Three cask monte, Bordeaux 2010, Bosnia – sipped & spit
SIPPED: the zany
Hardy Wallace (above) dropped in on the en primeurs tastings and handed out his scores ranging from 101.00 to 102.36 points in .17 point increments. He gets the award for best T-shirt! [Dirty South Wine]
SIPPED: three cask monte
Jancis Robinson provides a primer in the various ways that samples at the en primeurs tastings can be manipulated to show their best.
SIPPED: discrimination
Wendell Lee, general counsel at the Wine Institute, provides a further look into insidious nature of the apparent simplicity of HR 1161, a bill that would drastically affect wine shipping by reverting to regulations that pre-date Prohibition and supersede the Commerce Clause. [ShipComliant]
SIPPED: branding
The Food Network releases their own branded wine. Only question: do you drink it with food, or with TV (if at all)? [Eater]
SIPPED: peace
Serbs and Croats beat their swords in to pruning shears at a winery project in Bosnia. “Working in a vineyard is like therapy, it helps a lot (to forget about the war).” [Reuters]
On April 13th, 2011 at 4:14 pm ,Aaron wrote:
I’m no fan of HR 1161 but I think a lot of wine bloggers and writers seem to be misinterpreting what the Commerce Clause actually says.
The Clause gives the Federal Government the power to regulate commerce among the states. If the Federal Government passes a bill, like HR 1161, that says they wish to return that regulation to the states, that does not seem to be a violation. The state’s regulation cannot supersede the Federal Government’s, but in HR 1161 the Federal Government is basically saying, “While we have the power to regulate interstate commerce, we relinquish that power in the case of alcohol to the states.”
Maybe I’m off base, but that is the way I read it. Tyler, you’re the political science PhD here, what say you?
On April 13th, 2011 at 10:11 pm ,Dr. Vino wrote:
Hi Aaron,
Did you read the post from Wendell Lee?
On April 13th, 2011 at 11:25 pm ,Aaron wrote:
Dr. V,
I did read the post. What I saw was a great argument against the passage of HR 1161, and an argument that the law is against the spirit of free interstate commerce, but nothing that suggests the law is unconstitutional or contrary to the commerce clause. Congress wants to pass a law that essentially says ‘turn off the dormant commerce clause when it comes to alcohol’. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and the power to relinquish that regulation to the states if they choose. A bad idea? Yes, if you ask me. Unconstitutional? Doesn’t seem like it, but I’m not a lawyer.
On April 14th, 2011 at 3:29 am ,Lars wrote:
Where do I buy that shirt???
On April 16th, 2011 at 9:37 am ,Wino wrote:
Wearing a t-shirt in Bordeaux? Classy. And the glasses. He looks like a clown, and that’s the worst thing to be considered by people.
On April 16th, 2011 at 8:08 pm ,Wino wrote:
The guy made some videos of his trip in Bordeaux and he is, indeed, a clown. If that’s his mission in life he seems to be accomplishing it. Congratulations, I guess.
On April 16th, 2011 at 8:38 pm ,Hardy wrote:
Wino- http://bit.ly/BLYW …
Lars- I’m printing some new ones in the next week. If you want one and are in the US- dirtysouthwine at mac com (I’ll put more info on dirtysouthwine.com when ready to ship)
On April 18th, 2011 at 8:24 am ,1WineDude wrote:
Aaron – I’m no lawyer, but if HR 1161 results in states treating inter- and intra-state commerce differently for the same product (alcohol) to the advantage of in-state, then I think it could be argued it is unconstitutional.
Wino – If you’re talking about Hardy, then you need to take a chill-pill, I think. Wine needs more people like him, not less.
On April 22nd, 2011 at 9:47 pm ,Wino wrote:
Every village needs an idiot.
On April 23rd, 2011 at 2:53 pm ,1winedude wrote:
Not sure what’s happened to the other comments I tried to publish on this post, so trying one more time…
If Hardy’s a clown, then sign me up for the big shoes & funny car, please!