Time for the NYT Dining and Wine Recap!

Getting it Backwards: OK guys, if this is gluttony, why are you replacing butter and rendered beef fat with margarine and vegetable oil? There's trimming costs and there's cheapening the meal. Fascinating article, though.

This would normally be my soapbox article. But frankly, I think that Bittman does an excellent job of summing up the problems with modern meat production and consumption, the myriad economic and social factors, and he provides the more compelling statistics when it comes to meat and the environment.

Speaking of health and the environment, yes, I did read about the high mercury levels in sushi tuna, and I'm not reading anything else from the NYT about it. The article that came to my reader last week was shameful: there were no scientists explaining exactly what the heightened mercury levels meant, the recommended rates of consumption of fish with certain mercury levels, or the health repercussions of consuming too much mercury, just quotes from consumers who appeared to be as woefully ill-informed as I was. I've since read good articles that gave me all the facts I wanted, but they weren't in the NYT. So I will be going elsewhere for my mercury information.

I've been looking for a Cocida recipe since it was mentioned on lobstersquad

Here's the Soapbox Article

Georgia's got some special liquor laws. We're one of 15 states (as of 2006) that doesn't allow off-premise alcohol sales on Sundays. We have multiple dry and half-dry (beer and wine only) counties. In Atlanta, last call is at 2:30 a.m., except for Sundays, when the bars all close at midnight, but bars in Dekalb can stay open till four, seven nights a week. If you want to buy booze and take it home on one of the six legal days, you have till 2:00 in Atlanta, and midnight in Dekalb. I haven't tried to buy beer at midnight on a Monday in years, but my experience is that if the clerk is even a little dubious as to the legality of the transaction, he or she won't sell, terrified that the customer is a cop.

The most onerous, of course, is the Sunday sales law. I hate the early closing time on Sundays--haven't we all done whatever worshiping we want to by midnight? Let us drink!--but far more people have been tripped up by not buying enough beer for two days on Saturday. For a couple of years, various bills allowing Sunday sales have made their way in front of the state legislature. And every time good ol' Sonny has taken a break from fishing to get on the horn and insult the city that pays the bills for the teetotalling evangelical rednecks who elected him. It's delightful.

But I was born and raised in Georgia, so I can't exactly claim ignorance with the laws. No, what really bugs me, what seems completely intractable, and what is deeply, deeply unfair to small breweries and wineries--we dream of distilleries--in Georgia is our three-tier distributorship system.

Here's how it works: a brewery that wants to sell in Georgia finds a distributor to market and sell its products to grocery and liquor stores and restaurants. The producer of the booze pays for this sort of marketing, as well as the more traditional sort, usually print and billboard ads. The distributors pay lobbyists, who take lawmakers out to lunch and on other free outings to talk up the "purity" and standards that the three-tier system ensures.

It works for Budweiser and other massive companies that can find the money in their budgets to pay enough for the distributors to promote their newest almost-craft-brewed, low-carb, hair-regenerating product. But for small local companies, it's a bit more difficult. Local brewers here have difficulty getting their small-volume products promoted (with the notable exception of Sweetwater, which will give away kegs for anything) by distributors that are getting way more cash from the big guys. It's a system that works for everyone but the small brewers, who don't have the cash to wield influence anyway. It also shut down Dogwood Brewery in 2003.

What about the purity, you say? The standards? Well, the distributors don't actually inspect any of the sites for safety or health codes, and there are laws about what constitute safe beer, wine and liquor in this country. At the end of prohibition, local and state governments weren't inspecting alcohol producers, so distributors fulfilled the roles that those agencies now perform. Importers are responsible for verifying the credentials of foreign-produced alcohol, which, in most countries, is going to be produced according to standards far more strict than the ones we use over here.

That's why I bristled when I read Craig Wolf's comments in this article. First, Mr. Wolf, a system that has "worked" since prohibition isn't necessarily the best one out there, especially since your industry was created as a compromise between dries and wets. Second, jackass, you and your industry have been promoting the "bottle of 1997 whatever" red herring for too long without getting called on it. It's a great way to make your critics seem elitist and unreasonable but it's also disingenuous. Most of the people who want to see you gone want to see a healthier, more competitive market for small, local and emerging businesses. Finally, your business has no need to exist. Every brewery, winery, and distillery is inspected for safety and quality, and you can bet that no outfit worth its salt is going to stand for someone counterfeiting its product. We have laws and lawyers to ensure it; you're simply one more redundancy. If any body of lawmakers ever gets serious about cutting the fat, it will see you, Mr. Wolf, realize that it's already paying more citizens to do the job that you claim to do, and if said government is functional enough to handle basic inspections, it will free you, your lobbyists, and the legislators who oversee you, to fulfill more pressing obligations. Like anything.