Why does size matter?

Regardless of your view of the current versions of the House and Senate health care reform bills, I want to discuss one of the most common criticisms I've heard. Each bill is just over 2,000 pages, and if heated rhetoric of opponents is to be believed, this fact alone warrants purging this great country of the overstuffed turkeys the bills have become.

That criticism relies on an unspoken assumption that there is a correct page length for this legislation (and presumably any other legislation). Further, I must assume that those who mock the bill's size know the number of pages the legislation should require, but withhold the information to maintain an edge in the debate. I love the similarity to one of my favorite scenes in one of my favorite movies - Amadeus. Mozart had just finished performing an early opera for a packed house, including Emperor Joseph II. Afterwards, upon their meeting, the Emperor feels pressed to comment. As levying praise on this young, unorthodox composer might seem unstately, the Emperor instead says that there were "too many notes...just cut a few and it will be perfect." A disgruntled Mozart snidely asks, "Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?"

While I say that half-tongue-in-cheek, I do detest naysayers who will do no more for the debate than proffer an idea that requires no significant thought, but that makes for a convincing-sounding soundbite and has the ability to rally the masses who similarly have no interest in critical thinking. Let me be clear, I understand the motive, and I appreciate the intelligence of the tactic. One thing I really enjoy about politics is that I love to hate so many aspects of it.

But come on, man! For the most part, the people who dream up those tactics actually understand the nuances in the bill. I just wish the average American who serves as prey for the opinion-shapers would reject criticism that lacks substance and demand insightful analysis. And if that analysis is not offered by your opinion show of choice, then go straight for the facts by reading the bill itself or by reading the many crosscuts of analysis available on the Congressional Budget Office's website (www.cbo.gov).

When I used to teach the Rules of Golf, I heard people say over and over that reading the Rules is like reading the tax code - overly complex and difficult to understand. I always relied on the simple truth that I first read by Rules sage Richard Tufts: "Golf is a complex game and we must expect the Rules to reflect that fact."

A lot of legislation is very complex, and we should expect the length of bills to reflect that fact. A long bill is not, by definition, weak. So let's move past such trite observations and delve into the issues. That's where real education can begin and where real debate can take place.

Wine: Keeping the right temp

I realize I am approaching the realm of false advertising, as the name of this blog has become somewhat of a misnomer. So let's talk today about something I consider to be widely misunderstood in the world of wine: storing and drinking temperatures.

Let's start with enjoying a typical red wine - say, a California Cabernet Sauvignon. Many of you might have heard that for centuries, European homes were generally cooler than today's climate-controlled homes. Thus the notion of serving wine at room temperature (i.e., straight from the rack in the home or from the cellar) has become a little convoluted today. That Cab you have stored in your home is not meant to be chilled before serving, but it is also not meant to be stored at 75 degrees (or warmer, as often occurs in homes where wines get stored in the kitchen).

Now let's consider a typical white, such as a California Chardonnay. Raise your hand if you are storing your Chardonnay in your refrigerator. Now put your hand down and go remove it, unless you are planning to drink it tonight. There is nothing wrong with keeping a bottle in the refrigerator for a limited duration so it's ready to go when company arrives, but in terms of storage, most wines (red and white) rest well at the same temperature - somewhere between 50 and 60 degrees. The key is to avoid serving that Chardonnay straight from the refrigerator. Why is that? I recommend you perform a test, which will include drinking wine - so you should enjoy this.

Place your favorite Chardonnay in the refrigerator and get it nice and cold - probably 36 or 37 degrees by the time it reaches the ambient temp. Now pull it out, open, and pour a couple of ounces into a glass. After a swirl and sniff, take a sip and note the flavors as the wine rolls around in your mouth. Swallow the wine and follow the aftertaste. How do the acids mix with the flavors?

You should have enough wine left in the glass for another healthy taste. Now, cup the glass in your hands to warm it up. You can swirl the wine as you do this, which will continue releasing aromas and open up the wine. With only an ounce or two in the glass, it should not take more than a few minutes to get the wine warmed to around 45 or 50 degrees. Once you have done this, take another sniff and a sip. Note the differences from your first taste. It will likely taste like you opened a different bottle of wine. The flavors should be more striking. If you enjoy Chardonnay that never sees oak, the tart apples should be readily apparent; if you like your Chardonnay to spend a little time in oak, you should be able to easily identify the creamy butter among the fruit and mineral accents.

The lesson is that when served at the right temperature, you will have the opportunity to enjoy your wine as the winemaker intended. I once performed a variation of the experiment above with a 37 degree California sparkling wine and a 37 degree can of Coke. At that temperature, the differences in taste were almost imperceptible. So with your whites, store them with all of your other wine, just bring the temperature down to around 45 or so before serving (by placing in the refrigerator for no more than an hour). Storing them long-term in the refrigerator not only risks drying out the cork (it is way too dry in there), but can also expose the wine to food aromas that you would not want present in your wine.

Reds are a little easier, as I find that serving at around 65 to 70 degrees allows for picking up all the right aromas and tastes. If you are storing your wine at that temperature, then you are all set. Sometimes, that just means moving your collection to a dark, unused closet, or under the stairs. While it is not the ideal 55 degrees at which highly-valued wines are cellared for years or decades, it is a step in the right direction. What about the decorative bottle rack you have on your wall that you don't want to leave bare? You can place empty bottles in it - if you really want to go for show, hop on eBay or other internet sites where you can find empties of some of the most sought-after wines on the market. Imagine telling that overly-pretentious oenophile friend-of-a-friend who always crashes your parties that you popped open that 1997 Screaming Eagle on your rack last week to watch the Dolphins game.

As a final note, and to zero in on what led me to write about this, watch out for restaurants that serve wine at all the wrong temps. I ordered a glass of 2006 Hess Tri-County Cabernet at a chain restaurant not known for wine service. The glass was filled to within a half-inch of the rim - I can get over this, although it prevents me from getting a good swirl. But even worse, its temperature was surely approaching 80 degrees! This was quite a shame, because it is likely a good value - it seemed to have appealing layers of complexity, but they were a little discombobulated at that temp. I'll have to try again at home.

This week's elections

As a Florida resident living in Virginia, the only election of the "big three" I was really following was the race for Virginia governor, in which Republican Bob McDonnell won convincingly over Democrat Creigh Deeds (the other two big elections were for New Jersey governor and New York's 23rd district). As I was not eligible to vote for a Virginia candidate, I watched from the sidelines, and I must say that I am now eager to see how McDonnell will improve transportation in Northern Virginia without raising taxes and without impacting the state's education funding. I will be a Virginia resident soon, and I do not relish the prospect of my taxes being raised, so if this is the person who can fill the coffers of the currently-bankrupt state transportation construction fund without a tax increase, I say more power to him. Thus far, his primary proposals to raise money involve one-time gains, such as selling off the state liquor stores, so I am curious how he will secure a sustained revenue stream that will finance needed improvements. Stay tuned.

I think the bigger story, however, is not the large swath of independents who voted Democrat in 2008 and Republican this time. The "ideological shift" that so many on the left identified last year was no more real than the "Republican renaissance" being touted this time. No, the destruction of the Republican candidate for New York's 23rd district by far-right ideologues is most interesting to me. As a firm believer in market-based economics and efficiencies, I think that the Republican party has a lot to bring to the table. But I also think that elements of the far right that have become increasingly vocal and organized and that preach intolerance of gay rights, elimination in all cases a woman's personal choice to have an abortion, and teaching creationism alongside evolution as rooted in science has gone too far. The editor in chief of the web site redstate.com, Erick Erickson stated, "This is a huge win for conservatives...We did exactly what we set out to do - crush the establishment-backed GOP candidate." About Florida governor Charlie Crist's candidacy for U.S. Senate, Erickson said, "...if Crist wants to own the mantle of 'GOP Establishment Candidate,' let's tie it around his waist and throw him in one of Florida's many lagoons."

What I pick up from these statements, and the actions surrounding the NY 23rd election makes me nervous for the health of the Republican party. In a sliver of optimism, maybe what I am seeing is a shift that will open a couple of seats at the table for Libertarians. I must conclude that the many smart, educated conservatives that I know who can see the difference between constructive debate on the corporate tax system and carrying a rifle around a protest rally will become disenfranchised when more of their bretheren choose the latter as their modus operandi. Maybe a new breed of political interest will be spun off that recognizes that while it is easier to take pot shots at an elected representative based on looks or family history, it is more productive (albeit difficult) to learn and debate the issues - and dammit, sometimes we cannot take the easy way out.