WINE PAIRINGS: OLD RULES - NEW RULES

Let me be clear from the beginning, I am not a connoisseur. Of anything. I have opinions. I provide them to you for free. You'll have to decide their worth.

We live in the south of France, once Languedoc-Roussillon, now Occitanie. A friend calls our region the largest vineyard in the world. It is precisely that, the largest single wine-producing region in the known universe.  Seven times Napa Valley. Three times Bordeaux. More wine produced than in the entire USofA. So even if you are a friend of Bill, it's hard not to absorb a modicum of knowledge concerning the ancient art of vinification, if only through osmosis.

(For those not familiar with the term, being a friend of Bill means that you have forsworn alcoholic beverage in the manner of Bill W., a founder of Alcoholics Anonymous.)

Anyone can drink wine, of course. The trick would seem to be to pair wine appropriately with the food being served. Articles and websites and books that discuss the rules for pairing wine with food abound. In the end, I have discovered that there are really only two overarching rules.

RULE #1 Conventional Wisdom. Proper pairings have been determined by general consensus over many years. Check out the chart below courtesy of Food & Wine through Wine Folly.

And you thought that the rule was simply Red = Meat, White = Fish. No, my friend. Life is too short and the wine trade is too lucrative. There are rules. You must follow the rules.

RULE #2 There Are No Rules. What sharp eyes you have. Yes, Rule #2 directly contradicts Rule #1. If a vintner can age rosé in oak to give it the kick of a light red, rules no longer apply. Drink what you like with foods that you like. Wear stripes with plaid. It's a new world.

Speaking of New Worlds, have you been to California recently? If you like charts like the one above, check out this one compliments of Leafly:

OK. Pick your jaw up off the floor. Yes, recreational marijuana is now legal in California. In a state known for both its wine and its pot (even before legalization), should we be surprised that Wine/Weed tastings are now a thing in the Golden State? How about starting the day at a pot dispensary stocking up on smoke (at your own expense), then taking a bus to two different wineries to try out wine/weed combinations, then finishing up back at the dispensary just in case you didn't choose wisely the first time? All for under $200...plus the pot.

I am old. Acapulco Gold is not on the pairings list. Too retro even for California.

Should this be archived on my FOOD AND RESTAURANT REVIEW PAGE or my FRANCE PAGE? I'll decide later.

IRA'S STUPID STUFF & A JT/CAROLE KING DUET - 21/10/2016

1. A man buried 2,500 years ago in northern China had 13 marijuana plants covering his torso like a shroud. Not the first burial in the region showing signs that the Chinese were stoners. A grave close by contained two pounds of seeds and powdered leaves. Seeds and shake in a grave? Saving the buds for the living, maybe?

2. Conservative pundit Matt Drudge said that he didn't believe that Hurricane Matthew had the potential to be as bad as was forecast. The National Weather Service lied to hype climate change, said Drudge. We are in a post-truth world. Drudge makes a claim. News agencies report the claim. The claim becomes a concern. The concern requires a Congressional investigation. And suddenly the National Weather Service has to defend its science because Drudge was having a brain fart. Bull cookies! (And of course, the flooding in the Carolinas was massive...)

3. Hillary said, "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders..." and the Right and the Left go nuts. Open borders and open markets. Like a nerdy Star Trek future. Hillary also said that it's not for governments to do. Specifically not for governments, she said. Spin, spin, spin...

4. The American Presidential election. That's all. Just that.

5. Brexit, Hard or Soft? The Europeans are saying that as long as the Brits choose to leave, it's Hard. Period. As if that wasn't obvious from the start...

My kind of singer/songwriters...

IRA'S STUPID STUFF AND A SONG - LATE AUGUST, 2016

 1. Hostess tries something new...Deep Fried Twinkies. Just what we needed...a Twinkie that is actually more unhealthy than the original. Who thinks this stuff up? Where do you apply for the job? How much do you get paid?

I've got loads of ideas. Bacon Wrapped Twinkies. Chocolate Chip Twinkies. Egg Cream Twinkies (NYC only). Grape Nehi Twinkies.

Or maybe we could go the other way. Organic Twinkies. Gluten Free Twinkies. Free Range Twinkies. Pescatarian Twinkies. The possibilities are endless.

2. The right-wing, anti-immigration Alternative for Germany political party has called for a loosening of Germany's very restrictive gun laws in light of a series of attacks by terrorists and the mentally ill. Because in the US, with about 300,000,000 guns in private hands, nobody ever gets shot by the mentally ill or terrorists...

3. The Connecticut Supreme Court says that you shouldn't be fired for smoking dope at work. Well, not exactly. Here's the deal. A maintenance worker at a Connecticut university was caught smoking dope on his break. Connecticut is not a state that has made marijuana legal. So he was fired. His union took the case to arbitration. The arbitrator said that the penalty was too harsh, that he should have been suspended without pay and, when he returned to work, subjected to random drug testing. The university appealed to the Connecticut District Court. The District Court overruled the arbitrator and OKed the firing. The union took that ruling to the state Supreme Court, which said that the arbitrator's ruling should have been final. So it's back to work for the stoned janitor.

I'm conflicted. It's clear that soon it will be legal to smoke dope in a majority of states. So what's the big deal? On the other hand, using illegal drugs on the job IS a big deal. If it had been me, I would have expected to be fired. I'm conflicted.

4. North Carolina takes its case for restrictive voter ID laws to Supreme Court. Says that it's to prevent fraud. No proof of fraud in the past is offered. Their new law is patterned after a North Carolina law passed in 1876 restricting voting by giraffes. Success. Not a single vote by a giraffe has been recorded since.

But seriously, an op-ed in Newsweek Europe quotes two Pennsylvania lawmakers as saying that fraud is rampant. They offer no proof except their opinion. The authors of the op-ed, who also offer no proof that widespread voter fraud exists, concede that voter IDs won't stop absentee ballot fraud, won't stop machines from being hacked, won't prevent hanging chads. So what the hell are we talking about?

Giraffes?

AMERICAN ELECTION BONUS: Roger Ailes joins Trump's campaign. Because Trump is already doing so well with women...

As Paul and Ringo continue to prove, The Beatles were one of the great live bands. Even at a time when they really didn't like each other very much, their vocals were tight, their playing was spot on, and they were generous enough to feature the Fifth Beatle. My heroes...

RANDOM THOUGHTS #6 - MARIJUANA/FREE SPEECH/ABORTION, MURDER

MARIJUANA/FREE SPEECH/ABORTION
The Senate Appropriations Committee has passed the Veterans Equal Access Amendment allowing VA doctors to recommend medical marijuana to veterans suffering from PTSD, chronic pain, and other conditions for which the substance may be prescribed. This would have been an encouraging development if only co-sponsor Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) had just kept his mouth shut.

Instead of simply saying that giving veterans all of the tools that we are able to give them to afford them the best possible chance to recover from the consequences of their service is the right thing to do, Daines couldn't help being a Republican. "It's a free speech issue," he declared. This from a guy who has a 100% Right To Life approval rating and 0% from folks promoting reproductive choice. I admit that I'm lazy. I haven't looked to see if Daines has been confronted, either in the House or the Senate, with a vote concerning what doctors can say, cannot say, or are required to say to patients in regard to abortion under various circumstances. But my guess is that the First Amendment wouldn't carry nearly the same weight in such circumstances.

Blatant hypocrisy. Prove me wrong.

MURDER
I'm not going to comment on any specific case. I don't know any of the details. I wasn't present when this cop shot an unarmed suspect or that homeowner stood his ground. What I do know, though, is that judges and juries seem to be content to declare open season on unarmed folks in several recent incidents that have made it to the national media.

I've ridden the subway in New York City late at night. I've hitchhiked thousands of miles and I've picked up dozens of hitchhikers. I've walked through some of Paris' sleazier neighborhoods. There are times that I've been confronted with situations that came close to triggering fight-or-flight. But it's never come to that. And as a result, I've never felt the need either to modify my behavior or to carry a gun.

To be fair, not all prosecutions have ended with acquittals. And not all stand-your-ground shootings are unjustified. But the taking of a human life should be a serious business. The tide is turning against capital punishment because states are beginning to realize that even given the best of intentions and what had been thought to be rigorous legal requirements in order to invoke the death penalty, too many mistakes have been made. Judges and juries get it wrong in spite of careful deliberation.

Apparently, though, we're OK with individuals invoking the death penalty on the spur of the moment, without consequences, when the gun that they feared didn't exist or was a flashlight or a toy. Sorry, but I just don't get it.