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.