I’ve long held a strong disdain for California’s senior Senator. Meretricious may be too harsh an epithet, but her penchant for self-aggrandizement is egregious. And even that wouldn’t be such a calumnious indictment, except that, apart from her overt desire to augment her own political capital she singularly lacks a philosophical adherence behind her legislative agenda. She may have felt a moral duty to replace slain San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk (of the recent cinematic hagiography) with another denizen of the Castro District, but where was her concomitant obligation to the local Italian community in the wake of the ethnically-motivated assassination of George Moscone? Her much-publicized efforts to homeport the nuclear battleship USS Missouri offered no measurable benefit, albeit posing substantial environmental and safety risk, to the Bay Area, apart from bolstering her own defense credentials in preparation for her eventual Senate run. True, she may fervently drive legislation on behalf of tighter gun control, yet she had the unmitigated chutzpah to lobby openly for the death penalty from the pulpit of the Roman Catholic cathedral, in blatant disregard for one of the few truly enlightened Vatican doctrines.
Still, Your West Coast Oenophile really harbors no concern over the apostasy of this patrician-Republican-cloaked-as-a-centrist-Democrat, even as her aged jowls descend eerily into a Nixonian physiognomy. It is not the intent of this blog to vitiate her potential entry in the next California gubernatorial race nor to take issue with her various contrivances, political or personal (no matter how indistinguishable the two may be). Indeed, the vituperance of my prefatory comments belies a primarydesire to advocate a logical and philosophical consistency to whatever position one espouses; it’s just that no one I know embodies a starker contrast to this dictum than does Dianne Feinstein.
SWitness her efforts several years ago to shore up her credentials with the female electorate—hardly a stronghold for this well-ensconced spouse of a leading local billionaire. Feinstein openly lobbied for unrestricted access to abortion, arguing that choice in this matter belonged solely to the woman and not to the discretion of the state. “Does that include allowing abortion for gender selection?” an astute interrogator queried, a deliberate allusion to the prevalent application of this procedure in societies that derogate the value of female progeny. The inherent contradiction here requires no further explanation.
The moral ramifications of philosophical inconsistency may not be as pronounced in issues of sustainability, but I do find the dominant paradigm to which so many professed locavore establishments ascribe to be equally paradoxical. In a scenario that seemingly repeats itself ad infinitum, I engaged a new, highly-touted San Francisco organic dining establishment in an inquisitive exchange over their professed adherence to local, sustainable principles a couple of nights ago.
Having read a rather lavish encomium in The Tablehopper for ┓(I am withholding identification of this cafe beyond an overt symbol), I thought I might reward myself with a late night bite and a touch of the grape for completing my dastardly 1040A forms far ahead of the government’s due date (note how I deftly carried my numerous 2008 expenditures for developing Sostevinobile over to the current tax year). As soon as I hit the Electronic File option, I turned off TurboTax and cautiously wound my way past dissolute throngs of Hibernian revelers to the quiet perch in the Mission where ┓operates. The atmosphere, as well as the clientele, seemed to have been transported from Saturn—not the multi-ringed planetary giant but the eclectic Santa Cruz cafe—ebullient and completely sincere. The bubbly, mildly corpulent server behind the counter greeted me warmly and without any need for prodding, launched rapturously into her litany of the multiple virtues behind all the ingredients ┓deploys in its cuisine.
“That’s wonderful,” I replied. “But may I see your wine list?” To their credit, their offerings were all either biodynamic- or organically-grown, but, as I suspected, predominantly imported, with a smattering of wines from California and the West Coast.
“So why don’t you extend the same [local, sustainable] principles to your wine selections?” I asked. Of course this hostess was completely fazed by my question and meekly allowed that they hadn’t considered this aspect. “Besides,” she proffered. “This way we can offer you a glass of organic wine without having to charge outlandish prices.”
At this time, I won’t try to belabor the point that there is an abundance of excellent and affordable organic wine produced in Oregon, California, and Washington. I could argue at length that shipping wine here from overseas not only creates a considerable expenditure of carbon emissions, the resulting need for wine produced here to be delivered to non-local markets doubles the impact. The issue at hand is that one needs to be philosophically thorough in comprehending and applying one’s putative principles, else they become empty pablum. It is a point I hope ┓(and others) will soon recognize.
I don’t pretend it will be an easy task for Sostevinobile to maintain a rigid adherence to accepted sustainable principles, nor will I be surprised if we slip, on occasion. Nor will I deride the laudable intentions of , if they do not conform exactly to what we will advocate. I culled over wine list at ┓and passed over the very serviceable 2006 Jeriko Estate Pinot Noir for a delightful, slightly more economical glass of 2006 Bonny Doon Ca’ del Solo Sangiovese. I could not help but wonder whether the organic Sangiovese from Staglin Family Vineyard, a $95 bottle when available, might not have tasted…
I’m done ! This particular internet-site is the very best i have found lately, therefore you will certainly have one more everyday visitor to your site. Maintain the awesome work!