineries in America skyrocketed, consumers became interested in buying the wines produced by these new producers. The products of small, specialty wineries in particular were coveted. However, a large number of these wineries could not find a wholesaler to distribute their wines. And even when they were distributed, wholesalers in individual states usually only bought very small amounts of the wine.

Yet with the advent of the Internet and the consumer’s ability to use search engine technology to locate the wines they wanted from wineries and retailers, it became possible for a wine lover to track down the wines they wanted. However, purchasing directly from wineries and retailers located outside the state in which the consumer resided meant that wholesalers in those states where wines were being shipped into would not make any money on the transaction. Alcohol wholesalers responded to this development by instituting a massive campaign to stop direct shipments of wine.

At alcohol wholesalers’ requests, a number of state legislatures passed felony laws aimed at vintners and retailers who were shipping directly to the consumer and who were filling the growing demand for wines that wholesalers were incapable or unwilling to distribute.

The all-out attack on direct sales of wine by the wholesalers came with dire warnings that if it were allowed to continue minors would eventually start ordering alcohol over the Internet—even though that meant paying the additional cost of shipping and waiting at the door for the delivery in order to hide the purchase from their parents. The Wine & Spirit Wholesalers Association, a national association of alcohol wholesalers headed by one-time pro-tobacco activist Juanita Duggan, led the campaign to prevent consumers from obtaining the wines that wholesalers could not or would not supply.

The wholesalers were met by stiff consumer and winery-led opposition. Wineries and consumers argued that wholesalers were merely fighting to preserve enormous profits made from being at the center of a monopoly-based system that could no longer serve a market that had evolved considerably since the end of Prohibition in 1933.

Eventually wineries led by the newly formed Coalition for Free Trade, and consumers led by an advocacy organization called Free The Grapes followed a litigation strategy that focused on using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, states besides California began to sprout their own wine industries. Oregon, Washington, New York, Virginia, Michigan and many other states found themselves with burgeoning wine industries. The states, wanting to cultivate these new industries that added value to agricultural pursuits, attracted tourism, and brought prestige to the state, enacted exceptions to the three tier system that allowed its wineries to sell directly to consumers rather than forcing them to always sell to wholesalers. By doing this, the new wineries were able to produce greater revenues for themselves by selling their wine at full retail price, rather than reducing the retail price by half when sold to a wholesaler, who then tacked on their cut when they sold to retailers, who in turn tacked on their cut when selling directly to the consumer.

However, this “direct-to-consumer” exception in the law was rarely extended to out-of-state wineries.

Legal challenges to this blatant discrimination against out-of-state wineries started popping up around the country. In court battles across the country the argument was made that a state may not allow its own wineries to ship to its state’s residents, yet prohibit out-of-state wineries from doing the same. It was a matter of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and its demand that states not hamper interstate commerce, trumping the states’ ability to regulate the distribution of alcohol based on the second paragraph of the 21st Amendment.

The issue finally made its way to the Supreme Court, which in May 2005 rendered a 5-4 decision favoring the wineries and free traders in its Granholm v. Heald decision.

There was an immediate assumption that states across the country would loosen their laws to allow consumers to buy wine from out-of-state wineries. Many reports heralded a new era in consumer access to fine wine.

While a number of states did change their laws, the era of free trade in wine was not quite at hand.

If wholesalers found the courts a difficult venue to try to protect their economic interests, legislatures proved a more fertile ground for them. From 2005 through 2007 states legislatures began re-writing their wine shipping laws. In the course of doing so many of the laws contained wholesaler-requested restrictions that kept direct shipment of wine limited.

Some laws allowed direct shipment, but only if the winery produced very small amounts of wine. These “production cap” restrictions were aimed at California, Washington and Oregon, where most wineries resided. The production caps were usually set just high enough to include the largest of a state’s wineries (often no more than 5,000 cases annually). The caps prevented medium and large wineries from shipping into states that had these restrictions and forced them to stay in the three-tier system if they wanted to sell wine in that state.

Other types of restrictions were also created at the behest of wholesalers in a variety of states. Wineries and consumer advocates have begun to challenge them in court, setting off a new round of court battles.

In the meantime, alcohol wholesalers across the country began to work to exclude retailers from shipping direct to consumers altogether. In many cases the prohibition they sought on retailer-to-consumer sales were pushed as part of legislation that opened up states to wineries. California, Texas, Ohio, Oregon and Illinois all passed or have attempted to pass legislation that at once allows out-of-state wineries to ship into their state, but exclude out-of-state retailers from doing the same.

While no good estimates are available as to the amount of wine that is purchased direct from retailers and shipped over state lines, many observers of the wine industry agree that far more wine is being purchased by consumers via the Internet from retailers than direct from wineries.

Retailers, led by the Specialty Wine Retailers Association, are now fighting the wholesalers largely on the same legal grounds as wineries did. In many cases in-state retailers are still allowed to ship to consumers while their out-of-state brethren are prohibited from doing so. Wholesalers argue that the principle of a level playing field for both in-state and out-of-state interests explained in the Granholm decision does not apply to retailer-to-consumer transaction, but only to winery-to-consumer transactions.

Lawsuits challenging discriminatory legislation were introduced in Michigan, New York and Texas. While positive outcomes have resulted from these lawsuits, this has not guaranteed positive changes where consumer access to wine is concerned. In Michigan, for example, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that the state unconstitutionally discriminated against out-of-state retailers by barring them from shipping wine to Michigan consumers, but allowing in-state retailers to do so. Immediately, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, working in concert with the Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association and supportive legislators who had received significant campaign contributions from Michigan wholesalers, introduced a bill that barred all shipping of wine to Michigan consumers by retailers, whether located in-state or out.

This move in Michigan highlighted another issue affecting the cause of retailer-to-consumer shipping: collaboration between alcohol regulatory agencies and wholesalers. In the case of Michigan, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission lobbied for passage of an anti-shipping bill, advocated that it be passed quickly and without debate, and made arguments in favor of the bill without presenting supporting materials. It should be noted that alcohol regulatory agencies are not generally thought of as policy-making bodies, but rather agencies that carry out the will of the legislature. This kind of alliance between agency and wholesaler is not unusual.

In the case of the retailers’ battle against the wholesalers, a new dynamic has emerged. Unlike the wineries’ battles that usually had the support of wineries across the country, retailers often take a provincial position, with the hope of keeping out-of-state retailers from shipping into their own home state and thereby protecting themselves from competition. Also, many retailers are not willing to fight on behalf of free trade in wine for fear they will be retaliated against by their state’s wholesalers who supply them with products. Ironically, the situation is identical to that which existed with Tied House retailers prior to Prohibition, but with the pressure now being put on by the wholesalers rather than by producers.

The power that exists in the hands of a very few (no more than 10) alcohol wholesalers operating in markets across the country cannot be underestimated. In nearly every state few wholesalers control the entire apparatus of alcohol distribution. Legislatures continue to enact laws that favor wholesalers to the detriment of retailers, wineries and consumers. In nearly every state wholesalers are in the top ten industries for campaign contributions. Between 2000 and 2006, America’s alcohol wholesalers delivered $60 million dollars in campaign donations to state political campaigns, dwarfing that contributed by either retailers or wineries.

What’s most clear is that wholesalers are using their power to maintain a system of alcohol distribution created to address a society, culture and market that existed three-quarters of a century ago. This United States no longer exists. Yet the system it created is still in place, to the detriment of wineries, retailers and particularly consumers.

Theocratic Hogwash

I understand federalism, that political philosophy in which power is divided between a national and state governments. It's the concept that helps keep local communities in control of what are usually deemed local matters. I support it too.

It should be noted, however, that it is federalism that allows purely religious concepts and ideas to become embedded in local policy making and law.

In Georgia there is a bill moving through the legislature that would allow local communities to vote in referendums on whether Sunday sales of alcohol should be allowed at retail in their localities. Currently, Georgia bans all Sunday sales. Some folks don't like the idea of letting stores and individuals decide if they should buy their beer and wine on Sunday:

"If we sell more alcohol, more people are going to die," said Tom Rush, a pastor at the First Baptist Church in the town of Social Circle (GREAT name for a town.)

I'm a big fan of over the top rhetoric. When presented well it's really something to see. But in this case I think Pastor Rush just wasn't trying. At least he cold have suggested we not allow Sunday sales "for the kids."

But what would have really been interesting is to listen to the good Pastor explain why sales of alcohol should be banned on Sunday, instead of, say, Thursday or Monday. Why Sunday? Why couldn't he have given a solid defense of the idea of incorporating Baptist theology into public policy? The reason of course is that while he wants to impose his brand of faith on everyone, he's not that comfortable talking about imposing his brand of faith on everyone, including atheists, agnostics, and non-Baptists. And I say good for him. At least he knows he's on shaky moral and political ground by advocating this kind of nonsensical, self serving theocratic hogwash.

I should look into it but I'm willing to guess this kind of religiously-motivated law has been tested at the Supreme Court. And I'm willing to guess that at some point the Court said that such legislation is just fine as long as the law in question has a secular purpose expressed in its intent. You know, something like, "Children will die if we don't ban sales of alcohol on the Lord's Day".

Cheap Wine & The Wax-Coated Sticks of Brown

I think there is a connection between the degradation in the quality of classic candy and the rise of simply, flabby low priced wines.

First, let's admit that wines in the lower price categories that are made for American consumption do tend to be flabby, sweet, simply wines with little character. They are, in my opinion, delivery vehicles for alcohol disguised as sweet fruitiness that is slippery on the tongue. The California Central Valley and Australia has been pumping out these benign, unchallenging, hollow mixtures for quite some time.

I don't think low priced wines were always such wimpy destroyers of interest. There was a time when you could expect even a lower priced Cabernet to pick up the fat left on your palate from a good rib-eye and wash it down your throat. Not so much anymore.

Now take Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. Does anyone remember when you could eat around the edge of the cup and the chocolate on the edge would break off nice and crisp giving you  bite of chocolate you could chew and sink your teeth in to?  I remember this. I remember nibbling around the edge of the Reese's, slowing the experience and making the candy last.

Today if you try to nipple around the edge of a Reese's, there is no snap to the outter edge of chocolate. The teeth sink into the mushy chocolate like a pitchfork into quicksand. Why the change? I don't know. But I know the effect of whatever change came to the Reese's is that it's quicker and easier (in a manual way) to get the damn thing down your throat. Similar to the low priced wines.

Take the Nestle's Crunch Bar. Remember when it was really chocolaty. Remember when you could take a bite and if you let the bite sit in your mouth the chocolate would slowly melt away around the crisps, leaving a mouthful of chocolate coated crisps to chew on? Today, that same bite sits on your tongue with a distinct paraffin characteristic. It stays smooth and whole and takes a long time to melt in your mouth, influencing you to just swallow it down your gullet without any savoring of the ingredients and chocolaty goodness.

I could go on about the degradation in quality of the classic American candy bar, just as I could go on about the degradation in the low priced wines delivered to our drugstore and grocery store shelves. But what's the points?

Well, the point is that it used to be easier to find something of quality on the wine shelves that was priced to sell. Now, just as with American candy, it's harder to find that real value. It's harder to find a $6 Cabernet that doesn't offend us by assuming we just want to swallow it. It's harder to find a $1.00 candy bar that isn't a wax-coated stick of brown.

The Milky Yellow Trance of Summer

It may just be fond memories of drinking it in the warm summer air of the south of France, but I'll swear that the buzz I get from my beloved, milky yellow Pastis is a different kind, a softer, a richer and fuzzier and more comfortable buzz than I get from drinking any other kind of alcohol.

And I like it.

As someone recently explained to me, "Pastis is something you either like or don't like." And it's so true. My experience is that the majority of people don't take to the anise-flavored, herbal, somewhat bitter drink that will also throw of hints of sweetness. But for me, May through September is Pastis season. I can think of no better beverage to sip when nothing but a long, quiet, warm afternoon and evening looms in front of me.

Pastis is very popular in France and has been since Absinthe was banned in that country in 1915. Absinthe producers got rid of the wormwood, reformulated their recipe and introduced the French to a new kind of drink. Today, the French consume two liters per capita!! And I'd bet half that goes down gullets located between Provence  and the Cote d'Azur.

Now, many folks will argue that Pastis should only be served without ice. My preference is to drink it over ice. I like a glass filled half way with small ice cubes, enough pastis poured over the ice so that it reaches the same level as the top of the ice, then finished with varying amounts of water to create a particular strength. I like just enough water to retain the grip of the Pastis and a moderate degree of flavor intensity, but not too strong so as to remove the thirst quenching quality of the drink that recommends it so highly for summer consumption.

What you will usually find in a decent bar is either Ricard or Pernod. These are the two most popular Pastis sold across the globe. However, I do recommend you seek out other more refined examples. The better Pastis will be somewhat less sweet than Ricard and Pernod, somewhat more herbal, but often also more intense with star anise and fennel flavors.

But back to the buzz.

I'm not a drunkard. Never have been. Don't like the feeling of being drunk. Never have. But I can't recommend highly enough that simple, Pastis buzz. I wish I understood it better. I wish I could explain its source. What I can do is recommend you explore it.

The Precious Nature of Socializing

Has anyone noticed that the solemnity of an important gathering of friends is not marked by the rubbing together of soap then a licking of those soaps?

Has anyone noticed that no religion uses wet towels to represent salvation and the diminution of sin?

Has anyone noticed that no community gathers strength and identity through the embrace of radishes grown in its vicinity?

Has anyone noticed that men don't pursue women through the act of watering and dining them?

Isn't it true that wine, far more than anything else, is used to express the precious nature of community and socializing? Why is this true? Why don't radishes or wet towels or bars of soap serve this purpose? I haven't an answer to this question, but rather I have had the opportunity to reflect on the fact that wine is dynamically ingrained into the human experience of socializing.

I came to this line of thought as I pondered the potential impact of social networks and social networking tools on the human species. At first glance it seems that socializing is an ingrained part of the human species, even its most common expression. But, more true than this is the fact that periods of quiet loneliness are a far more common element of the human experience than is social interaction. Surely we all spend far more time interacting with ourselves than interacting with others. And it is certainly true that in the past, technology has provided no means at all for socializing on the large and grand scales that current technology allows.

Perhaps the rituals that have arisen around gatherings and communal activity and perhaps the symbols, such as wine, that have been employed to celebrate gatherings of more than one, have in fact been in response to the uniqueness, preciousness and rarity that is the movement out of self and into the many.

If this is true, what does the current rush to embrace a 24/7 mode of socializing via Facebook, Twitter and other tools mean for human culture and even human evolution?

What does the future hold for wine-as-symbol when the preciousness of gatherings that it celebrates is no longer so precious? Again, for this I have no answer, but I suspect the answer is just now brewing.

The "Mouth Agape" Factor

There are a few things that always leave me stopped in my tracks, mouth agape and oblivious to everything around me, leading often to being knocked back to consciousness by a jostle and the trailing sound of someone saying, "get out the way, asshole". Those things tend to be a beautiful woman and a striking and monumental piece of architecture.

In places like Chicago, New York and Paris I can often be found on a corner, looking outward and upward, staring at some man-made, habitable piece of art and lose touch with the movement around me. But this doesn't happen so much in the case of man-made winemaking facilities. So I thought it pretty cool to come across DesignCrave and it's post on the Ten Architectural Wonders of the Wine World.

Among the Ten is Dominus, located in Yountville, California in Napa Valley. The author of the post says this about Dominus: "a stunning angular obelisk of natural stones contained within a tough wire mesh.  From afar, the building appears to be fully concrete, but as you approach its stone character is revealed."

I remember the first time I laid eyes on the Dominus winery while driving south on Highway 29: "What the hell is that," I thought. But I was drawn to it. The Dominus structure is geometric and probably appeals to me for the same reasons that the many simple, concrete, vertical skyscrapers in Chicago do: extraordinary simplicity. But the thing about Dominus is that it has no relationship to its surroundings, making it somewhat gaudy in its "man-made-ness" and simple lines.

To me, architecture is most closely related to fashion where art is concerned. Many of the things that appear on the bodies of models on runways in Paris, Milan and New York will function as cover-up, but their primary function is interpretive. The same can be said of buildings like the Dominus Winery. It certainly does function as a winemaking facility, but it's primary purpose is to express an idea.

As some of you know I'm a huge fan of "Top Ten Lists". Give me a Pastis, a warm day and a few intelligent friends and I can while away an afternoon constructing them. For those of you who love wine and Top Ten lists, check out this post in DesignCrave. It's fun and thought provoking.

Notes From the Fermentation Bookmarks File

TIDBITS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE


IT'S ABOUT TIME, TISH
 To me it seems a long time coming since his penchant for wit, excellent writing, his wine journalism background and is general deep knowledge of the wine industry makes him an excellent candidate for blogger status. Long time coming or not, it is very welcome news that W.R. Tish has finally launched a blog: THE WINE SKEWER: Bite Sized Comedy and Commentary from a Recovering Wine Critic.

Known to his mother as William R. Tisherman, Tish is a former editor of Wine Enthusiast Magazine who lives on the East Coast. For many years he has been in great demand as a wine educator and writer. He has also been long time observer of the wine scene, the emerging wine blogging community and a vocal critic of the 100 Point Scale, among other things.

The Wine Skewer is already a great read. I recommend it highly.

JUDD'S ENORMOUS WINE SHOW
Judd's Enormous Wine Show is, I think, the only comedic wine show on the Internet, assuming that you view Gary Vaynerchuk's Wine Library TV is a serious wine show (I personally do). Judd's Enormous Wine Show is the work of Judd Finkelstein and Rudy McClain of Judd's Hill Winery in Napa Valley. This is self and industry mocking stuff that puts the winery at odds (shall we say) with the general tone that emanates from Napa Valley's wine industry. It will take more than excellent production standards, toddlers being consulted on new wine packaging and the deep humor of Judd & Co. to turn around Napa's elitist image. But I'm looking forward to eating up more of Judd's Enormous Wine Show.

THANK GOD FOR SMART PEOPLE
The American Association of Wine Economists is a unique organization. When It formed a few years back I was excited because it suggested we'd see some in depth analysis of significant issues. And we have seen such things. But the utility of this group of number crunchers was truly driven home when I received an email announcing their current set of working papers. Along side a paper titled, "When Does Price Affect Taste? Results From A Wine Experiment," there was this engaging title: "Can People Distinguish Pate From Dog Food?"

For as long as I can recall, this issue has burdened the American wine industry as well as the canine culinary industry and we've been waiting for a set of smart people to determine whether or not the production of Pate is even necessary given the proliferation of different styles and flavors of dog food on our grocery store shelves. Finally, smart people have weighed in. The conclusion? "In a double-blind test, subjects were presented with five unlabeled blended meat products, one of which was the prepared dog food. After ranking the samples on the basis of taste, subjects were challenged to identify which of the five was dog food. Although 72% of subjects ranked the dog food as the worst of the five samples in terms of taste (Newell and MacFarlane multiple comparison, P<0.05), subjects were not better than random at correctly identifying the dog food."

This is great news. However, we still need good study that detail whether or not Dogs can tell the difference between Pate and Dog Food. I'm sure the Economists over at the AAWE are on the case.

Paging Mr. Orwell

Forgive me for being a deconstructionist so early in the day. But sometimes I can't help myself.

At the recent Wine & Spirit Wholesalers Association Annual Convention that organization's leader told the gathering of wholesalers the following:

“Within the industry it is no secret that we are the most vibrant, innovative and consumer friendly – yet responsible and accountable –system of distribution in the world. And now our voice is being heard."

First things first. Wolf was referring to the wholesale tier of the American system of alcohol distribution. This is the sector of the American alcohol distribution system that might otherwise be referred to as "The middlemen". They buy wine from suppliers, mark up the price, and resell it to retailers and restaurants. They used to be darned good brand builders. Today they are darned good truck drivers. They still build brands as long as the brand provides hundreds of thousands of cases.

The other thing to know in order to place Wolf's statement in context is that in nearly every state, wholesalers are not required to demonstrate their value. Rather, their existence between the suppliers and those who sell to consumers is actually mandated by law. Put another way, whether needed or not by the suppliers and retailers/restaurants, they must be paid. Pretty sweet, eh?

On to the deconstruction.

I had to look up the word "Vibrant". I'm almost positive the Mr. Wolf is using this definition: " vigorous; energetic; vital" to describe American wine wholesaling. I have to presume that he is referring to the vibrancy with which the wholesale tier is consolidating and becoming smaller and smaller in number while individual wholesalers are becoming bigger and bigger, controlling more and more of various markets. There is no question that the bigger wholesalers are both energetic and vigorous in the eating of their own.

"Innovation" is a term we most often use to describe the implementation of new ideas and new processes. Can it really be true that wine wholesalers are innovative? Have they designed and implemented a new way to make a left turn with a truck or a new way to back up into a receiving dock? These are the folks who resist innovation in wine distribution at every turn, insisting that the same processes and ideas that were institutionalized in the 1930s not be disturbed in any way. They opposed winery-to-consumer direct shipping. They opposed retailer-to-consumer direct shipping. They oppose self distribution wine by suppliers to retailers and restaurants. They oppose the idea multi-location retailers warehousing their wines in a central location. They oppose wine in grocery stores. These things are innovative. The WSWA opposes them. Maybe Mr. Wolf, when referring to "innovation", is referring to the installation of that little knob on to the steering wheel that allows turning the steering wheel to be done with less effort. I'm not sure.

"Consumer-Friendly" almost always means making the lives of consumers more convenient and giving them a more powerful position in the commercial process. However, I think that Mr. Wolf is suggesting that wholesalers bring to market a large array of products, giving consumers greater choice. And they do bring to market a large array of products. It's just that they oppose consumers having access to products they DON'T choose to bring to market. This anti-consumer disposition on the part of wholesalers wouldn't be such a bad thing if consumers had easy access to the products that wholesalers didn't want to bring to market. But they oppose that—in all their consumer friendliness. It should also be noted that wholesalers have ZERO contact with th consumer. They don't sell anything to consumers. That's the job of producers, retailers and restaurants. The motto of wholesalers, where consumers are  concerned, has always been: "If we don't distribute it, you don't need it." And yet, Mr. Wolf is able to claim that wine wholesalers are "the most consumer-friendly system of distribution in the world." Paging Mr. Orwell!

I recently read that "The only thing more dangerous than an idea is a belief". Does Craig Wolf really BELIEVE that wholesalers are vibrant, innovative and consumer friendly? Did the wholesalers in the room at the WSWA convention really believe this about themselves and their industry? If they do truly believe these things, can we expect the wholesalers to use more of their state-subsidized profits to insure that their brand of vibrancy, innovation and consumer friendliness continues to drag down consumers and the wine industry?