SharedThought

I have been neglecting the cultural side of this blog for awhile, and thought it was time to post something to try to even the scales. So when I heard a story on NPR yesterday morning about wine ratings, I figured that was it. Yesterday, however, I had other things to rant about. So, today I tracked down a link to the NPR story. You can listen to an archived version here.

The basic point of the story was that numerical wine ratings are a fairly new invention. In the decade or so they’ve been in use, consumers (not surprisingly) have adjusted their buying habits to reflect the ratings. However, the ratings are not as objective as you might think. Ratings are determined by an individual who is assigned a specific wine region. So the 93-rated Cabernet Sauvignon from California that Wine Spectator says is a great deal was tasted and rated by only one person. You can see how ratings are apt to be skewed by the preferences and palates of a few people. Wine makers lament that the rating systems limit the range of wines being made because you have to make a certain kind of wine to get the right rating. Wine sellers have also been known to mislead consumers by posting inaccurate shelf tags under wines. To get a bit more information about the different numerical ratings available check out this site.

The Washington Post has a piece about today’s court decision ordering Vice President Cheney’s office to release information related to his Energy Task Force.

The administration cleverly formed the task force of only government employees. By doing this they allowed themselves to operate their meetings in secret (check out this link for the government regulation that allows them to do this).

While this act of cleverness allowed the Energy Task Force to meet in private, another law still made the documents produced by the Task Force open to public inspection. The Natural Resources Defense Group won a lawsuit similar to the one decided today and successfully gained access to thousands of pages of documents. Even more are sure to follow.

Blah3.com had this note yesterday about the firing of Michael Savage by MSNBC. You can read about it here in the Boston Globe and see the exchange that got him fired here. Buh-Bye, Mikey!

The New York Times is running a story today about a church’s zoning fight in Hawaii. Local authorities there are opposed to a church’s proposed expansion plans on the grounds that it would increase traffic in the rural area.

The Ashcroft Justice Department has taken the unusual step of writing a letter to the local authorities saying they are prepared to file a lawsuit unless the church is allowed to build a new sanctuary. The charge: religious discrimination. As the article points out:

“That’s very activist,” Professor Hamilton said of the letter to the county. “The Ashcroft Justice Department is just dramatically pro-religion. I assessed the Clinton administration as the most religious administration since Grant, and now the Bush administration is outstripping Clinton.”

Republicans from an early age are taught that the federal government should be limited in its powers and that the business of government should be conducted at the state or local level (Federalism). Republicans, however, gladly use Federal power when it can be used to promote their causes. This religious “discrimination” case is one example. Another is the election fiasco in 2000 when Republicans used the Federal courts to intervene in the state of Florida’s election process.

The Chicago Sun Times has a frightening article in today’s editions. There’s a brief story about Jerry Springer and what his thoughts are leading up to a decision on whether to run for a U.S. Senate seat in Ohio. Here’s a quote: “Jerry Springer says his fame could help revitalize the Democratic Party if he’s elected to the U.S. Senate next year.” Revitalize the party by causing it unending shame? The Democrats don’t need their own Pat Buchanan.

Not surprisingly, the fine citizens of Ohio are not head over heels in love with the idea of there being a Senator Springer from their state. The story also reveals that: “A February poll by the University of Cincinnati found 71 percent of those surveyed–the highest such number in the poll’s history–had an unfavorable opinion of Springer.” Phew.