First, a belated Happy New Year to all. This year’s Rosh Hashana was very nice… except for the Saturday morning service, where we made the mistake of sitting in front of five women who spent the entire time talking, giggling, unwrapping candy very loudly, and generally being royal pains in the tuchus. The strange thing was that while three of the women were teenagers, the other two were fifty-something women — and as far as I could tell, the fifty-somethings were the instigators. Anyway, I tried giving them the stink-eye once, which resulted in about two minutes of blessed silence. Maybe I’m just not good at giving the stink-eye. Maybe you have to reach a certain age for it to become effective. What I really should have done was to tell them something like, “Hi. You see that scroll up there? That’s the Torah, our most sacred book. You know what that boy is doing up there? He’s reading from our most sacred book. That’s something that’s been going on for at least a hundred generations. And if you can’t pretend to respect that, the very least you can do is shut the hell up.” However, that course of action probably would have fallen a bit short of our ancient New Year values of Repentance, Prayer, and Charity, so I’m doing my best to let it go.
So far I’m not doing a very good job.
Sunday was a bit more pleasant. Nancy was in town, and we went wine-tasting at Picchetti and Ridge. The afternoon was educational, if only because Nancy informed me that Picchetti is pronounced with a “K” sound, not a “CH” sound. Good thing Nancy’s around to keep me from sounding like a total rube. And speaking of being a total rube, I even had the presence of mind to keep my mouth shut when the conversation at Picchetti turned to the infamous “Two Buck Chuck“. Although the guy behind the bar was very down-to-earth and helpful, he was horrified that people drink Charles Shaw wine and actually like it.
Not surprisingly, the Slate Wine Guy thinks much the same thing: “Having recently tried the Charles Shaw merlot, I can unequivocally state that I would switch to beer or go on the wagon before making a habit of this plonk.” (Yikes, switch to beer! Heaven forfend.) The Slate Wine Guy also doesn’t think much of California wines in general, opining that “the 1970s and 1980s was [sic] the golden age of California winemaking.” I had thought that the 1970s were the age of Ernest and Julio Gallo, but my memories of the 70s are admittedly a bit fuzzy. I suppose the 70s did give us the famous California wine vs. French Wine taste test, so maybe the Slate Wine Guy has a point. I dunno. All I can say is that my highly refined “thumbs-up, thumbs-down” wine methodology works for me. These days you can walk into any supermarket in California and see row upon row of sub-$10 wine… some of which is awful, and some of which tastes great as far as I’m concerned. Personally, I think we’re living in a Golden Age of Wine with respect to both price and choice.
You know, I know that Charles Shaw wine isn’t “good”. I know that when I drink it, the experts are telling my brain that it is not supposed to be flavorful and delicious. After all these years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.
Many years ago, the Harvard Crimson ran a review of the then-extant fancy (and very expensive) French restaurant, “Lahieres” on Mount Auburn Street. The review characterized it as a great “place to have your parents take you when they visit.” But the most memorable line from the review was, “For the price of 50 cheesesteak subs from Tommy’s Lunch next door, you can get …”
I found the Charles Shaw Merlot to be a perfectly drinkable, uncomplicated wine, and an excellent value at its — ahem — price. Not something I’d serve at a fancy dinner party, but not without its place either.
The “cheesesteak sub” test is worth remembering as one goes through life.
Jacques’ comment reminds me of a similar comparison we had in college (and honestly, I still use frequently). [Evan will remember that] Del Taco was right down the street from school, and on Tuesday nights they had Taco Tuesday, where the basic, no-frills, tacos could be had at the low, low, price of 4/$1. Yes, as in two bits each. Anyway, any price of anything would inevitably be compared to the price of a Taco Tuesday taco. For something costing more than about $2, the response, reliably, was “That’s a whole lotta tacos!”
Mmmm, tacos and cheesesteaks…
A similar analysis went through my mind a couple of months ago. An old friend invited me to a wine-tasting party, and the more expensive wines on the list were in the $60-80 range. (I don’t know how a schlub like me managed to sneak onto that guest list… I lead a charmed life, I guess.) Now granted, these wines were quite good, and they were all noticeably better than Two-Buck Chuck. But were they *thirty times* better? It all seems like a case of diminishing returns to me.
Back in my days being a soldier in the IDF, I remember a wine that was called, in loose translation, “Hammer Wine”. (Named for it’s effect on one’s head.) It’s provided to the troops to drink as part of the weekly kiddush (blessing) over wine at the shabbat (sabbath) dinner table. One month, towards the end of my service, the wine dramatically improved. Someone had finally noticed how disgusting the wine was and arranged a quantum leap in palatability. The result? Orders by units tripled in a single month. Then the army rabbis realized that people weren’t just drinking it for a blessing…and this led to the return of the gross stuff. The soldiers were very disappointed. 🙁
Anyways, my point is that I wanted to write a comment, but I was struggling to find something relevant to say.
I am puzzled by the rabbis’ response. If the prayer over the wine is a blessing of the One who made the fruit of the vine, shouldn’t it follow that the drink should be delicious? Am I missing something here?
Henci
So what have we learned? One fancy bottle of wine is worth 50 cheesesteak subs or 240 tacos. The question is — what on earth would you do with 240 tacos?
If the good wine is being used to get soldiers drunk while in uniform and on bases (with guns and explosives , no less), some would argue that the problem outweighs all the benefits of providing a tasty wine. The army rabbis have more than one consideration. They are charged with providing with spiritual needs of the troops without hindering the troops ability to do its job.
Just to connect this subtopic to the rest of the comments: I wouldn’t even pay half a taco to get a bottle of the army wine.
Hmm, what would we do with 240 tacos? I don’t know. But I’m sure between me and Russ, we’d think of something.
How about a nice charitable visit to a food kitchen?
I’m sensing a lack of creativity here. I was expecting suggestions like, build a Taco Tower of Doom. I’m thinking second grade, and Adiv’s thinking socially conscious. What fun is that? 😉
Well, there was that one time years ago when Dave Letterman filled an old-model convertible with tacos and went driving around the city. “Hey kids! Free tacos!” Eh, but that’s been done, I guess.
Ok. How about we do an intense study into the aerodynamics of tacos? All we need is access to a windtunnel and a giant slingshot. We can see if sour cream or hot sauce alters the trajectory of flying food.
Or maybe we could scrape out all the meat/stuff/beans from the tacos and mold some gruesome props to use in a low budget slasher flick? “Argh! My arm just went through a meat grinder!!!” The bonus of this is you could feed the crew at the same time AND you might get corporate sponsorship…or not. 🙂