A Little Bit of Politics: No on 9

I try really hard to keep my personal politics out of this blog. You all don’t care (I hope) whether I’m Democratic or Republican or for whom I voted. But Issue 9 has a ripple effect across our city and our region, with consequences pretty far into the future.

Kevin and I live in Northern Ky, and we’re pretty lucky in that the bus swings right by the house and drops off Kevin pretty close to his office downtown.  I contemplated a job in Mason for while, but the drive turned me off. I certainly can’t take a bus from Northern Kentucky to Mason without a whole lot of hassle, and having lived in the DC area, I no longer have the patience for traffic.

When I lived near DC, I often worked projects in Princeton, NJ, and Philadelphia. To get there, I took a train (or multiple trains in some cases). Everything worked so well together: Amtrak, the New Jersey Transit, the DC Metro, and the Baltimore Light Rail. I could easily and comfortably get anywhere I needed to go, without worrying about weather or traffic. Everything connected. It was particularly wonderful when I wanted to go to New York City for an evening from Princeton or to the airport. One time I even took a train from upstate New York back to Baltimore. It’s so relaxing …

The passenger rail in Alaska takes you across the state. We just went halfway.

In Chicago, I usually take the Blue Line from the airport to Downtown. It’s so easy, and whereas a cab runs around $30 or a car includes renting + upwards of $25/day for parking, CTA costs me $3. The Blue Line also runs from downtown to a neighborhood I love with a great shoe store. And that’s just the Blue Line. Chicago’s public transportation is fantastic, running above, below, and around the city – making it a vibrant city, full of people from the surrounding suburbs who can easily get downtown to museums and shopping and work.

Imagine how great it would be to take a train/light rail to the airport, or to the outer suburbs, or downtown without having to deal with parking?

Those for Issue 9 play up the Streetcar, but that’s not the only thing Issue 9 covers. Basically, if you vote yes for 9, you’re saying you don’t ever want passenger rail connecting our fair city to Columbus and Cleveland. The 3C line would be dead to us. Heck, the fun train at the Zoo (within Hamilton County limits) would even be a problem. Yep, this measure affects the Zoo train too.

I can’t vote on this. I really wish I could. And in the interest of keeping this brief, I’ll direct you to Wine Me, Dine Me and the Hoperatives. Both of those blogs have written wonderfully informed posts about how voting yes for 9 will slow down development in Cincinnati. I’m just telling you how much I love trains. Vote No on 9.

Update: I recommend everyone read CityKin’s great mythbusting post on Issue 9.

Ethics and Integrity

This isn't a wine post. It's an ethics post.

You see, I just got back from BlogHer, where I was disappointed in a lot of things. In particular, I was a bit floored to find all these women wanting to have sponsored posts. Now, in all fairness, it wasn't everybody, but it was enough to turn me off. In session after session, this topic came up and well, I just don't understand it.

You see, pay for post or sponsored posts mean that someone is being paid (in either product or money or both) to write a positive review post about the product. In my mind, this compromises credibility.  I simply cannot comprehend why anyone would want to do that. With that in mind, I've signed the Blog with Integrity pledge, just to reinforce the Disclaimer & Sample Policy I already have for this blog.

And just so you all know exactly where I'm coming from, here are the key points of my review policy:

I'm also a pretty big supporter of Creative Commons. That means that my blog is licensed under Creative Commons – Non Commercial. Aside from the Enquirer, to which I've granted special permission, you can use my content but you cannot edit it and you must credit me with the creation.

I use Creative Commons photos all the time. Previously I used any and all images licensed under CC, but since the Enquirer deal, I'll only use photos licensed for Commercial use. I will always provide attribution to the photographer as required under the license.

This all boils down to Don't Steal and Give Credit where Credit is Due.

Finally, you all are pretty timid in the comments, often preferring to email me. I've never really had any trouble. "Gentle readers" is a phrase that truly applies to you, and I appreciate that. But just in case, a quick reminder that we live by the Bill & Ted Rule here: Be Excellent to Each Other.

“Green Wines” for Earth Week: Alternative Packaging

For Earth week, Kevin and I decided to try two different wines in alternative packaging. One of these wines you'll appreciate, the other – not so much.

We started with the Bouchard Beaujolais Nouveau 2008 from Boisset. We picked this up because it's in a special PET plastic bottle. Why is this important? Because every year, tons of wine is shipped over from France in a hurry, and the weight of all those bottles is a drag on jet fuel. Beaujolais Nouveau takes a lot of heat for this, so this year, the producers went a little green. In fact, Boisset is a leader in the field of green packaging, having released a California wine in a PET bottle and they pioneered the French Rabbit tetrapak. According to the press release for this particular bottle,

"Were all of this year’s Beaujolais Nouveau imported to North America
similarly packaged in PET or other alternative packages, we estimate
saving literally millions of pounds of greenhouse gas emissions from
entering our atmosphere," notes Boisset. Life-cycle analyses conducted
by third-parties have suggested that PET bottles produce 40% fewer
greenhouse gas emissions than a traditional bottle. For all the
Beaujolais Nouveau imported to the US and Canada, this translates into
an estimated reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of more than
2,000,000 lbs2. For the world’s total Beaujolais Nouveau production of
5 million cases, Boisset estimates savings of more than 37,000,000 lbs of CO2.

Not a bad wine for earth week, right? Well, not really. It's a bad wine. Happily, I think it's just the wine that's bad and it doesn't have anything to do with the packaging. We both found it to be a little fuzzy and having no finish. I also thought it was a little sour. We served it chilled, as directed, but I think I'd rather use this wine for Sangria than drink it on its own.
Our review:

Next we tried the Bota Box Old Vine Zinfandel. Yes folks, a wine in a box. Don't judge it – Franzia is no longer the norm. Off the top of my head, I'd recommend the Black Box Paso Robles Cabernet Sauvignon, the Rain Dance Shiraz from South Africa, or this Bota Box Old Vine Zin.

Are these knock-your-socks off wines? No, but they have a lot going for them. If you like an everyday table wine, but can't finish a bottle on your own, a box is perfect. It's the equivalent of about 4 bottles (3 litres) but you can take a month – sometimes two months – to work your way through the box. The wine stays fairly "fresh" the whole time. I have a couple of girlfriends who would benefit from having a box wine sitting around.

Our friend Mike, from The Naked Vine, recommended this particular box to us. He took it with him on a cruise (1 container of wine per cabin, you see). Since we're headed on our own cruise this summer, we thought we'd try it. Our verdict is that its not bad at all. It's got a lot of big fruit up front, very punchy and full of various dark berries. It has a full feel in your mouth, although it does have a fairly short finish. It's pleasant.

Our review:
Now, Kevin and I have a disagreement on this one. He gives it extra points just for being in a box, with his final assessment being a .
Alternatively, I look at it as I would any glass of wine. If I hadn't known it came from a box, I would have scored it a , so I'll stick to that regardless of from whence it came.

Happy Earth Week!  Go a little green, if you can!

Local News: Discounts, Tastings, and Paella

• 10% discount on solid cases of wine (previously 5%)
• 5% discount on mixed cases of wine (new)
• 10% discount on solid cases of spirits (previously 5%)
• 5% discount on mixed cases of spirits (new)
• 5% discount on mixed cases including both wine and spirits (new)

It starts to get a little more complicated when you start adding in sizes. For instance, a 3-5L bottle or a box counts as 3 bottles towards your case.  But if you hate math (like me), don't worry. The Party Source has provided a cheat sheet you can download
that details the whole program. One last fun item on this – any wine or beer spirits orphans in your cart, outside of the case, gets a 5% discount.

Next, our friend Hector Esteve of Paella at Your Place
will be at Chateau Pomije in O'Bryonville this Friday, April 3, for
Casual Friday. The accompanying wine tasting will showcase the medal
winners from the recent Cincinnati International Wine Festival. The
tasting runs 5:30-8:30 pm and costs $15 per person.

Finally, Liquor Direct
is having a nifty event on April 7 (next Tuesday). From 5:30 – 8 pm at
the Fort Thomas location, you can enjoy a special event led by Bruce
Neyers, owner of Neyers Vineyards
near Rutherford (Napa). Bruce is also the National Sales manager for
the excellent Kermit Lynch Wine Selections.  Bruce will lead the
tasting and discussion centering around some of his own wines as well
as some selections from the Kermit Lynch French portfolio. You can show
up early for appetizers and a meet and greet. Spaces are filling up
fast, so call 859.291.2550 or email Kevin to make your reservation. Oh, and like so many events at Liquor Direct, this event is free.

Taxing the Sinners: HB 166

I try to keep most politics out of the blog, but occasionally there are things that directly affect not just our friends in the wine industry, but those of us buying the wine.

We all enjoy buying wine in Kentucky, as the prices certainly can't be beat. Well, HB 166 proposes raising the liquor tax by 6%, to an overall total of 17%.  A distributor told me today that right now, before this tax increase, we are already paying 53% in taxes – whether on a bottle of wine or a bottle of beer. 53% !  That's crazy!  In fact, it's one of the highest in the nation. So imagine adding another 6% on to that. In order to make money, our favorite retailers are going to have to raise prices.

Take that one step further – a tax increase like this is going to greatly hurt all of our favorite retailers here in Northern Kentucky. Border stores, like those here and in Louisville, will feel the pain of having to raise prices. It's bad enough that everyone is being forced to raise prices here and there because the dollar is bad and imports are now more expensive. Now we're going force them to raise prices from within the state?

I've long known Kentucky's wine and liquor laws were a bit backwards and, in many cases, appear to be left over from Prohibition. Heaven knows, it's next to impossible to ship anything in or out of this state. This is just one more example of hurting ourselves and employing the 1930s-era mentality of taxing the sinners.

(Image Credit)

Let's look at coal for a minute. We don't mine coal here in Northern Ky, but we don't see the money from the coal taxes either. About half of the money from coal taxes stay in the counties that mine the coal. Do the work, reap the benefits. Representative Steve Riggs believes it should work this way with alcohol taxes as well. Last year, alcohol taxes provided $115 million in state revenue. Riggs has proposed an amendment to HB 166 that keeps the money from the tax increase in the wet counties. After all, if HB 166 passes – without the amendment – then those dry counties reap the benefits from the money we're all spending.

Of course, ideally, the bill won't pass at all. Maybe the dry counties will be so upset by the amendment that they'll vote against the bill. My fear is that they'll get rid of the amendment, pass the bill, and the dry counties will reap the benefits of my – and your – dollars. We don't want the bill to pass in any form.

There are so many other ways to raise money other than taxing something that is a) already overtaxed,  b) brings in business from neighboring states, and c) singles out certain people within the state.

Hey, I know! Why don't we build a casino in one of the buildings Columbia Sussex has bought, waiting for a casino. We're constantly losing that money to Indiana. Instead of continuing to tax the rest of us, how about finally passing a casino bill and making money that way.

I'm not really cheering on 59% in taxes on a bottle of $14 wine.

Feel free to write our local congressmen. Happily you can just send them an email – I did. You can also view the letter from Liquor Direct's Kevin Keith. Finally, you can just call our legislature at 1-800-372-7181. My own letter is after the jump.

Sal.Santoro@lrc.ky.gov

Thomas.Kerr@lrc.ky.gov

Arnold.Simpson@lrc.ky.gov

Joe.Fischer@lrc.ky.gov

alecia.webb-edgington@lrc.ky.gov

Adam.Koenig@lrc.ky.gov

Jack.Westwood@lrc.ky.gov

Read the rest of this entry »