Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
You know I love you man but: If you start the list wrong, and its very premise is wrong and flawed by reductionalist, categorical, agenda-driven thinking, do I have to keep reading? Much less respond?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Aux Armes, Citoyens!
- Thread starter MLipton
- Start date
You know I love you man but: If you start the list wrong, and its very premise is wrong and flawed by reductionalist, categorical, agenda-driven thinking, do I have to keep reading? Much less respond?
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Can we finally bring this conversation to its intended destination?
RIGHT WING
Bordeaux & Napa
High intervention
Oak
High alcohol & concentration
Expensive tastes
Point scores
Guigal
Beaucastel
LEFT WING
Loire & Sonoma
Low intervention
No oak
Low alcohol & concentration
Cheap tastes
No point scores
Chave (if you could afford it)
Rayas (if you could afford it)
Do any of you not recognize yourselves fully? Then here's your chance to get with the program.
You know I love you man but: If you start the list wrong, and its very premise is wrong and flawed by reductionalist, categorical, agenda-driven thinking, do I have to keep reading? Much less respond?
While I am too self-aware to deny the spot-on charges of reductionist, categorical and agenda-driven, I also genuinely believe, my jocose baiting aside, that the platforms are internally consistent.
At the end of the day, to simplify binarily, I adopt my platforms based on internal consistency, and then hope to like the wines that this platform puts on my table. I understand that most prefer to go the opposite way, heuristically deriving their positions (which cannot be called platforms) from the wines they happen to like, most often generating hybrid stances whose lack of internal consistency they may not, occasionally, have enough self-awareness to recognize. But they may not care about having any principle other than the Pleasure Principle, and may even experience more aggregate pleasure than I do, since I seem to keep running into v.a. It's a choice.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
There's much to criticize about the Pleasure Principle, but it's not lacking in internal consistency.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
There's much to criticize about the Pleasure Principle, but it's not lacking in internal consistency.
I don't know about you, but I've found that things in my life selected exclusively out of pleasure - e.g., food, music, literature - are all over the place stylistically, with no thread that I can detect (other than the pleasure itself), whereas those that have some platform behind them - e.g., wine, art, architecture/design - all contain family resemblances.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
Consistency of principles doesn't preclude a variety of outcomes. What's wrong with enjoying food that's all over the place stylistically? Don't you want to have both dinner and dessert?
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
The commonality of being pleased is the internal consistency. Because pleasures are opaque--there is no reason why one person things something pleasing that another person does not--it will only fit external systems by accident. On the other hand, precisely because it is opaque, its order is internal. The inconsistency you describe is all according to external criteria. I do not take this as a justification for only making judgments from pleasure (it's completely irrational with regard to truth questions--I believe in evolution or creationism because it makes me feel good--barely tenable with regard to aesthetics--I don't know what art is but I know what I like--and about all there is with regard to taste--I say it's spinach and I say to hell with it), merely an agreement with Keith (yet again!) that of all the things that might be wrong with pleasure as a criterion of judging, inconsistency is not one of them.
Ken Schramm
Ken Schramm
Where the fuck are Coad and the Joes when we need them? Goddamn it.
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
originally posted by Ken Schramm:
Where the fuck are Coad and the Joes when we need them? Goddamn it.
Laughing. Hysterically. At us, not with us.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Consistency of principles doesn't preclude a variety of outcomes. What's wrong with enjoying food that's all over the place stylistically? Don't you want to have both dinner and dessert?
I think you misread me. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, or differentiate qualitatively between the two.
Jonathan, if you think that my deriving pleasure from Rushdie and McKwen makes them internally consistent, then you have my sympathies.
Jayson, I didn't know Coad and Dressner well enough to comment, but I knew Dougherty enough to know that he wasn't as small-minded as you think.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
There is, btw, one way I can see this moving the ball forward on the interstate retail shipping issue, though not so far forward as to actually resolve it. The problem with the Granholm case is that it only goes so far as addressing discrimination against out-of-state *products*. The reason a CA winery has a constitutional right to ship its products to any state but a CA retailer doesn't isn't because one is a winery and one is a retailer, but because Granholm deemed it illegal to discriminate against California wine, not necessarily illegal to discriminate against Californians.
And we got it!
originally posted by Supreme Court of the United States:
The Association and the dissent point out that Granholm repeatedly spoke of discrimination against out-of-state products and producers, but there is an obvious explanation: The state laws at issue in Granholm discriminated against out-of-state producers. See 883 F.3d, at 621. And Granholm never said that its reading of history or its Commerce Clause analysis was limited to discrimination against products or producers. On the contrary, the Court stated that the Clause prohibits state discrimination against all “‘out-of-state economic interests,’” Granholm, 544 U.S., at 472 (emphasis added), and noted that the direct-shipment laws in question “contradict[ed]” dormant Commerce Clause principles because they “deprive[d] citizens of their right to have access to the markets of other States on equal terms.” Id., at 473 (emphasis added). Granholm also described its analysis as consistent with the rule set forth in Bacchus, Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 476 U.S. 573 (1986), and Healy that “‘[w]hen a state statute directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce, or when its effect is to favor in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests, we have generally struck down the statute without further inquiry.’” Granholm, supra, at 487 (quoting Brown-Forman, supra, at 579; emphasis added).
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
I defer to the reading of Keith and other lawyers, since I am limited to the reading of English. But, as far as I could see, while only overturning the Tennessee residency requirements (all that came under their purview in this case, after all), Alito's reasoning pretty constructed the logic by which virtually all laws against interstate shipping would be overturned. I don't know how much better you could want it.
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by mark e:
And the white is as over-oaked as the worst over-oaked California wines. It is IMO undrinkable.
Blatant Monkey bait!
Totally! I'm on record as liking a bit of wood on some dry chenin. I like the woodspice that it adds. For me, I think that white wines with sufficiently high acidity can absorb the oak just fine. I like both Burgundy and chenin with a hint of oak. I like those same wines without it, too.
I also don't find the Rougeard reds too oaky. Mark and I have pretty well established palate differences but are able to happily drink together on many (though still too few) occasions.
I've also shipped oaky chenin across state lines, though it was Antoine Foucault not Nady. As an aside, although I doubted those wines when I first tried the early efforts, I really love them now and they will be a more thna capable substitute when I can no longer get/afford Rougeard.
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by mark e:
And the white is as over-oaked as the worst over-oaked California wines. It is IMO undrinkable.
Blatant Monkey bait!
I also don't find the Rougeard reds too oaky. Mark and I have pretty well established palate differences but are able to happily drink together on many (though still too few) occasions.
The Clos, no. The other two, I do find too oaky even with age. I agree, of course, on the second point. I hope, in future, we may find some occasions to share a few wines together.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
Yeah, anyone going to court trying to overturn an interstate shipping ban is going to be very happy to be armed with this opinion. It covers more ground than it needed to to decide the case, which surprised me and bucks the general trend. But it also throws a bone to the 'one case at a time' people and there is this bit to deal with: "Because we agree with the dissent that, under §2, States 'remai[n] free to pursue' their legitimate interests in regulating the health and safety risks posed by the alcohol trade, post, at 12, each variation must be judged based on its own features." So the roadmap for the states is to show that whatever peculiar features they want to defend are justified by legitimate regulatory interests other than protectionism. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to cook up some fig leaves capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny, if they draw a sympathetic judge, but the trend lines sure aren't slanting in their favor.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I defer to the reading of Keith and other lawyers, since I am limited to the reading of English. But, as far as I could see, while only overturning the Tennessee residency requirements (all that came under their purview in this case, after all), Alito's reasoning pretty constructed the logic by which virtually all laws against interstate shipping would be overturned. I don't know how much better you could want it.
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Yeah, anyone going to court trying to overturn an interstate shipping ban is going to be very happy to be armed with this opinion. It covers more ground than it needed to to decide the case, which surprised me and bucks the general trend. But it also throws a bone to the 'one case at a time' people and there is this bit to deal with: "Because we agree with the dissent that, under §2, States 'remai[n] free to pursue' their legitimate interests in regulating the health and safety risks posed by the alcohol trade, post, at 12, each variation must be judged based on its own features." So the roadmap for the states is to show that whatever peculiar features they want to defend are justified by legitimate regulatory interests other than protectionism. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to cook up some fig leaves capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny, if they draw a sympathetic judge, but the trend lines sure aren't slanting in their favor.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I defer to the reading of Keith and other lawyers, since I am limited to the reading of English. But, as far as I could see, while only overturning the Tennessee residency requirements (all that came under their purview in this case, after all), Alito's reasoning pretty constructed the logic by which virtually all laws against interstate shipping would be overturned. I don't know how much better you could want it.
I agree with all this. As I suggested over at WB, this shifts the playing field, but I expect some creative laws or downright draconian laws that are facially neutral with respect to out-of-state economic interests and actors, which as you know can be more challenging to ding. Hopefully this will prompt a robust challenge to NY’s facially discriminatory shipping law and also have a favorable effect on all pending litigation that is more squarely consumer focused.