Comments on: Let them drink Charles Shaw! http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/2008/11/14/let-them-drink-charles-shaw/ searching for truth in wine Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:44:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Chris http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/2008/11/14/let-them-drink-charles-shaw/#comment-705 Chris Thu, 01 Jan 2009 06:12:39 +0000 http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/?p=1151#comment-705 I completely agree with this article . . . state banquets should be showcasing the finest we have to offer. Any reduction in quality to give the appearance that our government is "sympathetic" to the masses' plight is just that, an appearance. A lowering of quality on these dinners would certainly be the poorest quality food our high government officials had to eat (do you really think they make symbolic sacrifices at home where there aren't cameras?), and when we're going to great lengths to impress foreign dignitaries, I want the diamond-encrusted fountains spewing Dom and the parking lot paved with Rolexes (both examples are rich enough to convey affluence but crappy enough not to have lost a fine product :-) The President is NOT one of us, we have never been governed by a "regular guy" going back to the Founding Fathers, and his salary is likely the smallest source of income the man will receive regularly. State dinners should be constructed to engineer the correct response from Putin or Mugabe, whether it is intimidation, fellowship, or anything else. If a few cases of $325/bottle wine can in any way help prevent a $4 trillion war, then I say it's a decent deal in monetary terms alone. In other news, I ran across this article while drinking a nice Charles Shaw merlot. It is not the best merlot I have ever tasted, but it is far closer than I would have thought possible, for $3! Very smooth and agreeable. I completely agree with this article . . . state banquets should be showcasing the finest we have to offer. Any reduction in quality to give the appearance that our government is “sympathetic” to the masses’ plight is just that, an appearance. A lowering of quality on these dinners would certainly be the poorest quality food our high government officials had to eat (do you really think they make symbolic sacrifices at home where there aren’t cameras?), and when we’re going to great lengths to impress foreign dignitaries, I want the diamond-encrusted fountains spewing Dom and the parking lot paved with Rolexes (both examples are rich enough to convey affluence but crappy enough not to have lost a fine product :-)

The President is NOT one of us, we have never been governed by a “regular guy” going back to the Founding Fathers, and his salary is likely the smallest source of income the man will receive regularly. State dinners should be constructed to engineer the correct response from Putin or Mugabe, whether it is intimidation, fellowship, or anything else. If a few cases of $325/bottle wine can in any way help prevent a $4 trillion war, then I say it’s a decent deal in monetary terms alone.

In other news, I ran across this article while drinking a nice Charles Shaw merlot. It is not the best merlot I have ever tasted, but it is far closer than I would have thought possible, for $3! Very smooth and agreeable.

]]> By: Jesse Porter http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/2008/11/14/let-them-drink-charles-shaw/#comment-606 Jesse Porter Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:31:37 +0000 http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/?p=1151#comment-606 I don't believe anyone's suggesting that the White House serve Charles Shaw, but I can think of about a dozen "elegant wines" that "showcase the finer side of American culture" for under $40, and five or six dozen more for under $100. Should our elected leaders really make no effort to scale back their luxury consumption in times of financial strife -- if only to offer some gesture of solidarity with the millions who are losing their homes and jobs? There's a reason the President's salary is $400,000, well below those of the top CEOs (and other people who buy $325 bottles of Cab), and that's because, at least in a symbolic sense, he's supposed to be "one of us." At a time when many Americans can't afford to pay the rent, the President shouldn't be spending the equivalent of some people's rent checks on wine for dinner, no matter who's visiting. I don’t believe anyone’s suggesting that the White House serve Charles Shaw, but I can think of about a dozen “elegant wines” that “showcase the finer side of American culture” for under $40, and five or six dozen more for under $100. Should our elected leaders really make no effort to scale back their luxury consumption in times of financial strife — if only to offer some gesture of solidarity with the millions who are losing their homes and jobs?

There’s a reason the President’s salary is $400,000, well below those of the top CEOs (and other people who buy $325 bottles of Cab), and that’s because, at least in a symbolic sense, he’s supposed to be “one of us.” At a time when many Americans can’t afford to pay the rent, the President shouldn’t be spending the equivalent of some people’s rent checks on wine for dinner, no matter who’s visiting.

]]>