Fermentation: The Daily Wine Blog

A Bad Wine Saga Ends!

  On October 15, 2005 more than 6 million bottles of wine stored at the Wine Central Warehouse in Vallejo were destroyed when Marc Anderson, a Sausalito, California business man set fire to the warehouse in order to destroy evidence of earlier crimes.

Entire inventories of wineries productions were destroyed as almost 100 wineries kept their inventories in the warehouse. In some cases, historic library collections of important California wineries were destroyed by heat damage. For the Northern California wine industry, Anderson's self-serving, desperate act was a devastating loss.

Today, under a plea agreement involving a 19 count federal indictment, Anderson pled guilty to the crime.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that this crime of arson, because it was wine that was destroyed and because I love wine, is a particularly terrible crime. I don't mean to diminish the impact of other types of crimes where lives are taken, for example. I only mean to suggest that the 20 some odd years in prison that Anderson will likely get as a result of being convicted not only of arson but also of mail fraud and tax evasion, are simply not enough.

The problem is, I have no idea what kind of prison term would be appropriate. Luckily, I'm not a judge. If it were me, I'd probably flip a coin: Heads it's life, tails it's it only until he dies.

What was shocking about this case at the time was not just the extent of the loss as the mass loss of wine became known, but the fact that this kind of cross industry loss is not often seen in the wine industry. Sometimes we hear about trucks carrying grapes tipping over on the highway. Sometimes we hear about tankers with wine crashing spilling 1000s of gallons of wine onto the highway. And occasionally you hear about a fire at a winery. You just don't' hear about 6 million bottles of wlne being destroyed.

In any case, we'll not hear much more about this story. Anderson pled guilty, he'll go to jail and the wineries that lost so much have plodded forward and done what they had to.

I just hope that those who did lose so much of what they had worked so hard to produce and preserve gain a little bit of solace from the fact that for the next 20 years Anderson will spend time sharing a shower and soap with some of the nicest guys in California. But I doubt it.

=============================

QUITTING SMOKING UPDATE—DAY 23

There's no question about it, I'm on the downslope of working through the cravings and oral fixation that has been so difficult to deal with over the past 3 weeks. Today the occasional craving to light up and inhale smoke into my lungs still over comes me. In fact, it happens at least 10 times a day. But the cravings are far less severe now and last only momentarily. In addition, when distracted, when not writing about quitting smoking but thinking about other things, I don't think about smoking at all. As I've written before, the aroma seeking nose is back. However, I'm still waiting on the flavor detecting ability of my palate to become more acute. Bottom line: with the help of drugs, patches, candy and the support of friends, readers and another very important person, I'm pretty sure I"m a non-smoker.

Can I Beg A Dose of Common Sense?

The American legal system really is a mess. Whether it's the reluctance of the two parties in congress to address nominees for various federal courts or the constant tort claims, it seems that justice comes at an obscenely slow pace.

One of the reasons, however, that justice is often very slow in coming is due to the various lawsuits that are filed that truly seem meritless, a nuisance and meant merely to aggrandize the lawyers filing the complaint.

Take for instance this lawsuit recently filed against Beverages & More that claims their "5 Cent Sale" is deceiving. In the Wine Business Monthly article on the lawsuit we have this little revelation about the claim in question:

“This practice of using a fictitious, marked up, or otherwise misleading regular price" is a deceptive, unfair and illegal practice,” alleges the filing. Plaintiff Peter Gray Jr. of San Francisco seeks restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees, claiming to have been “actually injured as a result of BevMo’s conduct in an amount not less than the difference between what he paid for the two “regular” price bottles of wine (a total of $17.98 plus tax) and what he should have paid if BevMo had sole the bottles at their actual regular prices (a total of $12.98 plus tax).”

If you read this closely, the plaintiff in the case is claiming he was "injured" to tune of at least $5.00.

I'll tell you what, Mr. Gray, give me a call and I'll shoot you a check for four times that amount if you choose to drop your lawsuit and give our legal system a small break. I'll consider it the completion of my civic duty for the day.

Gray claims that with some wines the "regular price" advertised is in fact a higher price than what would be considered "regular" prior to the 5 Cent Sale. BevMo claims the lower-than-regular prices Mr. Gray has seen on some wines actually represents their "Club Bev" prices on some wines.

Who Cares? Really. Who Cares?

There's no question about it. Americans are in desperate need of tort reform as well as a dose of common sense. And some Americans need to do something with the time they have on their hands besides filing seemingly ridiculous lawsuits. Tell you what, Mr. Gray, in addition to giving you a check for 4 times the the least amount you were supposedly injured by BevMo, I'll also throw in a beginners book on wine. Maybe that will occupy your time and save us Californians from footing the bill so you can retrieve your $5.00.

A Collision of Wine, Politics and Commerce—How You Can Help

AND NOW A VERY SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR, URGING WINE LOVERS WHO CARE ABOUT FAIR TRADE, THEIR RIGHTS AND THE FREE MARKET TO GET INVOLVED
-------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release: November 9, 2009

Politics, Wine and Fair Trade Collide at Online Wine Auction

Online Fundraising Auction Supports Efforts to Give Wine Merchants
Right To Ship Wine, Consumer right to buy the wines they want

(Sacramento, CALIF)—Beginning today and running through November 19th, Specialty Wine Retailers Association (SWRA) and WineCommune.com are sponsoring the "Wine Without Borders" Online Fundraising Wine Auction. The online auction of wine will raise funds to support the effort to overturn state-sponsored discrimination against  online commerce and give wine lovers real access to the wines they want, but can't find at their local wine outlets.

To view the various lots up for bid in the auction, wine lovers can go to: www.winecommune.com/help/swra.cfm. Wine lovers that support free trade in wine can quickly register, start bidding on wines and know they are helping the effort to bring down protectionist wine shipping laws.

"Between 2000 and 2008, more than $65 million was given to state political campaigns by special interests that oppose the idea of wine lovers buying wine online," said Tom Wark, Executive Director of the Specialty Wine Retailers Association. "We shouldn't be surprised then that today, in the 21st century, 36 states help these same well-healed special interests with protectionist laws that ban the shipment of wine into their states."

Among the wines on the block at the Wine Without Borders Online Fundraising Auction are: a 3 liter bottle of 2000 Chateau La Mission Haut Brion, Martinelli Jackass Vineyard Zinfandel, Bordeaux futures including cases of 2007 Chateau Petrus and Chateau Mouton Rothschild, a collection of 2004 Syrahs from across California, 1996  Veuve Cliquot La Grande Dame Champagne, a 6 liter bottle of 2006 White Cottage Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, and many more hard to find and rare wines. In all there are more than 90 lots up for bid.

Specialty Wine Retailers Association is the only national organization that is working to overturn protectionist anti-wine shipping laws, give wine merchants access to the national wine market and allowing consumers to finally gain access to the wines they want by working to change laws in various states.

The proceeds of the "Wine Without Borders" auction will go toward helping fund the SWRA efforts across the country, including lobbying and media relations efforts.

"The 'Wine Without Borders' Online Wine Auction also gives consumers the opportunity to get involved and help with this effort to open up online wine sales across the country," said Wark. "To some this cause seems trivial, but in addition to supporting corruption and blocking wine lovers from accessing the wines they want, states that ban retailer to consumer shipping are losing millions of dollars in tax revenue that could be earned by simply letting their  citizens buy wines from out of state wine retailers when they can't find them at home."

About Specialty Wine Retailers Association
Specialty Wine Retailers Association is a national organization of fine wine retailers, wine clubs, auction houses and consumers that advocate for fair and well-regulated wine shipping laws. For more information about SWRA see http://www.specialtywineretailers.org or on Facebook at the Specialty Wine Retailers Fan Page.

# # #

Contact:
Tom Wark, Specialty Wine Retailers Association

707-935-4424 • twark@specialtywineretailers.org

Media interested in interviewing Tom Wark or wine merchants involved in this effort can contact Tom Wark at the above email address and phone number. A list of Auction lots is also available by contacting Tom Wark.

--------------------------------------------

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED WINE BLOG

The Wheels Fell Off The Wagon in Saint Helena

The city of Saint Helena in the middle of Napa Valley wants to prohibit tasting rooms in its city limits from tasting and selling any wines that do not carry the "Napa Valley" appellation or a Napa Valley sub-appellation on the label.

What I can't figure out is why the Saint Helena City Council doesn't just go all the way and prohibit the sale or tasting of any wines that don't cary the "Saint Helena" sub appellation on the bottle. With the approval of this new regulation, the Saint Helena City Council seems to want to appear as parochial and silly as they possibly can. Why take half measures? Why not jump the shark completely and appear completely nuts?

And it IS nuts to prohibit the sale and tasting of non-Napa Valley wines in it's city's tasting rooms. Is there really a danger that Saint Helena-based tasting rooms will degrade the Saint Helena or Napa Valley brands if they pour tastes of the wineries' Mendocino Pinot Noirs? Maybe there is.

I'm not a free market purist. How can you be when there is so much at stake where the environment and community planning is a critical part of the quality of life of any region. But actually dictating the appellation of wines that can and cannot be poured? When this sort of thing takes up city council time hasn't the moment come when the issue of disbanding the council for lack of legitimate things to do needs to be debated? Clearly the wheels have fallen off the wagon at Saint Helena's City Hall.

Hat tip to Marcia @ Cornucopia Creations for alerting me to the story.

Men In Leotards Don't Drink Wine...They Whine.

Don't forget to take the FERMENTATION Survey
Click Here To Take a 2-minute Reader Survey
________________________________________

Doesn't THIS fall into the "Thank-You-Lord-For-Making-Me-The-Martyr" category of public relations?

Here we have a small, hardworking wine education organization, The Wine School of Philadelphia, being put upon by none other than the bulky, billion dollar World Wrestling Entertainment organization because the wine school uses the term "Smackdown" to describe an event at their school. The Men-in-Leotards insist the Philly Wine School stop using the term "Sommelier Smackdown" because it harms the WWE and their promotion of big men in leotards.

The upshot? The Wine School of Philadelphiahia has gotten tons of free media covering the issue. You just can't pay for this kind of publicity. Well, that's not true. You can, the I doubt Keith Wallace, owner of the school, could afford the millions of dollars it would take to actually buy this kind of coverage.

It makes me back to when I was working with Clos Pegase Winery in the early 1990s when the Federal  Government banned one of their art labels for being obscene. A near abstract portrait on the label happen to disclose that the portrait was of a naked man—yeah, if you tilted your head sideways and squinted you could see the penis. The declaration by the Feds was Manna from Heaven as far as publicity and visibility for the winery is concerned.

As he should, Wallace is having fun with this silly bit of lawyering on the part of the WWE's retinue of retainer lawyers:

"Why is WWE on the warpath? It is pretty silly. They claim they own the term “Smackdown”, and are demanding I stop using it.  Problem is,  to have a case, they would need to prove they have protected that term from becoming a generic term.  By my back-of-the-envelope calculation, to make that claim stick, they would have to file cease-and-desist orders against  2 million websites, one book publisher, one video distributor, two universities, and three charities.

Vince, instead of hiding behind your lawyers like a little girl, why don’t you grow some stones and challenge me face-to-face?  Better yet, how about you send your boy Chris Jerico to Philly.

Unfortunately, I won’t be available for a wrestle  match (my shoulder is gimpy from opening all those wine bottles), but Brian Freedman is happy to take my place. Be warned: He is one-hundred-and-twenty pounds of pure intellectual fury. Be afraid, Vince, be very afraid.

Of course it's not all funny. Wallace is likely to have to spend a decent amount of money and time to defend himself. At some point he'll have to decide if the cost of defending  himself is worth the outcome. If it's not, then what he should do is milk this for everything he can until it's time to call the Sommelier Smackdown something else, like "The Sommeliers In Leotards Taste Off". (And by the way, Keith, why haven't you found two sommeliers to agree to dress up in crazy, skin tight leotards who will throw chairs around the room while they pretend to taste wine and pair them with food?)

The point of course is that you need to be prepared to take advantage of all situations, even difficult ones like this. Always ask if there's a simple way to turn a problem into an advantage.

___________________________________________________________________________

DON'T FORGET TO TAKE THE FERMENTATION SURVEY.

CLICK HERE TO TAKE THE SURVEY

Finding Your Wine HappyTalk: Cruvee

Here's what I want to do for both myself and Wark Communication clients:

1. Monitor mentions and coverage on blogs

2. Monitor mentions and reviews on Cellartracker

3. Monitor mentions and comments on Twitter

4. Monitor mentions and comments on wine and hospitality social networking sites

Here's how I've been doing it: CRUVEE

There are MANY on-line media monitoring sites out there and ready for your use. But if you are in the wine industry and need to monitor wine-related on-line media, then Cruvee is built for you. Basically what you have is a single place/screen where you can monitor all mentions of any number of keywords across the types of sites mentioned above (with the exception of Facebook—which does not allow searching of this sort). The quality of Cruvee's service, the convenience factor and the ridiculously low fee of about $30 a month makes using Cruvee a no brainer for any marketing agency and for most wineries that are concerned with their exposure on the Internet.

The one thing that Cruvee does not do is monitor print and many non-wine specific websites. This means that if you need to do this, and if you are an agency you likely do, then you'll need to go elsewhere. GoogleAlerts are good and there are many other services that will do this for you. But Cruvee won't. But from an economic standpoint, you don't care: The Cruvee service is only $30 a month.

But here's something to think about. Why monitor wine-related social media and blogs anyway? What's the point? Whether you know there are folks talking about your or not, they still are talking about you and you can't stop that.

Here's why:

1. You can re-purpose the good things they say about you by linking to the happy talk using your own blog, twitter account, facebook account or in your email marketing.

2. You can gather any number of happy talk quotes and use them to remind your distributor that someone out there really does like what you are doing and they should too.

3. If the HappyTalk turns to SadTalk about your brand, you can at least try to counter it on the site or place where it ran originally. This can be tricky. But if you don't know about it, you can't get tricky.

4. Knowing what consumers are saying about you in social media is just another form of market research...and a cheap and effective form at that.

There are other good reasons to use Cruvee and other technologies to monitor what's being said about you. These are just a few. But to recap, if you do think any of the above is important, then Cruvee, in my experience, is probably the best wine-related social media monitoring service out there and it's priced to steal.

This Wine Blog is More Likely To Deceive You

“A (wine) blogger could receive (wine) merchandise from a marketer with a request to review it, but with no compensation paid other than the value of the product itself. In this situation, whether or not any positive statement the (wine) blogger posts would be deemed an “endorsement” within the meaning of the Guides would depend on, among other things, the value of that (wine) product, and on whether the (wine) blogger routinely receives such requests. If that (wine) blogger frequently receives products from (wine)manufacturers because he or she is known to have wide readership within a particular (wine drinking) demographic group that is the (wine) manufacturers’ target market, the (wine) blogger’s statements are likely to be deemed to be “endorsements,” —parenthetical statements added for emphasis.
FROM THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIONS NEW "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising"

Basically, the FTC says that under the circumstances outlined above, the blogger in question must reveal that the bottle of wine they reviewed was provided to them free—or they could face a fine of $11,000.

Now I have no problem with wine bloggers revealing that the wine or wines they reviewed came as free "press samples". Nor do I have a problem if they don't reveal it. And frankly I don't care that the FTC wants to mandate that this kind of disclosure occur when bloggers review wines.

However, here's where I start to have a real problem with the FTC's new guidelines on what kind of disclosure is required of bloggers who review products: THE FTC WILL NOT BE HOLDING "TRADITIONAL MEDIA" TO THE SAME DISCLOSURE STANDARDS!!

To wit:

"In general, under usual circumstances, the Commission does not consider reviews published in traditional media (i.e., where a newspaper, magazine, or television or radio station with independent editorial responsibility assigns an employee to review various products or services as part of his or her official duties, and then publishes those reviews) to be sponsored advertising messages. Accordingly, such reviews are not "endorsements" within the meaning of the Guides. Under these circumstances, the Commission believes, knowing whether the media entity that published the review paid for the item in question would not affect the weight consumers give to the reviewer's statements."

Let me put this in plainer words. If a publisher sends me (a wine blogger) a copy of a new book about the wines of Bolivia and I review it positively I must disclose the book was given to me or face a fine of $11,000. If a reporter at the Wine Spectator (traditional media) receives a free copy of "The Wines of Bolivia" and reviews it positively, they need not disclose they received it free from the publisher. Put another way, if Alder Yarrow or Dr. Vino respond in the affirmative to my email to them offering a bottle of press sample of Mayo Family Winery's 2006 Reserve Zinfandel with a request (though not a demand) that they review it, they must disclose they received the sample free of charge when they do review it—good or bad review. If I call Steve Heimoff of the Wine Enthusiast and make the same offer and he accepts, he (and the editors at The Wine Enthusiast) need not disclose they received the press sample free.

Why the double standard between "Bloggers" and "Traditional Media"?

Apparently the FTC believes that the acceptance of free wine or books by media that possesses an "Independent editorial responsibility" should give consumers the confidence they need to trust the resulting reviews are not bought and paid for. 

On the other hand, the FTC has determined that because bloggers have no "Independent editorial policy" or any "Official Duties" related to an editorial policy, consumers can not have the same confidence that they are not bought and paid for. Therefore, bloggers ought to be held to a different set of rules.

Essentially,  what the FTC is saying is that if your blog is not your primary source of income, if your writing on your blog is not your profession, if your livelihood does not depend on attracting readers to your blog, if an "independent editorial responsibility" does not define your moneymaking activities, then you can't be expected to have the same ethical standards as those who do possess these qualities and your readers need to be protected from your more likely ethical lapses by the requirement that you disclose all material connections between you and the products or industries you write about.

Should I be offended by the FTC's presumption that since I don't make a living off this blog I am more likely to deceive its readers by being on the take than the Wine Spectator or Wine Enthusiast or Wine & Spirits, which are moneymaking ventures?

I guess that depends on whether or not I believe that, in general, those with little or nothing to lose are more likely to engage in unethical or immoral actions and society (consumers) need to be protected from this sort of suspect class of people.

The fact is, I am offended by the assumptions built into the FTC's new guidelines on commercial endorsements. I'm offended because the FTC has chosen to codify this suspect assumption about the morals and ethics of people who write, but don't get paid to do so. It codifies an extraordinarily cynical view of human nature that is probably the exception and not the rule. And it is a codification of cynicism that at the same time slaps me and my wine blogging colleagues across the face for simply taking advantage of a new publishing medium to offer our views.

The FTC would have been on much firmer ground has they simply issued rules that provided a fine for anyone, blogger or traditional media, that takes money in exchange for a positive review of a product and does not disclose it. This kind of rule would have punished the unethical transgressor—rather than assume likelihood of transgression.

Wine PR Pros: Join and Conquer

The Academy of Wine Communications, an association of wine industry public relations professionals and marketers has launched a new website. And it's a very good website.

I've written about the re-emergence of the AWC before when the organization had a meeting to re-introduce the organization to local PR folks. I thought it a brilliant idea then and think it so still.

If you are a wine PR professional or a wine marketer who works out of an agency, as a consultant or with a winery, you should join this organization. It's that simple. Few things are as beneficial to one's career and work than an organization where you can find colleagues who understand your work, where you can obtain continuing education, where resources to help you do your job better are available and where you can find like-minded folks to bitch and moan to without having to first explain what it is you do and why you might be prone to bitching and moaning.

The new AWC website has tremendous potential. First and foremost, particularly for those companies that might be looking for PR Help, is the Wine PR Directory found on the new site. Though it is sparsely populated with firms and consultants now, I suspect that will change rather quickly as members of AWC and others provide information for it.

The job board housed on the site should also be a tremendous research for companies looking to either filled PR and marketing positions or letting the Wine PR community know they have a project out for bid.

If you work in Wine PR in any capacity, I urge you to join this organization. Annual membership dues are $100 for an individual and $500 for an organization. Those kind of dues are nothing given the opportunity the AWC should offer as it builds a head of steam and reaches its potential.

And while I'm at it, let me say something about PR Professionals. Gathering a herd of PR pros into an organization is not the equivalent of a meeting of the "Society of Bullshitters" as some might think and as mass media may want to portray. The fact is, PR pros are often the most informed and well-rounded people in any organization. They are most often required to have significant knowledge of the entire organization for which they work and have a comprehensive birdseye's view of the industry they work within. While it is our job to put the best face forward for our company and clients, we are often the first (and sometimes only) people to pipe up and say, "that spin simply won't work—it has no legs and won't fool anyone." We probably are the first to say these things because we are the ones who often have to do the saying. 

Tools of the Industry

Every now and then it's important to call a tool a tool.

Harry Schumacher, publisher of Beer Business Daily, is a tool. If you want to see what can be produced by a good tool, go here: Beer Business Daily.

Now I have no problem with someone making themselves a tool of an industry. It's a legitimate career choice, though not one I'd want for my children, for whom I would hope for a life of dignity. Still, it's a career choice.

Beer Business Daily exists to support each and every contention, lie, argument and position that beer wholesalers in the United States make or take. There is to be no evaluation or critical thinking applied to these positions of the beer wholesalers who "subscribe" to Harry's little rag. Harry's latest diatribe, one that speaks to the concerns and rights of wine drinkers across the country, isn't much different from others. However, in this case he attempts to heap disrepute on one of the people who has been instrumental in pushing back against unconstitutional and discriminatory laws that keep wine drinkers of legal age from obtaining the wines they want.

Harry Schumacher decided to take on Ken Starr.

Judge Starr is a  gentleman. A well known gentleman. He's one of the most accomplished lawyers and legal minds in America. Judge Starr has been involved in shaping the legal strategy that resulted in the groundbreaking Granholm v. Heald Supreme Court case that shoved beer wholesalers and their minion at Beer Business Daily back on their tush.

In an opinion piece published behind a subscription wall at Beer Business Daily, Schumacher discusses the 1997 approval by the National Conference of State Legislators Task force on the Wine Industry of a "Model Direct Shipping Bill". This model bill that was approved by the NCSLA Task Force has been the basis for nearly every direct shipping law ever passed in the United States. The laws based on this Model Direct Shipping Bill have allowed wine lovers from across the country to access thousands of wines they never could before and to do so without any problem of minors obtaining wine.

Schumacher's piece is really nothing more than a blob of words in support of the National Beer Wholesalers Association's bizarre contention that "Approval" really doesn't mean "approval" where the NCSLA's Wine Task force that resulted in the Model Direct Shipping Bill is concerned. The Beer Wholesaler's arguments are bizarre in the extreme. However, in supporting them, Harry says of Ken Starr:

"To make matters worse, a celebrity lawyer, which is the worst kind if you ask me, Kenneth Starr of Kirkland & Ellis, yes the same Ken Starr of Monica Lewinski fame, has been repeating what we view as the falsity that the NCSL has endorsed the model wine direct shipping bill to anybody who will listen, and yes, it has done some damage to the beer industry three-tier system as a result....Disgraced and hungry attorney Ken Starr is out there touting it as a state-approved model even when it clearly it is not an "adopted policy" of the NCSL."

"Celebrity Lawyer"? "Disgraced"? "Hungry"? Let's take a look.

-Graduate of Duke Law School
-Editor of Duke Law Review
-Clerk for Honorable David W. Dyer of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
-Clerk For U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
-Counselor to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith
-Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
-Solicitor General of the United States
-Independent Counsel on the Whitewater matter
-Dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law

Starr has argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court nearly 30 times. He was nearly appointed to the Supreme Court by George Bush One. He is the the author of nearly 50 law review articles and the author of "First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life". And this barely touches the surface of Ken Starr's influence in the American legal system and American government.

Say what you will about Ken Starr's politics. But one thing you can't say is that Ken Starr is either a "celebrity lawyer" or "disgraced." Starr remains one of the most brilliant legal minds in the United States.

More importantly for readers of this blog, Ken Starr's contribution to the renaissance of wine in American life is undisputed. His role in making wine more accessible to American consumers is critical.

So, as it turns out, while Harry Schumacher has been the tool of beer wholesalers, Mr. Starr has been working on behalf of real people. While Harry has been making the case for keeping American consumers from legally accessing the wines they want, Ken Starr has been making the case that Americans can be trusted to make their own choices about the wines they want. While Harry has been writing disingenuous, uninformed gobbledygook for a subscriber base of beer wholesalers and beer manufacturers who fear consumer power, Ken Starr has been writing briefs, papers and oral arguments that have helped expand the power of wine consumers to access the myriad of wines available in the American marketplace.

So I have to ask, who is the disgraceful one?

Attack of the Stupid Wine Legislation

Maine legislators have once again taken it upon themselves to protect their state's children from any possible exposure to alcohol. Let's hear it for them. This one is particularly absurd

A new law goes into effect on September 12 that will prohibit children from observing wine, beer or alcohol tastings. The new "Blind Wine" law was passed in response to another law that was passed which would have allowed wine, beer and spirit tastings in off premise establishments (grocery stores and wine shops, for example). The language reads: "Taste-testing activities must be conducted in a manner that precludes the possibility of observation by children."

According to Maine State Representative David Webster, "I and a number of other legislators were concerned regarding the idea that grocery stores will have families going into them to shop and seeing adults standing around drinking hard liquor."

And you know what that leads to right? Crack Cocaine use. You betcha.

The problem with Representative Webster's explanation for his ludicrous legislation is that he does not accompany it with any explanation as to why a child seeing someone sip wine or bourbon might cause so much harm to that child that their must be legal blinders placed over the children's eyes. In all fairness, that part of his explanation to the reporter in the story linked above may have been edited out. But still, I can't imagine what that explanation would be. Let's try some out and see what we get.

1. When children observe adults sipping wine, they immediately become 50% more predisposed to becoming alcoholics. NAW.

2. When children observe adults sipping wine in a grocery store, they become much more likely to take a soft drink off the shelf and begin drinking it without paying for it. NOPE

3. When Children observe adults sipping wine in a retail setting, they are likely to fall over into a catatonic state. HUH UH!

4. Maine Legislators bowed to pressure from temperance organizations who claimed any exposure to drinking was bad for children, presumably because drinking, in any form is bad, and those legislators realize no politician ever got voted out of office for supporting any law, be it dumb, stupid or unsupportable with logic, that claimed to protect children. BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER.