Vol. 2 No. 58 March 16,2007
The Bogus Economist
Drink Up
To the almost seven thousand languages spoken on earth that I do not understand, I have lately added three, the first of which is Winish. This is not to say I do not like wine, nor that I do not drink it fairly frequently. It's just that I never learned the ins and outs of comprehending things that a true wine-lover would grasp, like the significance of “a wine that emits a grassy and herbaceous nose.”
Now I have never willingly fooled around with anything that emits noses, herbaceous or not. Emitting noses sounds dangerous. Who knows, you might be walking innocently to your table when you'd run into an emitted nose and then what? How would your nearest and dearest look with an herbaceous nose? As to grassy, while I have known some elderly men who might have benefited from a light mowing of the ears, I have only met one guy whose nose hairs were long enough to braid and thus could come anywhere near being considered nasally grassy. Frankly, the image is disturbing.
The whole Winish language is disturbing. At any meeting of oenophiles, I'm as out of place as Dick Cheney in a charm school. For instance, I've heard wines referred to as “amusing. If I ever fall down from drinking wine, it will not be from laughing. Then there are qualities of wine like balance, body, bouquet (that one I know) and butter. Yes, butter. It's something people who know wine can smell and taste in white wines. I can't. No matter how hard I try, I can't even smell margarine.
As to finish, legs and chewiness, I made the mistake of asking somebody sniffing a glass what they meant. An hour later, I knew more about brix (a measure of grape solids), bottle stink (you guessed it), phylloxera (a kind of vine louse) and shoe polish (a taste or odor caused by a yeast infection – brettanomyces ) than I would ever use this side of a bottling plant. I did learn, however, to avoid wines that are too woody, vinous, stemmy, prickly, musty, harsh, green, corky or dumb. Instead, I was to look for wines that were foxy, austere, brilliant, clean, complex and robust. By this time, I was ready to throw myself into a tub of must ( a mixture of grape juice, skins, seeds and pulp).
If a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, a lot of knowledge can be incredibly boring, at least as far as wine is concerned, so I turned to another of my favorite beverages, beer. This is a beverage with which I have been acquainted since college because, unlike wine, drinking beer requires very little advanced study but a near all-consuming thirst, which is why few people have been known to chug-a-lug a pint of Merlot.
Beer, I reasoned, has got to be simpler to understand since the names of beers are usually a lot easier to get your tongue around than those of wines. Whereas a wine might spout a moniker like “2004 Macon-Milly-Lamartine,” a good beer might be called “Dead Guy,” “Brutal Bitter” or “Yellow Snow.” I recently bumped into a great ale called Arrogant Bastard. On the label, it said, “This is an aggressive beer. You probably won't like it. It is quite doubtful that you have the taste or sophistication to be able to appreciate an ale of this quality and depth.” You won't find this on a bottle of wine. They might think it, but they won't write it down.
You can imagine my shock when I read a description of a beer called Utopias, produced by the makers of Samuel Adams. Utopias has a 24% alcohol content by volume and was described as “silky, rich, creamy with slight caramel notes.” I was then treated to a discussion of bottle conditioning, brew kettles, mash tun (the first vessel used in the brewing process) and top and bottom fermenting yeast. By the time I finished, I was ready to throw myself into a vat of wort (like must, only composed of a mash of malt and often hops and sugars). I don't understand Beeric, either.
O.K, then, there's always coffee. What can be complicated about putting some grounds in a basket and running hot water over them? Plenty. Some guy I met at Starbucks gave me my first lesson in Coffian. Here I found out, for a start, that French Roast is “taken at the end of Second Crack, flavor is diminished, body is thinned and a charcoal flavor dominates.” (Industry Jargon, Arizona Coffee). So what's a crack?
Well, coffee has two of them, the first one sounding like popcorn and the second like Rice Krispies. These happen during roasting. When the roasting stops determines the character of the particular beans you're using. Waiting until the end of the second crack is too late. Clear?
So I added Coffian to the list of languages I don't speak. Nothing is simple anymore. Gone are the days when people got together to swap stories over a bottle of homemade wine or asked a bartender for “a brew.” We're in the grip of globalization, industrialization and technology. Oh, well, I guess all that's left is water......chlorine, particulates, salt, pH, ISE, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and all.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Friday, March 16, 2007
Vol. 2. No. 58 March 16, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Counting
There are only three kinds of people – those who can count and those who can't. The Bogus Economist, for instance, just can't keep track of the number of strange happenings driving the evening news of late, from Brittney Spears' novel haircut to the frantic diaper-clad cross-country drive by astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak (allegedly for purposes of kidnap) to the free-for-all as to who is the father of the late Anna Nicole Smith's baby. It's pretty confusing.
Then there was the string of disasters for the Far Right. First, guru Ann Coulter solemnly informed a gathering of conservative Republicans (to loud applause) that not only were Al Gore and John Edwards “faggots,” but that Bill Clinton was “a latent homosexual.” Later, on Fox news, (where else?) Miss Coulter claimed the whole thing was “a joke” and would not offend gay people. This turned out to be about as accurate as the latest “light at the end of the tunnel” Administration message about Iraq.
Reaction to the Coulter charge was swift in coming. One critic remarked anyone who thought Bill Clinton was ANY kind of a homosexual probably couldn't find one at a Barbra Streisand concert in San Franciso on Gay Pride night. One gay blog opined Miss Coulter wouldn't know Edwards was gay unless she tried sleeping with him, which was unlikely to happen since Edwards had better taste. Another blogger thought calling Coulter a transvestite would be a pretty good joke, too. I guess gays just don't have Miss Coulter's sense of humor.
More recently, Newt Gingrich, principal author of the Republican Revolution of the nineties, disclosed that while he was bashing Bill Clinton for fooling around with an intern, he was....fooling around with an intern. Following the stories of Rush Limbaugh's addiction to prescription drugs and Bill Bennett's addiction to gambling, it seems only fair these guys should be free to have other addictions, too.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems the louder some people preach, the more they get into hot water for doing what they're preaching against. Naturally, the more “conservative” they are, the higher the standards for ethical and moral behavior they call for. Mr. Bush, for instance, came in with a promise of the highest ethical standards. I presume this did not include the Vice-president's Chief of Staff being found guilty of perjury and obstruction, his boss and Bush political advisor Karl Rove both implicated in “outing” a CIA agent, eight U.S. Attorneys with good performance records being fired amidst charges they were busted for going after Republican bad guys and Halliburton moving its offices to Dubai from Houston in order to avoid U.S. taxes. The reaction by the public to its government is increasingly one of sticking its finger down its throat.
What's the matter with us? Whether Republican or Democrat, white or black, rich or poor, we all seem to lose our moral bearings the minute we get into positions of power. O.K., you're more likely to be there if you're rich and white than if you're poor and black, but we've seen the story of Democratic Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana and the $90,000 Federal investigators found in his freezer. Corruption seems to be less about black, white or green than about the opportunity to get away with something due to the junction of time and opportunity.
One way to deal with this is to change our criterion for elected office. Instead of asking whether a person is “conservative” or “liberal,” we might try finding out whether the person is or isn't a crook. We've already had a President who assured us he wasn't, but Mr. Nixon resigned all the same. I can't recall a President since Truman who wasn't involved in possible illegalities. Since we elected these folks, we've got to bear some responsibility. I overheard a veteran at Portland's V.A. Hospital say, “If the Good Lord meant for us to vote, He'd give us decent candidates.” So why do so many politicians give off the odor of day-old broccoli?
One answer is we're expecting our elected officials to do what we ourselves might not even dream of doing. Bear in mind most of our Representatives and almost all of our Senators are pretty well-to-do. Every time a Bill calls for higher taxes or fewer tax breaks for the rich , this is money out of their pockets. Before we ask a senator, for example, to vote against Mr. Bush's desire to make the tax cuts over the last five years permanent, we should remember most of these tax cuts were for those making over $250,000 a year. If you were one of these fortunate people, would you vote to take a few thousand dollars out of your own bank account? Would you vote for higher fuel economy standards knowing this might make your Exxon shares less valuable?
There must be a better way. If you or any of your friends can think of one, please send it on to boguseconomist@gmail.com and I'll print it. Somewhere out there, we've got to find the kind of American know-how that brings the potential of this country to focus on the common good.
It's all we can count on.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Counting
There are only three kinds of people – those who can count and those who can't. The Bogus Economist, for instance, just can't keep track of the number of strange happenings driving the evening news of late, from Brittney Spears' novel haircut to the frantic diaper-clad cross-country drive by astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak (allegedly for purposes of kidnap) to the free-for-all as to who is the father of the late Anna Nicole Smith's baby. It's pretty confusing.
Then there was the string of disasters for the Far Right. First, guru Ann Coulter solemnly informed a gathering of conservative Republicans (to loud applause) that not only were Al Gore and John Edwards “faggots,” but that Bill Clinton was “a latent homosexual.” Later, on Fox news, (where else?) Miss Coulter claimed the whole thing was “a joke” and would not offend gay people. This turned out to be about as accurate as the latest “light at the end of the tunnel” Administration message about Iraq.
Reaction to the Coulter charge was swift in coming. One critic remarked anyone who thought Bill Clinton was ANY kind of a homosexual probably couldn't find one at a Barbra Streisand concert in San Franciso on Gay Pride night. One gay blog opined Miss Coulter wouldn't know Edwards was gay unless she tried sleeping with him, which was unlikely to happen since Edwards had better taste. Another blogger thought calling Coulter a transvestite would be a pretty good joke, too. I guess gays just don't have Miss Coulter's sense of humor.
More recently, Newt Gingrich, principal author of the Republican Revolution of the nineties, disclosed that while he was bashing Bill Clinton for fooling around with an intern, he was....fooling around with an intern. Following the stories of Rush Limbaugh's addiction to prescription drugs and Bill Bennett's addiction to gambling, it seems only fair these guys should be free to have other addictions, too.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems the louder some people preach, the more they get into hot water for doing what they're preaching against. Naturally, the more “conservative” they are, the higher the standards for ethical and moral behavior they call for. Mr. Bush, for instance, came in with a promise of the highest ethical standards. I presume this did not include the Vice-president's Chief of Staff being found guilty of perjury and obstruction, his boss and Bush political advisor Karl Rove both implicated in “outing” a CIA agent, eight U.S. Attorneys with good performance records being fired amidst charges they were busted for going after Republican bad guys and Halliburton moving its offices to Dubai from Houston in order to avoid U.S. taxes. The reaction by the public to its government is increasingly one of sticking its finger down its throat.
What's the matter with us? Whether Republican or Democrat, white or black, rich or poor, we all seem to lose our moral bearings the minute we get into positions of power. O.K., you're more likely to be there if you're rich and white than if you're poor and black, but we've seen the story of Democratic Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana and the $90,000 Federal investigators found in his freezer. Corruption seems to be less about black, white or green than about the opportunity to get away with something due to the junction of time and opportunity.
One way to deal with this is to change our criterion for elected office. Instead of asking whether a person is “conservative” or “liberal,” we might try finding out whether the person is or isn't a crook. We've already had a President who assured us he wasn't, but Mr. Nixon resigned all the same. I can't recall a President since Truman who wasn't involved in possible illegalities. Since we elected these folks, we've got to bear some responsibility. I overheard a veteran at Portland's V.A. Hospital say, “If the Good Lord meant for us to vote, He'd give us decent candidates.” So why do so many politicians give off the odor of day-old broccoli?
One answer is we're expecting our elected officials to do what we ourselves might not even dream of doing. Bear in mind most of our Representatives and almost all of our Senators are pretty well-to-do. Every time a Bill calls for higher taxes or fewer tax breaks for the rich , this is money out of their pockets. Before we ask a senator, for example, to vote against Mr. Bush's desire to make the tax cuts over the last five years permanent, we should remember most of these tax cuts were for those making over $250,000 a year. If you were one of these fortunate people, would you vote to take a few thousand dollars out of your own bank account? Would you vote for higher fuel economy standards knowing this might make your Exxon shares less valuable?
There must be a better way. If you or any of your friends can think of one, please send it on to boguseconomist@gmail.com and I'll print it. Somewhere out there, we've got to find the kind of American know-how that brings the potential of this country to focus on the common good.
It's all we can count on.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
