Cross-posted from

What can wine tell us about the world? Plenty, it turns out.  It is one of civilization's oldest products.  At one time it was a necessity, when food was served rotten and water was where you washed and evacuated.  Now it is enjoying a resurgence.  It is an agricultural product, and a unique one.  You see, vineyards have kept records of temperature, yield, and ripeness-dates for centuries, giving us incredibly precise records that tell us reams about the global environment. It is also a luxury item, particularly at the top end.  As such, its sale and purchase can tell us volumes about the global economy.

Today we look at wine, women, and body image.

WOE IS ME!

WOE IS ME!

ABC IS MEAN!

Well, yeah.  ABC was mean to Obama.  They treated him like, dare I say it, the frontrunner.  They treated him like they are going to treat him every day from now until November.  You saw him, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, get the same sort of treatment Clinton has been getting from day one, and your feelings are hurt.  Why?  Because it's not fair?  Hell no.  Not a darned one of you cared a whit about "fair" when the shoe was on the other foot.  No.  You're offended because you thought, for what reason I can not even imagine, that the media would continue to give Obama the same ride they always give McCain.  And under it all, in the backs of your heads, you are finally acknowledging the echos of what Clinton supporters have told you all along - that the media would turn on Obama once Clinton was out of the way, and the free ride would be over.

What do I mean?  Why don't you take the jump and find out.

Cross-posted from

What can wine tell us about the world? Plenty, it turns out.  It is one of civilization's oldest products.  At one time it was a necessity, when food was served rotten and water was where you washed and evacuated.  Now it is enjoying a resurgence.  It is an agricultural product, and a unique one.  You see, vineyards have kept records of temperature, yield, and ripeness-dates for centuries, giving us incredibly precise records that tell us reams about the global environment. It is also a luxury item, particularly at the top end.  As such, its sale and purchase can tell us volumes about the global economy.

Today we look at wine, labels, and personal filters.

Cross-posted from

What can wine tell us about the world? Plenty, it turns out.  It is one of civilization's oldest products.  At one time it was a necessity, when food was served rotten and water was where you washed and evacuated.  Now it is enjoying a resurgence.  It is an agricultural product, and a unique one.  You see, vineyards have kept records of temperature, yield, and ripeness-dates for centuries, giving us incredibly precise records that tell us reams about the global environment. It is also a luxury item, particularly at the top end.  As such, its sale and purchase can tell us volumes about the global economy.

Today we look at wine, religion, and politics.

Cross-posted from

What can wine tell us about the world? Plenty, it turns out.  It is one of civilization's oldest products.  At one time it was a necessity, when food was served rotten and water was where you washed and evacuated.  Now it is enjoying a resurgence.  It is an agricultural product, and a unique one.  You see, vineyards have kept records of temperature, yield, and ripeness-dates for centuries, giving us incredibly precise records that tell us reams about the global environment. It is also a luxury item, particularly at the top end.  As such, its sale and purchase can tell us volumes about the global economy.

Today we look at wine, ethanol, and biofuels, and their effect on hunger and the economy.

Cross-posted from

What can wine tell us about the world? Plenty, it turns out.  It is one of civilization's oldest products.  At one time it was a necessity, when food was served rotten and water was where you washed and evacuated.  Now it is enjoying a resurgence.  It is an agricultural product, and a unique one.  You see, vineyards have kept records of temperature, yield, and ripeness-dates for centuries, giving us incredibly precise records that tell us reams about the global environment. It is also a luxury item, particularly at the top end.  As such, its sale and purchase can tell us volumes about the global economy.

Today we look at how modern technology is changing the way people sell, and the way people buy.

Cross-posted from

What can wine tell us about the world? Plenty, it turns out.  It is one of civilization's oldest products.  At one time it was a necessity, when food was served rotten and water was where you washed and evacuated.  Now it is enjoying a resurgence.  It is an agricultural product, and a unique one.  You see, vineyards have kept records of temperature, yield, and ripeness-dates for centuries, giving us incredibly precise records that tell us reams about the global environment. It is also a luxury item, particularly at the top end.  As such, its sale and purchase can tell us volumes about the global economy.

Today, we travel to Hong Kong for a look at the world's economy, through the bottom of a glass.

Cross-posted from Seeing the World Through the Bottom of a Wine Glass.

What happens when consumers' and producers' interest, and modern technology, conflict with an entrenched interest with lots of lobbying power?  Let's take a trip around the country and find out, shall we?  First stop, Tennessee.

Wine is both an agricultural product and a luxury product.  As an agricultural product, and a fairly delicate one at that, it is the "canary in the coal mine" for environmental concerns.  As a luxury product, it is the same sort of bird for economic concerns. So what does wine tell us about our world today.  In simple words, we're in big trouble.

from

I waited a week, for tempers to cool.  I also read and re-read Obama's speech, trying to figure out what bugged me so much.  When I first heard it,  I was completely cynical about it.  I have no doubt that comes from my point of view as a Clinton supporter.  I even started to write a diary giving it a word-by-word autopsy.  But you know what?  It was a good speech. He said wonderful things.  What I first heard as "it's really okay, because I'm mostly white" was NOT what was said.  He talked about his mother's family, not to make himself more acceptable, but to draw important comparisons.  BUT, and yes, this is a big "but," WHY did he make the speech?  And this is where he loses me.

This is a potentially big non-decision.  Today the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Middle District of Florida's decision dismissing a lawsuit against the DNC, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  The last two words are the ones that count.  "Without prejudice" means "you can file it again." But should the Plaintiff do so?

I have read people here describing Barack Obama's speech on race as "brilliant," "magnificent," and "moving."  I agree.  But I have also seen it referred to as "brave," "daring," even "heroic," and there I have to disagree.  I disagree for a simple reason.  Obama did not give the speech, as many here have posited, "when America needed to hear it."  He did not give the speech "because it was time to talk about race."  Obama gave that speech for one reason, and one reason only - to save his campaign.  The Rev. Wright videos were damaging his campaign, perhaps, if he did not stop the bleeding, to the point where superdelegates would consider him unelectable.

Heroism, quite simply, is not doing something brave to save yourself.  It is doing something brave selflessly.  Had Obama given that same speech two months ago he would have been heroic.  He would have been Martin Luther King trumpeting "I have a dream."  But he did not.  So, no matter how eloquently he spoke, he was really Richard Nixon saying "our little girl-Tricia, the 6-year old-named it Checkers.  And ... we're gonna keep it."

Obama just finished his speech.  It was a good speech. It will be interesting to see if it changes people's minds.

For those who don't know, I used to write The Daily Pulse, well, daily.  It always included "Letters Tuesday Editor," LTEs from papers around the country.  I still reanimate the concept once in a while, like right before an election, or in the midst of a big political story.  Today, I thought I would take a look at what people were writing in about the whole Obama, Ferraro, Wright flap.  It will make an interesting comparison next week, to see if the letters change as a result of the speech, and news about it in the next few days.

So, with no more ado, Letters Tuesday Editor:

Keith, first let me say, I have thought you wonderful for years.  But last night, well, I'm done with you.  Had you been honest enough to publicly endorse Obama, then at least I would respect your next words, for they would have been the lies and distortions of an advocate.  However, your failure to do so makes you even less than what you criticize, for at least Senators Clinton and Obama admit they are politicians, advocating for their own election.  You pretend to be an uninterested observer, and are therefore a hypocrite and a liar, at least by omission.

Sorry folks, but the incessant talk about "the math" is just idiocy.  Why?  Easy.  "The math" has almost nothing to do with "the will of the people."  Before I get to the thesis, let me give you the REAL math.  It is very simple:

Nomination > 2025 delegates

Convention < 2025 delegates

Great.  That's out of the way.  Now let's talk.

The thesis is simple- the Democratic nonimation process PRESUMES we select a candidate easily, and is really a party-building exercise.  It acually becomes disfunctional in the face of a closely contested primary.

The one the mighty Kos himself says "was no accident."  You know, the one where:

There was a concerted effort by Clinton's ad people to make Obama look darker, more sinister, and with a wider nose. The evidence is indisputable.

This is the ad that has people so upset:

and here is the original shot, from the MSNBC debate:

Pretty damning, don't you think?  Look at that dark skin, that wide nose, it practically screams at you, doesn't it?

First, the good news.  The diary on this subject at MyDD, the one that says Obama says neither he nor Hillary have the experience to answer the phone, is wrong.  But his answer is really not much better, and we can be guaranteed to see it played a thousand times by Republicans if he wins the nomination.

What am I talking about?  I am talking about an interview on CNN.  Actually, two interviews.  Both candidates were asked if they had the experience to "answer that White House phone call."  Obama actually said he did not, but then went on to say Hillary didn't either.  Hillary answered differently.  They are CNN videos, so I can't link them directly, but the links to find them are below, along with my own transcript.  If you find a mistake tell me and I'll fix it. I cut out the "you knows," and the "uhhs," because it makes them both look inarticulate, and neither are.

Okay folks, it is time for some serious retrospection. Last week CTV broke a story that Obama was playing both sides, telling Ohio he would renegotiate or quit NAFTA, but telling Canada "don't worry, be happy, it's just politics."  Here on Daily Kos, though, nobody could believe Obama was actually a politician, rather than a new honest perfect phenomenon.  So how did you all respond?  By attacking the messenger.  Well, folks, the messenger was right.  The AP, you see, has the Canadian Government memorandum laying out what happened.  So what happened, and what happened here?  And what does it mean?