Fresh air from Capitol Hill

The Senate Judiciary Committee held their vote yesterday on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Most Republicans on the Committee voted "no" by proxy, but one, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, voted "aye" along with a heavy dose of perspective. Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, whose daily Washington Sketch article gives readers a fly-on-the-wall account of some of the more mundane happenings in the District, provided the details.

Graham stated, "I think there's a good reason for a conservative to vote yes, and that's provided in the Constitution itself." He then read aloud from Federalist Paper #6, written by Alexander Hamilton: "The Senate should have a special and strong reason for the denial of confirmation," such as "to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from family connection, from personal attachment and from a view to popularity." Graham said Kagan "has passed all those tests" envisioned by the Framers, then he challenged his colleagues: "Are we taking the language of the Constitution that stood the test of time and basically putting a political standard in the place of a constitutional standard? That's for each senator to ask and answer themselves."

After his speech, Dick Durbin (D-IL) weighed in with equal sensibility: "During the course of his statement, I reflected on some of the things that I have said and how I've voted in the past and thought that perhaps his statement suggested there was a better course for many of us to consider in the future."

Some additional excerpts from Graham as outlined by Milbank:

First he read from a letter written by conservative legal scholar Miguel Estrada, a George W. Bush nominee blocked by Democrats in 2003, stating that Kagan should be "easily confirmable." He then read from a letter Kagan wrote recently containing similar praise for Estrada. "That gives me hope," Graham said, that people of different "legal philosophy and political interaction can at the end of the day say nice things about each other. . . . I think it would make a lot of Americans feel better if we could react that way ourselves a bit."

"Seventy-three of the 126 Supreme Court nominations," Graham continued, "were done without roll-call votes. Something's changing when it comes to the advice-and-consent clause. . . . The question I have for the body: Are we living in an age of legislative activism where the words haven't changed in the last 200 years, but certainly the voting patterns are?"

He reminded his colleagues that "no one spent more time trying to beat President Obama than I did, except maybe Senator McCain." But "President Obama won," he said, and "the Constitution in my view puts a requirement on me as a senator to not replace my judgment for his, not to think of the 100 reasons I would pick somebody differently or pick a fight with Ms. Kagan."

"Objectively speaking, things are changing, and they're unnerving to me," Graham's lecture continued. It is, he said, "our obligation to honor elections" -- an obligation that led him to vote "yes" for Kagan. "It would not have been someone I would have chosen," he said, "but the person who did choose, President Obama, I think chose wisely."

I suspect this account will not get much attention, but it should. Senator Graham has taken a bold step that I truly hope does not bite him in his 2014 re-election bid. For now, I'm going to enjoy a welcome breeze coming from the general direction of the Capitol.

A great pick for around $10

I am always hesitant to recommend things in price categories. It is not generally a good idea, because if you set a limit on what you want to spend, say $30,000 on a car, you could very well miss out on that $30,500 gem with the leather and premium sound system. In that case, you might be more than happy to snatch up the great deal because you value the perks more than the $500.

The same is true of wine. People who say they will not spend more than $10 on a bottle of wine are doing themselves a great disservice. Not that there are not solid offerings at the $10 and below price point; it's just that people eliminate some great wines just beyond that arbitrary cut-off (not to mention that moderate inflation will make that $8 bottle that's right in your sweet spot today just outside your reach in 2017 (better stock up while you can)).

All of that to say that I enjoyed a fantastic zinfandel the other night that set me back $11. It was very full bodied, with big, ripe flavors of cherries and plums and a spicy kick that would go great with pizza or spaghetti. You're looking for the 2007 Rosenblum Paso Robles zinfandel.

Paso Robles is an appellation in the center part of California known as the Central Coast. Growers there produce some of the best zinfandel grapes in the state. Rosenblum is one of the most noted zinfandel producers in the state. That combination comes together to make an outstanding value that you should plan to enjoy in the near future.

Don't be daunted if you look for this in a well-stocked wine shop - Rosenblum produces a lot of zinfandel. Just zero in on what I'm describing here and you can save the rest to try later. I've included a picture of the label to help you out.

Cheers!

A little dose of Bordeaux

Once again, I've gotten lazy on writing. Truth be told, I'm still trying to find my voice in this medium, and I've often found myself conflicted. In essence - what qualifications do I really have to opine to you, the consumer, on political matters? Aren't there eminently more-qualified individuals out there dispensing roughly the same quips and observations? Perhaps it's just a phase that will soon pass, but it's where I am today.

Wine, however, is a topic that is truly a joy to discuss and comes with far less bloodshed. How about let's focus there for a while?

For those who enjoy a high-quality, traditional Bordeaux, 2009 is shaping up to be the vintage of the decade. Take that how you please - 2000 and 2005 were also vintages of the decade. But the weather in the Bordeaux region was on the side of the vintners in 2009, and barrel tastings are indicating that 2009 will at least rival some of the great vintages of past decades.

As a side note, for those not accustomed to deciphering the labels on many old-world wines, the region generally indicates the grapes used to make the wine. In the case of Bordeaux, you can count on cabernet sauvignon as the base, particularly in wines of the Left Bank (of the Gironde River - go ahead, grab your world atlas). A traditional Bordeaux blend will also usually include merlot, cabernet franc, petit verdot, and/or malbec as blending grapes. Remember the Meritage (rhymes with "heritage") from several posts ago? That is our name for a Bordeaux blend.

The 2009s won't hit the market for another year or so (a little longer for some), but the futures market is lighting up, with Chateau Haut-Brion's first release Wednesday morning going for $612 per bottle, and Chateaux Margaux, Lafite, and Mouton-Rothschild going for $550 per bottle. That's right - you can purchase futures that lock in a price on release. Be careful, though. As with any investment, you're assuming the risk of the price on release not meeting or exceeding the price you paid today. Also, note that you don't have to pay over $500 a bottle - futures of high quality wine can sell for much less.

So what are you waiting for? A little direction from yours truly on some of the more-familiar, New World wine? Ok, ok. I'll have some of that up for you soon.

Until then, salud.

Census participation

Remember the recent "movement" by the anti-government establishment to boycott the census? While some popular conservatives promoted answering only the question regarding the number of people in a household, others took it a step further by suggesting that people ignore the census altogether as a sign of civil disobedience (many immigrant groups oppose participating in the census for other reasons). Interestingly, many of the groups boycotting the census are the ones who wrap themselves in the Constitution as they decry the continued degradation of individual liberties.

In addition to the irony that taking the nation's headcount is mandated by the Constitution, higher participation rates translate to taxpayer savings. Each percentage point increase in the response rate is estimated to save taxpayers $85 million by reducing census workers' efforts to physically count individuals. So boycotting the census not only obstructs carrying out a Constitutional mandate, it wastes taxpayer dollars.

I applaud any person's (or movement's) principles when they have a solid foundation that supports a consistent view on a wide range of issues; the libertarian Cato Institute is a fantastic example of that type of organization. Unfortunately, many of those who propose boycotting the census are caught up in a contradiction that is difficult to unravel.

Where are they now?

Arizona's new state law to combat their problem with illegal aliens infringes on personal liberty and gives the government the authority to question people without reasonable cause. Surely this represents an unprecedented widening of government's power to detain anyone they want for questioning. And the state is now claiming that they will require federal funding to help pay for the hiring and training of additional law enforcement; state officials have even started a preemptive campaign of knocking Washington for not giving them the money based on their initial read of federal officials' reactions.

Does this not rock the very core of Tea Party beliefs? Where is the outrage? Where are the demonstrations? Or is an overstep of the Bill of Rights acceptable when the goal is to send "them" back "there?"

I've not written in a while - sorry about that. It's not for lack of material: final passage of a health care bill largely written by Congressional Republicans, the feared anti-nuclear President's administration taking huge steps toward securing rights for power companies to build nuclear power plants, the opening of several new sites for off-shore oil drilling, a likely repeal of the military's don't ask/don't tell policy, and a continued ramping up of drone and special forces strikes in Afghanistan that are incredibly demoralizing to the Taliban.

I have realized that by opening myself up to writing about issues of the day, I am becoming more partisan, and I can't say I like that very much. Not that I am consistently landing on one side of the aisle; but I find myself in awe and somewhat ashamed of the current discourse in Washington.

I'll get back on the horse soon. For now, I feel like taking this in for a little while longer...

A talking point that's run its course

Not a lot of substance on this one, really just more of a rant. Can we please dispose of the notion that passing anything in either house of Congress constitutes "ramming" it through? I realize that this description conjures up a tidy notion that can rally the troops, but I think it's unfortunate that the troops eat this stuff up. A bill passes in the House and Senate when the majority votes Aye. That's it. If a bill garners 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate, it heads to the President for signature. Many pieces of legislation pass by slim majorities. These days, unfortunately, most everything in the Senate needs 60 votes because it takes 3/5s of that chamber to close off debate on an issue (still only requiring a simple majority to pass the legislation itself).

Today the angst comes from Republicans on the Hill, who accuse Democrats of "ramming through" healthcare legislation, especially with talk of reconciliation back in the air. The Democrats take the wrong stance when they respond that, for example, the tax cuts passed in 2003 were rammed through when brought to a floor vote under reconciliation procedures that garnered a split 50/50 vote, with passage secured when Vice President Cheney broke the tie. By responding with such anecdotal evidence, the Democrats only perpetuate the illusion that any of this constitutes "ramming through," or is somehow unfair. If it weren't for talking heads getting both conservatives and liberals angry at perceived injustices perpetrated by the "other side," we would probably avoid much of the grandstanding by the legislators themselves.

In any case, let's just recognize that the majority party in a given chamber will do everything it can to pass legislation that is in line with its party platform and polls well back home. It's okay if you don't like the legislation; but don't fall mindlessly into the trap of thinking that the "other side" is asserting an unfair advantage in the game.

A fantastic pairing

I recognize that I am supposed to write about wine and politics, so I will describe the wine that the Mrs. and I enjoyed last night as an excuse to also describe the steak we had with it - or more to the point, the way we prepared the steak.

I'll preface by saying that last night's pairing worked incredibly well because we paid as much attention to the steak as we did to the wine. This approach is key, and is often ignored by people who know one but just slide past on the other. In general, remember that fattier meat usually pairs better with younger, more powerful, tannic reds. That means that a super-lean, grass-fed filet might not pair as well with your favorite young Australian shiraz as it will with a more elegant Bordeaux or Meritage (an American word coined in 1989 that rhymes with "heritage" - don't try to impose any fancy-sounding French pronunciation here; you'll come across as either arrogant or ignorant (or both) if you ask your server to recommend a nice "meritaaaaj.")

Our choice of steak was grain-fed USDA Choice filets. Choice is one step below Prime in the USDA grading scale that is primarily based on the amount of marbling, or fat, in the meat. It's also a step below in price, which is good for the pocketbook. For preparation, I started with a tip from Morton's Steakhouse to get the meat out of the refrigerator about 30 minutes before cooking to let it approach room temperature. This is to allow the temperature to slowly rise before being exposed to the harsh environment of cooking, which will reward you with a more consistent, evenly-cooked steak.

While sitting out, I seasoned both sides of the steaks with a liberal amount of kosher salt, some fresh cracked pepper, and a little safflower oil. The jagged edges of the kosher salt stick better to the meat than other salt varieties, which helps create the flavorful crust on the outside after searing. The safflower oil has one of the highest smoke points of the cooking oils, which will come in handy. You see, all cooking oils have a temperature at which they will start smoking, indicating their molecular structure is breaking down and, more important to your taste buds, the flavors are turning bitter. I don't want to sear meat applied with olive oil over very high heat - I will be left with a smoky, bitter-tasting mess.

I pre-heated my oven to 500 degrees, and several minutes before searing, I placed a cast iron skillet on a burner over very high heat. At this point, I was using tips from Alton Brown of Good Eats fame. Once searing began, I was only a minute away from moving to the oven, so I wanted to make sure everything was ready to go. I placed the steaks on the skillet and did not touch them for 30 seconds, after which I flipped them and seared the other side for 30 seconds. One more flip and I quickly moved the skillet into the 500 degree oven. After two minutes in the oven, I flipped the steaks and cooked an additional two minutes. I removed the skillet, placed the steaks on a plate, and covered with foil. At that point, I needed to let the steaks rest, and I didn't want them to cool too much. Resting allows the intensely-heated juices to uniformly reintegrate themselves into the meat. The four minutes in the oven at that heat cooked the 1.5"-1.75" thick steaks to medium-rare, and any additional "cooking" under the foil while they rested was minimal. At no point in the process did we pierce the meat with a thermometer.

This method rewarded us with the most flavorful, juicy steaks we've cooked at home. The combination of searing on a burner and cooking in the oven allowed a mix of techniques best suited for achieving separate goals. This is something that can be more difficult to accomplish solely by using a grill.

Now onto the wine. Joe Heitz of Heitz Cellar served in the Army Air Corps (predecessor to the Air Force) during World War II and went to the University of California at Davis on the GI Bill, graduating in 1948 with a degree in enology. After several stints in different capacities, including working for California's 20th century wine Jedi, Andre Tchelistcheff at Beaulieu Vineyards, he and his wife Alice purchased eight acres of vineyards just south of St. Helena in the Napa Valley. Joe really got on the map, however, when he acquired the 1966 harvest of fruit from Tom and Martha May's vineyard in Oakville. Joe's first bottling of Martha's Vineyard Cabernet Sauvignon placed that particular wine among California's, and indeed the world's elite red wines. Many of the world's finest cellars and restaurant wine lists include choice vintages of this magnificent wine.

Heitz Cellar offers two other less-storied, but still outstanding cabernets: Bella Oaks (since 1976) and Trailside (since 1989), both from vineyards in Rutherford (Napa Valley) . We went with a 1998 Trailside. While 1998 is not a blockbuster vintage for Napa wine, primarily due to problems with El Niño, some vineyards and winemakers lucked out and made some beautiful wines. Our bottle aged gracefully and packed more elegance than power, which is what David O'Day, wine director for Del Frisco's Restaurant Group recommends for a lean cut of filet. Its core of currant and soft tannins was the perfect complement to one of our most memorable Valentine's Day dinners.

A new frontier

For those who don't know, I'm a bit of a science geek, particularly when it comes to space. I've read my copy of The Physics of Star Trek countless times, and I spent a good portion of my childhood searching for accurate schematics of the USS ENTERPRISE (the starship, not the aircraft carrier).

Thus the rollout of NASA's budget for fiscal year 2011 was of interest to me, particularly now that NASA Administrator, former astronaut Charles Bolden, and the Obama administration, have had some run time to firmly establish their direction for the country's exploration of space. To digress a little, I am a firm believer in the value of a strong and diverse space program backed by public funds, as the return on the investment justifies the comparably small expenditures. And I'm not talking about just Velcro and Tang, nor semiconductors and microlasers. The government's support of cutting edge scientific research instills in many children the desire to become scientists and engineers. Sure, it starts with "I want to be an astronaut when I grow up," but it often ends with distinguished careers in physics, mathematics, aeronautics, astronomy, mechanical/electrical/nuclear engineering, meteorology, - the list goes on and on and touches on far more areas than just the final frontier. Many people in this country lament the U.S. brain drain in science and engineering, and warn that we are losing ground to an increasingly educated Chinese population; however, many of those same people call the government's investments in space technology a waste of taxpayer dollars that would be better spent at home.

I think President Bush set the right foot forward in 2004 when he announced a new push to return humans to the moon by 2020. The space race of the mid-20th century served as inspiration for many to choose careers in science and engineering - a spike of innovative minds that have served this country both in public and private capacities in myriad sectors of the economy for decades and have been retiring in droves. The Bush administration recognized the importance of reinvigorating the passions of those who could lead the next wave of U.S. innovation. Unfortunately, the model under which this was to be accomplished remained unchanged; that is, NASA would establish a new program (Constellation) that would use government oversight of prime contractors to design and build the necessary rockets and vehicles. The funding would compete with every other spending priority in the government (including the increasing needs in Iraq and Afghanistan), and predictably fell victim to many of those other higher priority items. What we ended up with, captured in a 2009 review of Constellation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was a program that lacked a solid business case that still had not even minimized the risk of the launch vehicle hitting the launch tower at liftoff.

So the first slide of the NASA budget rollout that shows highlights caught my attention: "Cancellation of the Constellation program." I think the writing was on the wall, particularly in light of the aforementioned scathing GAO review, but this came across to me as a bold move that could position NASA to reclaim some ground it lost in deep space exploration during the years of focus on the space shuttle program. Near-term launches of humans to low Earth orbit, including to the International Space Station (ISS), will be carried out by the Russians, and U.S. initiatives in this area will be assumed by the private sector. This proposal was roundly supported by conservatives and panned by liberals when suggested by President Bush and is today seeing the exact opposite reactions from both sides now that it is being implemented by President Obama.

When I see that type of obvious partisan reaction, one that is not grounded in any core belief or party platform but rather guided by the sole issue of party affiliation of the guy who suggests the idea, I treat all of the ensuing rhetoric as the garbage that it is and zero in on one question: Is this a good idea? Many space industry observers have said for years that the private industry could accomplish far more than NASA with more innovative, cheaper solutions. I agree that private sector solutions to maintaining a human presence in low Earth orbit would help NASA focus its efforts on exploration of the solar system and beyond, as well as research the technology needed to achieve a human landing on Mars. I am not troubled by the reliance during the next few years on Russian launch vehicles to service the ISS; U.S. space scientists have had a healthy, productive relationship with the Russians for years - one that has occasionally and successfully risen above politics. Such is often the nature of scientific collaboration.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer opined recently in the Washington Post, "Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China." I think it is an unfair characterization to say that eliminating a government program that was already showing signs of severely underdelivering on needed capabilities will allow the Russians and Chinese to own space for decades to come. I also think that his assertion that private companies cannot take over launching astronauts due to the expense and advanced nature of the technical work severely underestimates the business and technical acumen of the private sector.

If nothing else, this new approach within the taxpayer-funded U.S. space program should be applauded for its focus on eliminating a costly program that was not working and offering up another idea that has merit. This is the type of thinking we should be encouraging.

An excellent Austrian red wine

The Mrs. and I took the recommendation of our favorite wine shop and bought a bottle of 2007 zweigelt by Anton Bauer. For those who have never heard of the zweigelt grape, join the club. For starters, it’s pronounced TSVYE-gelt. It was created in 1922 when Austrian biologist and viticulturalist Dr. Fritz Zweigelt crossed the Blaufränkisch and St. Laurent grapes, and is now by far the most widely-grown red grape in Austria.

Without knowing exactly what we were getting into, we planned a spaghetti dinner with a sauce that typically pairs well with a wide range of red wines – it is meaty and full of onions, mushrooms, garlic, and a proprietary blend of herbs and spices.

Unfortunately, we did not have time to let the wine breathe (we generally give all of our reds at least an hour or two; more for the younger, tannic stuff), so I grabbed our handy Vinturi and poured a couple of ounces for each of us. The wine is ruby in color all the way to its edges, which is expected in a wine of this relative youth. It is similar in appearance to a Beaujolais, made from the gamay grape. I confess that Beaujolais is not usually my first (or second) choice at the local shop, so I was a little nervous at this point. However, the aroma showed layers that are hard for me to find in a gamay – ripe cherries, flowers, and a touch of oak. A sip confirmed what the nose told me, finishing with a pleasant spice laced with cinnamon.

The wine proved an excellent pair with our dinner, and now has me on the prowl for more. If Anton Bauer is hard to find (as usual, it depends on where you live), Hillinger is said to make a nice zweigelt that might be easier to track down. Happy drinking!

Further tangling alliances?

The Supreme Court ruled last week on a politically-charged first amendment case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court ruled that companies may use their profits to spend as much as they want to support or oppose individual candidates for political office. This decision effectively overturns two relatively recent cases, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), which relied in large part on the earlier Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990). Those cases rested largely on the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, which was passed as an override of President Truman’s veto, and prohibited independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions in support of candidates.

Supporters of the decision hail a victory for free speech; detractors decry what they view as a tidal shift of influence in favor of the corporate sector. As usual, I find myself appreciating the rational arguments on both sides, and shaking my head at all of the partisan rhetoric that clouds the issue.

The specific case at hand involved a disparaging video about then-Senator (and Presidential candidate) Hillary Clinton that a company produced using its own funds. That fact alone was enough to turn the case into a predictable firestorm of politicking.

I have no interest in wading into any of those politically-charged waters; however, I do think it’s worth pointing out a couple of things.

Our default in any challenge to free speech should be in favor of the first amendment. Any limits thereto should be imposed only after significant consideration and overwhelming evidence that limits are required. The 1957 dissenting opinion in United States v. Automobile Workers stated that deeming an entity too powerful was not “sufficient justification for withholding First Amendment rights from any group – labor or corporate.” That makes sense, doesn’t it?

Ultimately, and unfortunately, I am uncomfortable with this new reality not so much because of the influence it allows large, well-financed entities to yield but because of the bright spotlight it shines on this influence. The fact is that these entities already use their considerable bank accounts to lobby lawmakers every day. They also lobby the public by supporting or impugning specific policies (veiled primarily in advertisements), hoping that the electorate will then rally behind the candidate who most closely aligns with the policy position. The Court’s decision merely permits an elevation of the game – lobbying the public directly on behalf of an individual candidate. I guess I am just happier when I remain blissfully unaware of the back room dealings, an exercise that will become decidedly more difficult in the near future.

Thus, rather than hand wringing over the effect of upping the ante in our current system, the debate should be whether the current state of influence peddling is acceptable within our legislative framework. Lobbying at all levels of politics is an immutable aspect of policy creation that has existed since governments were created. The challenge is striking the balance between ensuring lawmakers have access to the information they need to arrive at informed decisions and unscrupulous tactics that place lawmakers in the hip pockets of powerful interests.

Missing the point

The account of Nevada Senator Harry Reid's apology to President Obama for referring to candidate Obama's strengths in 2008, which included being "light-skinned" and having "no Negro dialect," has made its rounds in this weekend's news.

I picked up on one particular part of the story that I feel compelled to share here. The article reporting the news in the Las Vegas Review-Journal includes an emailed statement from the National Republican Senatorial Committee communications director Brian Walsh: "For those who hope to one day live in a color-blind nation, it appears Harry Reid is more than a few steps behind them."

I have become relatively familiar with Mr. Walsh's views during his tenure with the NRSC, and he typically does a fine job crafting the Committee's messages. However, I think this statement does grave disservice to anybody who cares about issues of race and ethnicity.

Implicit in his statement is an assumption that the end state for improving "race relations" is the inability to see, or perhaps just the state of ignoring, the color of a person's skin. This unfortunate view is probably held by a wide swath of society that is truly disgusted by racism, but has not fully considered what that means.

For various reasons that I have since typed and deleted, I disagree with the notion the word "race" conveys. But to somehow assume that we all want to get to the point where we ignore the color of a person's skin, and thus the richness of ethnicity, tradition, and cultural celebration that often comes along with it, is to assume that we want a bland, one-dimensional society.

Conversely, I think the appropriate end state is a world in which people are not treated unfairly because of the color of their skin. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that a person's skin is darker or lighter than mine; the problems occur if I ascribe to that comparison a relative social ranking. One of the finest officers with whom I've served in the United States Navy is a first-generation American with East African parents. Prior to becoming a Naval Officer, she was enlisted in the Marine Corps, where she was able to use her fluency in Swahili to help Marines working in Africa. The color of her skin is only one aspect of a rich cultural heritage and dynamic set of skills that I could only wish to possess. Why would I want to be blind to one specific aspect of the many that make her who she is?

I truly think that Mr. Walsh meant no harm when he made his statement, but as a prominent political spokesperson, he should remain mindful of the power of the pulpit.