Quotulatiousness

October 29, 2010

Why some vintage dates matter more than others

Filed under: Australia, Cancon, Environment, France, Randomness, Wine — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:36

If you’re not a wine fan, you may wonder why wine snobs pay so much attention to vintage dates. If you drink the occasional bottle of “Raunchy ‘Roo Red” or “Zesty Zebra Shiraz”, the vintage dates matter very little: by the name, you’d guess they’d be from Australia or South Africa, both hot climate wine countries. Vintage dates are much less important for hot climate wines: the variation from year to year is relatively small. As Michael Pinkus points out, however, it matters a great deal for cool climate wine countries:

Many wine drinkers never notice the vintage date on the wine they are drinking — they just blindly go off buying wine. I talk to many people and very few know what year they’re drinking, just the producer. In a wine region like Ontario that’s a odd way to be drinking your wine. We’re a cool climate region after all and if you don’t understand the difference between a good vintage wine a mediocre vintage wine you could be stuck with a lot of 2003s in your cellar for 10 years or more. The key is to know their drink-ability (2003) or conversely, know how long you should be holding onto wines like [these], a few extra years of aging will give these wines time to mature and integrate, drink them too early and you’ll miss out on all the fun.

In a cool climate region (Ontario, Bordeaux, New Zealand) Vintage date means more than in a hot climate region (Australia, Argentina, Chile) — there temps are always beautiful (read: warm and sunny) and vintage variation plays little part in the finished wine; while in a cool climate region harvest is a waiting game and in many years prayer is a grape farmers best friend.

Take 2010 for instance, this year has the likelihood and pedigree to be even better than the much lauded 2007. What makes 2010 better? Glad you asked. While 2007 had lots of heat and little rain (which grapes love), 2010 has been a longer growing season, with lots of heat and rain has come at the “appropriate” times. If you’ll recall our winter was very mild and bud break occured in April, at that time the prayer for farmers was the ‘Psalm of No Frost’. A longer growing season with lots of heat means good grapes — but that does not always apply to all grapes, but that’s really a discussion for another time.

Most determine a good season by how well the red grapes are going to be — in a cool region white grapes grow well year-after-year — but many of the Bordeaux red grapes struggle (Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet Franc). 2007 was a great year for the usual Bordeaux varietals as well as others reds that don’t often ripen fully under the Ontario skies.

Would KFC’s Double Down have been a hit without the Food Police panic?

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Food, Health, Liberty — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:13

Lorne Gunter salutes KFC and their surprise hit menu item:

Way to go KFC! Your Double Down sandwich has the health police in a tizzy. Those preachy, prancing, eat-your-peas pokenoses can’t decide whether to tax you, shield their children’s eyes from you or send you to re-education camp — or perhaps all three at once.

I’m am happy to hear your new bun-less concoction is your most successful new-product launch in company history. May the marketing mastermind who came up with the Double-D get an unhealthy bonus.

To be honest, I can’t even imagine trying one — two deep-fried chicken breasts wrapped around two strips of bacon, two slices of processed cheese and some sauce doesn’t appeal to me — except maybe as a dare; a Double Down Dare. Still, I am genuinely pleased that you have had the chicken balls to come out with an item that thumbs its nose so completely at conventional public-health wisdom.

I’ll never eat one myself, but I cheer on the spirit of those who tell the Nanny State’s food police where to go.

The Two Scotts disagree over Vikings-Patriots

Filed under: Football — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:47

Scott Feschuk and Scott Reid each pick the other team in their weekly football column:

Feschuk: Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of the Minnesota Vikings. Welcome to the NFL’s hottest soap opera, where tensions are running so high between Brett Favre and Brad Childress that it’s only a matter of time until they get in a fistfight or start making out. Favre has described his injury as a “broke foot” because he’s from Mississippi and words like “fractured” and “ankle” done got too many dem fancy “syllbulls” in ’em. Will Favre’s ankle be healthy enough for him to play but painful enough that he can limp around engendering our collective sympathy? We sure hope and also know so. Meanwhile, Childress keeps taking shots at his own players — most recently by saying he hopes he that “one of these days” he gets to coach a team as mentally tough as the Patriots. If the Vikings somehow turn this around, Childress may be the first NFL coach to be doused with Gatorade, then sealed inside the empty jug and rolled down a hill onto the interstate. Pick: Minnesota.

Reid: According to some reports, Brett Favre admits to sending suggestive texts to Jenn Sterger but denies he forwarded photographs of his wang chung. This is the beginning of the tried and true male tradition of the ‘half-lie.’ Confess to some sins (it’s generally smart to pick the lesser crimes that will prove to be eventually undeniable anyhow) in an effort to bolster your credibility as you reject the remaining — and usually more damaging — allegations. “Alright honey, I’ll admit: I gave that girl a ride in the car. Frankly, she looked a bit cold and I was already planning on driving by that spot under the bridge so it wasn’t even out of my way. But God as my witness, I did not let her touch me with her feet. She just made that part up to make me look bad in the eyes of my family, friends and law enforcement.” Of course, there are two vital steps to successfully pulling off the half-lie. First, you must volunteer the confession part early in order to pre-empt and create doubt about the really bad stuff. Second, yo, Kim Philby — have you ever heard of hotmail? Pick: New England.

An alarming argument against DNA testing

Filed under: Health, Law, Science — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:31

The actual article is behind a paywall (“Who’s the Daddy?” by Melanie McDonagh), so I haven’t read all of it. Andrew Stuttaford quotes a most disturbing paragraph, however:

DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves . . . Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them. The point is that paternity was ambiguous and it was effectively up to the mother to name her child’s father, or not . . . Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter . . . in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice.

So, she’s against DNA testing to determine paternity because it reveals the truth? I’ve always discounted stories about women deliberately choosing to lie about who the father of a child is, but if this opinion is common, I’ve been mighty naive.

“When I was taking dope, I was fully convinced that my body is my temple”

Filed under: Health, Liberty, Media — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:28

The longevity of Keith Richards is a point of bafflement for drug warriors and rock groupies alike:

The Rolling Stone’s autobiography reveals a lifetime of substance abuse. Why on earth hasn’t it killed him?

His name is synonymous with rock ‘n’ roll excess, his memoirs detail a lifetime spent ingesting a Herculean quantity of illegal drugs and he only gave up cocaine, aged 62, after he split his head open falling from a tree while foraging for coconuts.

At 66, Keith Richards’ continued survival is a source of widespread bafflement.

According to addiction expert Dr Robert Lefever, director of the Promis recovery centre in Richards’ native Kent, there is only one possible explanation for his longevity: “He must have the constitution of an ox.”

Powered by WordPress