Still here, but we are in the countdown stage now. 10 days until the movers come and load up.
Holy crap, I wish I hadn’t typed that. Now I need another cocktail…or maybe I’ll just skip right to tequila shots.
Anyway, the good news is we have finally secured a house, with the help of a family member of one of the Editorial Team. Woohoo for Glib connections!
The bad news is that this winter storm has scuppered our dinner plans with Swiss and wife. We had no ulterior motives whatsoever. Just a nice, relaxing dinner…after taking advantage of the fact that Swiss can blow everyone (except Warty) away in Feats of Strength. Nothing major. We just had a “few” 200 pound objects for him to lift and put down.
Even though my life is literally in shambles, the website will nevertheless be here to amuse and enlighten the Glibertariat.
Of course, there will be links brought to you by various Link Artists. Artists such as Banjos, Brett L, OMWC, and most likely others who were selected for the Links Pro Bowl and not the Links Super Bowl and will therefore be available.
Not Adahn makes two appearances this week, first, with his regular IFLA forecast tomorrow, and then Tuesday with more daydreaming. Spudalicious brings another meaty post tomorrow afternoon.
Monday, Fourscore writes a letter to a certain “men’s publication,” and Web Dom will probably be by with another Vegan School post.
We’ll hope for another terrific/terrifying Hat & Hair from SugarFree, and I’ll bring you a poll.
Make sure to check in on Thursday when dbleagle’s second installment on the South China Sea drops at 11 a.m. GlibTime. Also Thursday, in the evening we have a special government shutdown treat from Tonio.
Friday brings the monthly What Are We Reading post, and Saturday mexicansharpshooter will be back with another review/not a review.
Alrighty then. Pour me another drink and let’s get on with the Saturday Night Open Post!
A lot of chatter happening this week, which made me postpone what I planned to write about for another week. As many are undoubtedly aware Gillette, a company that markets razors to both men and women, aired a controversial commercial linked here.
This is my review of Full Sail Malted Milkshake IPA:
Many took the message as a negative, saying the commercial insults their customer base. Making a statement like this their critics say, will drive their customers away, that disagree with the social statement being made. Strange, given the company itself profits from one of the defining physical characteristics of men—having a beard.
Gillette itself is not a stand alone company that will suffer as a result of this, rather they are a subsidiary of Proctor & Gamble. As of this writing P&G was not immediately shorted by a large number of investors, like what happened with Nike. Their stock price was rather flat for the week. Unlike Nike, their product lines are diverse and are necessities that nearly everyone uses. People will continue buying their soap, their toothpaste and Double Quilted Charmin Toilet Paper. While it can be argued this is not the first time P&G made such a social statement with one of its brands (remember the ‘like a girl’ campaign?) this is different because they did not criticize previously. Rather they took what was a pejorative often used by men toward other men (i.e. you play ball like a girl!) and turned it into something positive. Here it appeared to be open criticism, constructive or not.
Interestingly enough, another P&G brand is Old Spice, whose marketing campaign a few years ago appealed to the lighter side of masculinity, to great success.
H/T: You know who you are, you MAGNIFICENT….
The merits of the message itself, and whether it was intended to insult is not a question to be answered here. As usual such interpretation is best left to the individual. Will I buy Gillette’s products? No. Recently, a fellow Glib challeneged me with an incredibly thoughtful gift. Should I do what I always do and pick up yet another skill, I may never need to buy a razor again.
A better question is, are the attributes commonly associated with men something we evolved beyond? Men typically are more predictable than women at any given time, more assertive, are motivated by physical things, are driven to compete and succeed at different interests than women. The downside to this, is men more often than women will behave recklessly, and aggressively. These characteristics though are even now being portrayed as positive attributes—in women, as this recruiting commercial for the United States Marines Corps suggests.
Have we moved past the point where the potential for the negative is too much of a liability for any benefit it can provide? Competition often breeds adversity, which does not have to be a bad thing. Teaching others in that sense, to overcome adversity and handle it when it defeats them while they are young may be in their best interests later on. Others might be less assertive, and might have a more difficult time adjusting so the argument to show respect for the brainy kid also has merit, because one might not grow up and cure cancer if he or she is always being put down. Is developing confidence through physical strength best frowned upon, to allow for the more cerebral, even one that might go so far as to act (ahem) like a girl?
Why does it have to be one or the other? As I write this, I am at my son’s Tae Kwon Do class. I am reminded of last week while he was sparring a older boy, with a higher belt. My son comes across as the brainy kid; in fact he takes an advanced math course because it comes easy to him. That day, his opponent moved to strike with a round kick. In response, he stepped in closer to avoid the kick’s impact and landed a front kick to his opponent. His opponent, a larger and more experienced martial artist, lost his balance and found himself on the floor. At that moment, my son beat his opponent by outsmarting him. He learned more about himself than I could ever teach, but he’s still a math geek.
In the end they shook hands and moved to their next opponent. No hard feelings.
If men acting like men are frowned upon, perhaps a way to fight this perception is to understand why those attributes are positive and where to apply them. The fact these attributes are being encouraged in women is proof enough then are a benefit to society. The attributes cannot be negated, unlearned, or taken away, they are hard wired psychologically and genetically. The trick then becomes learning how and when to strike, and use the inherent strengths tactically. Perhaps then, critics will see the problem is not masculinity, but in their own shortcomings.
As for the beer, it appears Full Sail went and rebranded unfiltered Sculpin. Which for the IPA…people is not a bad thing. Not the hoppiest of IPA out there, but if you dig grapefruit and texture this will not dissapoint. Full Sail Malted Milkshake IPA: 2.7/5
More irrelevant personal stuff: As we begin SP’s any my penultimate weekend in the northern reaches of Illinois, we have been gifted by Nature with a massive snowstorm. Normally, it’s something I’d welcome, but it’s certainly made lifting and carrying things a challenge. Worse yet, we were planning to break out SP’s World’s Best Fondue (and that’s not an exaggeration) for Swiss, and Swiss was planning to bring pizza to The Wonder Dog, cementing his place as her Favorite Human Ever. But transport may be an issue… In any case, I gift you with another brilliant Krazy Kat, with a remarkably innovative use of the panel format.
Normally, I start things out with birthdays, but this time, we do need to acknowledge the anniversary of an important historical event. What was the first Hollywood film lampooning Hitler? Was it Chaplin’s The Great Dictator? Something by Frank Capra? Nope, it was… You Nazty Spy!, a short by the genius trio of Moe, Larry, and Curly, released on this day in 1940.
Now the birthdays, which today include the original James Watt (not the moron Reagan appointee); loser Robert E. Lee; proto-libertarian Lysander Spooner; writer, poet, and inspiration for my favorite football team, Edgar Allan Poe (and ask Spud about his visit to the Poe House in Baltimore); artery-clogger Paula Deen; the monumental Dolly Parton; one-eyed Katey Sagal; and SP’s favorite artist, Thomas Kinkade (/ducks for cover).
On to the news, and there’s plenty of that as well.
“Shutdown” Kabuki continues. There’s hints that Team Blue will be offered more boondoggles in exchange for Team Red’s pet boondoggle. And as usual, inevitably it will be taxpayers getting it up the poop chute. Nice month-long paid vacation for Federal leeches, of course.
Oh, here’s more stupid. Perhaps we can have capital punishment for TV talking heads who mispronounce things. That will usher in a new era of racial justice.
There is no escaping Old Guy Music. I’ve previously sung the praises of Lee Barber, an Austin-based singer/songwriter who has perhaps the most expressive voice (both figurative and literal) that I’ve ever heard. This might be my favorite song of his, an incredibly sad and beautiful lament about moving, which encapsulates my current emotions perfectly.
ZARDOZ SPEAKS TO YOU, HIS CHOSEN ONES. ZARDOZ DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH MATERIAL FOR LINKS ONLY OR FOR ADVICE ONLY – SO, USING THE MIGHTY COGITATION POWERS OF THE TABERNACLE, ZARDOZ CONCLUDED THAT A LITTLE OF EACH WOULD SUFFICE. THEREFOR, RECEIVE THE GIFT OF ADVICE AND LINKS….GO FORTH AND COMMENT!
Q: My girlfriend and I have lived together off and on for three years. We met at a lesbian bar in Los Angeles, and it was love at first sight for me.
I suspect she has been seeing another woman. She has changed her dress style and even her cologne. When I confront her, begging her to tell me if she’s been cheating, she laughs it off. We don’t communicate well anymore, and she’s sleeping in another room now.
I have cared for her for so long. We were going to be married. Now I feel she doesn’t love me anymore. I have tried following her, but she disappears and sometimes doesn’t come home for days. I haven’t slept or eaten in weeks.
I love her so much. If she doesn’t come back to me, I’ve had thoughts of suicide. I can’t afford a shrink. I hope you can help. — FREAKED OUT & CLUELESS IN CALIFORNIA
A: NORMALLY ZARDOZ IS APPALLED BY “RELATIONSHIP ADVICE” – HOWEVER, YOU HAVE FOLLOWED THE PROCLAMATION THAT THE PENIS IS EVIL. THUS, ZARDOZ WILL HELP. ZARDOZ WILL HAVE YOUR PARTNER TRANSPORTED TO THE VORTEX AND HAVE THE ETERNALS GO TO SECOND LEVEL WITH HER.
GO TO SECOND LEVEL AND DISCOVER THE TRUTH!
IF SHE HAS BEEN CHEATING, ZARDOZ OFFERS YOU TWO ALTERNATIVES. FIRST, SHE CAN BE RENDERED CATATONIC AND PLACED IN A PLASTIC WRAP…DON’T ASK, IT IS A VORTEX THING.
ZED, STAY HERE AND MAKE SURE SHE DOESN’T LEAVE.
OR SHE CAN BE SENT TO THE GRAIN FIELDS.
CHANGED COLOGNE, EH?
SHOULD THE TRUTH BE LESS BAD NEWS FILLED – RECONCILE AND STAY TOGETHER FOR ETERNITY.
WHAT A LOVELY COUPLE
ZARDOZ HAS SPOKEN.
AND THE LINKS:
ZARDOZ EXPECTS THE PENNSYLVANIA BRUTAL ENFORCES TO BE SWAMPED WITH VOLUNTEERS.
Hi guys, I had to go into hiding briefly as Mr. Lizard’s people were stalking my every electronic move. Or the local guy cut some seriously weird shit into the local meth. Thanks to all of my fellow Glib contributors who took a turn filling in for me. Especially Spud. Welcome to the party, pal.
I know they’ve been running this headline for over 2 years, but they’ve got Trump this time! Or not. A shady lawyer trying to save his own hide told Congress that his boss had asked him to rig some online polls. Which, anyone who isn’t doing that is too dumb to be President. Its a necessary but not sufficient condition. Oh, and they shared some internal polling data that was in no way a state secret or subject to export controls with some Russian people. Maybe. All hail President Pence!
North Korea may be opening a beach resort! I have mixed feelings about this because it disgusts me that the same entity that has made itself responsible for feeding the people of North Korea and failing to do so will probably watch tourists discard millions of calories a week without a second thought, but maybe some oppressed Koreans will be able to sneak out.
My good friend dated a girl who probably would have done this to him if we had smart-phones back then. She had no problem picking up his cellphone and scrolling through the call logs. How do we apply “don’t stick it in crazy” to arranged marriages?
I watched Supertroopers 2 on the plane last night, so this has been rattling around in my head. All of you can suffer with me.
Elmer Keith’s contributions to the development of the modern revolver/cartridge combination cannot be overstated.
Born in 1899 in Missouri but raised in Montana, Keith cut his teeth on the single-action Colt but early on became a proponent of the swing-out cylinder double-action revolver. His advocacy of double-action sixguns began with the 1908 introduction of the Smith & Wesson First Model New Century, the “Triple Lock” and its .44 Special cartridge, but his impact on the handgun world didn’t stop there.
A eulogy of Elmer Keith could easily take up a six-part series unto itself, but we can summarize. His work with heavy revolver loads led to the Keith-type semi-wadcutter with its characteristic convex shoulder and 70% emplat; the Keith SWC cuts a clean hole in paper while its hard alloy composition allows the bullet to be driven at high enough velocities to give good penetration on big game. This I can vouch for from personal experience.
Keith’s heavy loads were the basis for the modern magnum revolver cartridges we know so well. In the late Twenties and early Thirties, Keith, dissatisfied with the anemic performance of the standard 158-grain RNL .38 Special load, experimented with heavy .38 loads with 180 and 200-grain SWC bullets in the big Smith & Wesson N-frame “38-44” revolvers. These loads, after discussion with Remington and Smith & Wesson, led to the .357 Magnum cartridge. Likewise, Keith’s heavy .44 Special loads in the Triple Lock and 1950 Target revolvers led him to pester Smith & Wesson and Remington until, in 1955, they introduced the .44 Remington Magnum and the Smith & Wesson Model 29 to handle it. Keith was also instrumental in the development of the excellent but less successful .41 Magnum.
An Older Elmer Keith
While Remington and Smith & Wesson were listening to Keith, the folks at Colt were a little less prescient. Colt had discontinued the famous Single Action Army revolver in 1941 and re-introduced it in 1955, but the latest SAA guns were built to pretty much the same pattern as the original black-powder Colts; Keith advised Colt to update their fine old gun’s lockwork and sights, but Colt left the SAA as was – which didn’t stop Keith from collecting and using many examples of this fine old gun.
Smith & Wesson historian Roy Jinks referred to Keith as the father of big-bore handgunning, and that’s a title that is well deserved. And speaking of Smith & Wesson:
Smith & Wesson Ascendant
Smith & Wesson’s 20th century successes began with the Triple Lock, but they sure didn’t end there. A string of revolver and cartridge designs were about to make Smith & Wesson the gun builder to watch.
The constraints of the format here won’t allow me to describe all the revolvers Smith & Wesson brought out in the 20th century. So, instead of attempting that, I’ll describe a few of Smith & Wesson’s standouts.
The K-22 Masterpiece. Later relabeled the Model 17 Masterpiece, the K-frame .22 is one of the best double-action revolvers available for folks just learning the art. It’s the same frame and much the same weight as many of Smith’s .38 and .357 offerings while retaining the low recoil and economy of a .22 – it’s also a great sidearm for taking the occasional squirrel, rabbit or mountain grouse. It was also offered in stainless steel as the Model 617.
Patton’s Registered Magnums.
The Combat Magnum/Model 19. Developed at the request of gun writer and lawman Bill Jordan for a medium-frame .357, the Combat Magnum was a lighter, handier version of Smith & Wesson’s original N-frame .357, the Registered Magnum/Model 27. While no less than George Patton favored the Registered Magnum – he often carried a pair of them he referred to as his “killing guns” – may highway patrolmen, Border Patrol officers and local cops preferred the lighter version. The Model 19 also has a stainless-steel version, the Model 66.
We already mentioned the Model 29, developed at the urging of Elmer Keith and made an icon of popular culture by Clint Eastwood in the Dirty Harry features. While Detective Callahan described the .44 Magnum as “the most powerful handgun in the world,” the .44 Magnum only nominally held that title, as the 1957 .454 Casull outstripped it but was only available (then) in custom-shop jobs, and later developments far outweighed the .44 Magnum. But for quite a few years it was the most powerful handgun cartridge offered in mass-produced revolvers suitable for all-day holster carry, and that’s what made the .44 Magnum as popular as it remains today.
Any discussion of Smith & Wesson revolvers should not neglect the .38 Hand Ejector/Military and Police/Victory Model/Model 10, not necessarily because if was groundbreaking or iconic in design – it wasn’t – but because it was damn near ubiquitous in police departments for much of the century. For some years I had a pre-war .38 Hand Ejector that still carried markings for the Lake County, Colorado Sheriff’s Department; it had the thin 6” barrel, and I referred to it as my “Barney Fife revolver.” It was an unremarkable piece but, like most mid-century Smiths, solid and reliable.
My very favorite holster gun for outdoors is a late 20th century Smith & Wesson. The 25-5 uses the same N frame as the .44 Magnum Model 29, but is chambered for the grand old .45 Colt, which cartridge I have been loading since the early Eighties. My example was made in the mid-Seventies, has a target hammer and trigger and the rather rare 4” barrel. It’s a fine piece, easy to handle and accurate.
Throughout the Depression, WW2 and the post-war years, Smith & Wesson largely dominated the sixgun market, but that doesn’t mean Colt was just sitting around.
Colt Reacts
The Python.
Colt still managed to hit a home run in the 20th century: The Python.
Colt’s 20th century story is dominated by one sidearm, although not a revolver: The Colt/Browning 1911 automatic. But Colt still was in the revolver business, not only with the famed single actions but also with their double -action guns based on the original 1889 design. While Colt brought out such fine pieces as the Official Police, the Police Positive and the Officer’s Target on that basic frame, the Python was the culmination. A hand-fitted, polished gun, you won’t find a more beautiful revolver than an original Python in the Colt Royal Blue finish.
Back in the Eighties my friend Dave had a 6” blue Python he used to compete in bowling pin shoots. I tried it a few times myself at the pin shoots. The Python’s slick, smooth double-action pull made it almost ridiculously easy to wipe five bowling pins off a table in a big hurry; a lot of those pin shooters used Pythons for that very reason. Like the 1851 Navy before it, the Python is one of the best-handling sixguns around.
The “Snake” family of Colt revolvers also included include the .38 and .22 caliber Diamondback and the .44 Magnum Anaconda. Colt also offered a lower-priced .357 in the form of the Trooper. Like the reintroduced Single Action Army, all these double-action guns save the Anaconda shared an old frame design and much of their lockwork, which had not changed a great deal since the M1889 model; this led to an opening by one of America’s new generation of gun designers.
The New Guy – Bill Ruger
While Colt wasn’t listening to Elmer Keith’s calls for a modern single-action, someone else was.
Bill Ruger’s entry into the handgun market was the Ruger Standard, a neat, trim semi-auto vaguely resembling the Luger in form and grip configuration. It was a nice-handling gun, and unlike some autos it had its barrel and receiver attached in a single unit, and the sights firmly mounted on each. It was good enough to attract the attention of my notoriously frugal father, who bought one mail-order (!) around 1955; I still have that old 6” Standard in my handgun safe.
We aren’t here to discuss the Standard, though.
A funny thing happened in the early Fifties. The post-war years led to a return to traditional entertainments; also, the rise of television gave an outlet for that most favored of post-war American entertainments, the Western. The popularity of Westerns led to a quick-draw craze, which led to an increase in demand for traditionally styled single-action revolvers.
An Early 3-Screw Blackhawk.
During these years Colt’s Single Action Army was a custom shop piece, pricey enough to be out of the reach of plenty of folks. Some replicas were made by Great American and a few other companies, but quality was iffy and the design different little from the 19th century Colt pattern. While Elmer Keith was unable to convince Colt of the need to modernize the single-action revolver, in Bill Ruger he found a more receptive audience. In 1953 Ruger brought out the Single-Six, a .22 caliber single-action revolver, followed in 1955 by the Blackhawk, offered in .357 Magnum and .45 Colt – later in a wider variety of chamberings from .32 H&R to the .480 Ruger. In 1957 a Ruger employee found some discarded .44 Magnum cases on a range frequented by Smith & Wesson engineers, deduced that S&W was bringing out a new cartridge; this resulted in Ruger’s introduction of their single-action .44 Magnum, the Super Blackhawk, right on the heels of Smith & Wesson’s announcement of the Model 29 and the .44 Magnum cartridge.
Ruger’s revolvers were something new: Solid, with a slightly beefier frame than the traditional Colt, and using modern coil springs in the lockwork rather than the more fragile leaf springs used by other makers. They very quickly gained a solid reputation with shooters. While Ruger didn’t introduce a double action revolver until 1977, those guns quickly gained a following as well, but it was the Single-Six, the Blackhawk and the Super Blackhawk that brought the single-action revolver into the modern era. The final variation on that theme was the Ruger Vaquero, which took the strong frame and modern guts of the Blackhawk and outfitted it with the traditional style (including fixed sights) of the traditional Colts; thus, the single-action came full circle, with a traditional style and modern hardware. I have one, a 4 5/8” barreled stainless steel model with ivory polymer grips, and it’s a joy; it handles my heavy .45 Colt loads with aplomb and is light enough at 38 ounces to carry around all day.
And Then This Happened
In 1987 the state of Florida did something unprecedented; they changed their laws on the issue of carrying concealed handguns. Previously, like every other state at that time, Florida’s laws left the issuance of concealed-carry permits up to the discretion of local law enforcement, which meant that in many jurisdictions it was impossible to get such a permit unless you were wealthy, well-connected or both. Under the new law, assuming you passed a background check and a class, law enforcement was prohibited from denying one a permit; this was to lead to an explosion of such new laws changing the process from “may-issue” to “shall-issue.”
The dawn of the 21st century saw most states with liberalized concealed-carry laws, and this had changed the emphasis of gun designers. Where the bulk of the 20th century’s target markets for handgun builders were hunters, ranchers and outdoorsmen of every stripe, the new focus was on the concealed-carry market. The demand was for smaller, lighter revolvers that still packed enough punch for self-defense use.
But there was another, contradictory trend that began in the late 20th century, and that was the advent of the “monster” revolver. These two trends, along with the remaining traditional holster gun market, would finalize the present state of the six-gun; we’ll look at that in Part 6, when we wrap up the History of The Six-gun.
Good morning my little rapscallions, and what a wonderful morning it is as the government is still partially shutdown and Trump pulled an absolutely fantastic troll. The best part was that he waited just a few hours before they were leaving before dropping it on them, after they had all loaded onto a bus to head out, causing this hilarity.
The grape genus Vitis splits into three natural groups based on geographical location: North American, Eurasian, and Asiatic. There are roughly 25 to 30 species of American origin and about the same number for Asia. But there is only a single grape species for Eurasia, the Vitus vinifera. Vitis vinifera is itself comprised by the wild grape vine Vitis vinifera sylvestris (commonly referred to as V. sylvestris) and the cultivated grape vine Vitis vinifera vinifera (commonly referred to as V. vinifera). So, all the well-known varieties/cultivars of grapes used for making wine today (such as Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay) are members of a single species of grape vine, V. vinifera, and are the result of some combination of natural mutations and human tinkering over the course of several thousand years.
There is no clear point in time where the cultivated V. vinifera became distinct from V. sylvestris. In fact, hybridization occurs naturally between the two subspecies and occurred continuously throughout ancient times. We know that the native range of that the wild grape vine V. sylvestris included the Mediterranean shores of modern Lebanon and Syria as well the border between Syria and Turkey. However, there is archeological evidence of grapes being cultivated far outside the native range of V. sylvestris and into the far reaches of Israel, Egypt, and ancient Babylonia inside the geographical known as the ‘Fertile Crescent’.
The cultivation of grapes did not occur in a vacuum, but was part of the overall development of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent. Archeological finds indicate that wine was being made on a large scale as early as the 4th millennium B.C, in the ancient city of Godin Tepe in western Iran. In addition to the traditional archeological evidence of wine making such as finds of broken pottery, some of the pottery still had residue that was subjected to an in-depth chemical analysis that confirmed the presence of grape products (assumed to be wine). So, in the ongoing debate between wine people, beer people, and mead people over who started brewing first, the wine people now have scientific proof that puts start of intentional wine making back to at least the 4th millennium B.C.
The cultivation of V. vinifera, and presumably the making of wine, spread from Iran and the Fertile Crescent throughout the Middle East and Turkey eventually making its way to Greece. The Greeks spread viticulture to many locations around the Mediterranean including Italy and southern France; the Romans continued the spread viticulture throughout Western Europe. Fast forward through several thousand years of history including the dark ages, the middle ages, and the renaissance and we get to modern viticulture (growing grapes) and viniculture (making wine) using any of several hundred cultivars of V. vinifera which humans have new carried around the globe.
So how do we make wine. It’s easy. Crush the grapes; press out the juice; pour it into a vessel; and wait. Wine will happen; it can’t not happen. It might be good wine (lots of great commercial wine use spontaneous fermentation). But it might be terrible wine as well. To ensure success then, most wine makers inoculate with cultured yeast (someone got lucky with a spontaneous fermentation and has been culturing the yeast ever since).
First off, we need to grab some grapes. I guess we need white grapes to make white wine and red grapes to make red wine, right? Not exactly. V. vinifera grapes generally come in two types: green grapes and black grapes. There are other colors as well, but they are just not as common as green or black grapes. Regardless of the color of the skin, the flesh of the grapes is generally colorless ranging from pale green (green grapes) to pale grey (black grapes). And the juice from V. vinifera grapes is also generally colorless ranging from pale green (green grapes) to pale grey (black grapes) – amazing how that works out. Therefore, white wine can be made from almost any variety of V. vinifera grapes, but red wine is made from black grapes (or blends of grapes where the majority of the grapes are black).
Thus, we can make white wine from Chardonnay grapes which are green; Gewürztraminer grapes which are dark pink; and Pinot Noir grapes which are black. Yes, you really can make white wine (Blanc de Noirs); rosé wine (Sancerre Rosé); and red wine (Burgundy) from 100% black Pinot Noir grapes. How can that be you ask? Great question. And the answer is that white wine is made with a white-wine process and that red wine is made with a red-wine process (duh). The making of rosé wines straddles the fence.
The white-wine process is as follows:
1) Crush the grapes
2) Press the juice from the crushed grapes
3) Clarify the juice (let the pulp from the crushed grapes settle in a tank)
4) Transfer the clarified juice to a fermentation tank
5) Inoculate with an appropriate wine yeast
6) Wait until fermentation is complete (with some caveats)
7) Clear the wine using fining agents or power filters
8) Bottle the wine
Dry white wine is made by letting the yeast consume all the available sugar in the juice. Semi-dry to semi-sweet wines are made by chilling the fermentation tank to just above freezing right before the yeast consumes all the sugar. This puts the yeast into hibernation. Then the wine is power-filtered through increasingly fine filter pads until the live yeast is filtered from the wine. Finally, a big dose of potassium metabisulfite is added to ensure that refermentation does not occur once the wine is in the bottle.
The red-wine process is as follows:
1) Crush the grapes
2) Transfer the mixture of juice and skins (known as must) to a fermentation tank
3) Inoculate with an appropriate wine yeast
4) Work the must until fermentation is complete
a. The grape skins (and pulp) still have juice in them
b. The yeast will ferment the juice in the skins
c. The resulting CO2 will puff up the skins like little balloons so they will rise up from the liquid below
d. The skins also form a cap which traps CO2 from the liquid below while it ferments
e. Thus, the skins will rise up out of the liquid below and will begin to dry out
f. Fermentation releases heat, so you get warm moist skins which can become a great environment to grow many bad organisms, so
i. You push the skins back into the cooler liquid below two or three times a day (punching down the cap)
ii. Or you pump cooler liquid from the bottom of the tank on top of the skins
5) Release the free-run wine from the tank (whatever wine flows out without pressing)
6) Transfer the skins to a press
7) Press out the remaining wine from the skins
8) Age the wine (typically in barrels, but tanks with wooden slats can be used)
a. Premium wines typically age the free-run wine and pressed-wine separately to be blended to taste at the end
b. Bulk wine will have the free-run wine and pressed-wine blended before aging
9) Clear the wine using fining agents or power filters
10) Bottle the wine
Some premium wines will have an extended period of maceration (soaking the finished wines on the skins) after fermentation is complete to extract as much color, aroma, and flavor from the skins as possible. This is one way to make amazingly intense wines. It is also a way to make hideously harsh crap. Know what you are doing if you choose this path.
Many red wines and some white wines will undergo malolactic fermentation at some point in the process. Tartaric acid is the dominant acid in grapes, but grapes also have significant amounts of malic acid. Malic acid is tart and harsh on the palate. Certain bacteria (Oenoccocus Oeni) will convert malic acid to lactic acid which is softer on the palate and can provide a creamy, oily mouth-feel. This malolactic conversion is not true fermentation, but it does release CO2 resulting in the appearance of a “secondary” fermentation in the wine.
Alright, let’s go get some grapes. Hmm, you better live on the west coast or near one of the handful of places in the Eastern or Southern US where the climate is moderated by proximity to an ocean, a river valley, or the Great Lakes. Otherwise, you aren’t getting fresh V. vinifera grapes unless you have friends willing to jointly buy several tons of grapes and pay for refrigerated shipping. Otherwise you are buying kits.
All juice is just that. 23 Liters (6 gallons) of pure wine grape juice. You put it in a fermenter and go. This provides the truest flavor profile for the wine.
High-quality kits are around 16 liters (4 gallons) of juice concentrate. You add 2 gallons of water to get to normal concentration and then ferment.
Mid-quality kits are around 10 to 12 liters (2.5 to 3 gallons) of juice concentrate. You have enough water to get to 6 gallons and then ferment.
The canned stuff is basically crap. You add one or two cans of concentrate and a bunch of sugar into the primary. Then add enough water to get to 5 or 6 gallons.
The key is that the more concentrated the kit, the less of the true grape varietal flavor and aroma carries over into the final product. It is possible to buy premium wine kits that have the juice still on the skins, but they are hard to come by. You need to order in advance from some dealer, and the must comes refrigerated or frozen in 5-gallon pails. I’ve seen friends use them, but I have no relevant experience.
So how are wine kits made, in particular red wine kits? We know that red wine is made by leaving the juice in contact with the skins during fermentation. But kits aren’t fermented (otherwise, they would already be wine). Here is one quick summary:
White grapes are pressed, and the juice is pumped into a settling tank. Enzymes are added to break down pectins and gums, which would make clearing difficult after fermentation. Bentonite is added to the juice and re-circulated. After several hours the circulation is shut off, and the tank is crash-chilled below freezing. This helps precipitate grape solids, and prevents spoilage.
Red grapes are crushed, sulfited and pumped through a chiller to a maceration tank, where special enzymes are added. These break down the cellulose membrane of the grape skins, extracting color, aroma and flavor. The tank is chilled to near freezing to prevent the must from fermenting. After two to three days the red must is pumped off, pressed and settled much the same way as the whites.
When the tank is settled, and the juice almost clear, it is roughly filtered, the sulfite is adjusted, and it is either pumped into tanker trucks for shipment to the kit facility, or into a vacuum concentrator.
Vacuum concentrators work like the reverse of a pressure cooker. By lowering the pressure inside the tank, water can be made to boil at very low temperatures. By boiling the juice at low temperature browning and caramelization are prevented. The water comes off as vapor, leaving behind concentrated grape juice. Because some aromatic compounds can be carried away in this vapor, a fractional distillation apparatus on the concentrator recovers these essences, returning them to the concentrate after processing.
Enzymes are used to extract color, aroma, and flavor from the skins of black grapes. They do a good job of capturing the basic flavor profile of the grape variety, but it is not the same as fermenting on the skins. It is similar to making beer with extracts versus all-grain. You can get good products from extracts, but finesse is only achieved through total control of the mashing process. It is the same story when making wine. Concentrate kits make good wine. Exceptional wine requires working with fresh grapes.
So, what does an aspiring winemaker do if he doesn’t live where V. vinifera is grown and doesn’t want to work with kits? The answer is hybrid grapes.
Starting in the late 1800s, the French had a little problem. Some “important person” in Germany imported grape vines from the United States to plant as curiosities. Top Men did that kind of thing for amusement – creating gardens of plants from around the world. The problem is that North American grapes evolved with a nearly microscopic insect called phylloxera which eats the roots and leaves of the grape vines (the insect lives underground all year except for a few weeks when they go airborne to reproduce). It turns out that V. vinifera had a bit of trouble dealing with phylloxera, and phylloxera destroyed 3 million acres of vines in France. Wine production was cut in half, and the trend was going from bad to worse. Fortunately, some professor in Missouri figured out you could graft V. vinifera to American rootstock and the vines would survive, even thrive (and that’s an entirely different article). European wine was saved!
Until the gentlemen from Missouri saved the day, viticulturists (people that grow grapes) in France were frantically trying to hybridize V. vinifera with American grapes to get something to survive. And they had some successes. Several French/American grape hybrids were produced then that are now grown throughout the United States, but they have since been regulated out of existence in France to preserve the cultural integrity of French wine (and because the grapes aren’t anywhere near as good V. vinifera). In the 1940s, a Wisconsin farmer named Elmer Swenson began hybridizing the French/American hybrids with American species found in the upper Midwest trying to find varieties that would survive in cold climates. Elmer also had a lot of success. Many of his grape varieties are in production around the Midwest. In more recent years, Cornell University in Geneva, NY and the University of Minnesota have continued to have great success creating many new cold-hardy varieties. Thus, wine grapes can now be grown in many places where V. vinifera cannot. And while many of these varieties can produce wine that is quite good, none of them have reached equality with V. vinifera. But if you live in Iowa and want to make wine with local grapes, you need to make do with the hybrids that grow close by.
Finally, let’s make some wine.
Remember that apple crusher we just bought to make cider. I got bad news. It won’t work. You need to go drop another $500 on a grape crusher/destemmer. You put the grapes in the hopper and turn the crank. Crushed grapes fall out of the bottom, and the stems traverse a down a long tube of sorts to the end of the destemmer. The destemmer part works, mostly. But you still need to stick your arms into the crushed grapes and pull out the pieces of stems that make it all the way through.
Crushing and destemming the grapes.
Then we’ll splurge and buy a nice big wine press. It’s big, and it’s heavy, and it’s awkward. So, we’ll mount it to a platform with castors – castors that don’t lock. Note when I say we, I mean the dude that bought the press; it ain’t mine. Since the castors don’t lock, make sure you have 5 or 6 other people around that are willing to grab on to handles that don’t exit to hold the press in one place while you crank away.
Pressing the grapes.
And the beautiful juice flows out of the press. Wait, why isn’t it colorless. I was told that black grapes produce colorless juice. Well, that’s V. vinifera. This is a lovely French/American hybrid called Frontenac created by the wonderful folks at U of MN. Unlike V. vinifera, the pulp of Frontenac is purple and the juice is a vivid red. Even though we are following a “white-wine” process and pressing juice from the fresh grapes, we will be making a medium-bodied red wine. The reason we are not fermenting on the skins is that Frontenac is notorious for smelling of green vegetation (i.e., like “someone just opened can of green beans”). The common wisdom is that avoiding skin contact during fermentation reduces the undesirable aromas in the wine.
Frontenac produces vivid red juice.
Oh, and the acid level of Frontenac is about double the acid level of high-quality V. vinifera grapes. So, don’t be thinking you’re making a nice dry red wine. You’ll be making a sweet wine (or in my case, a type of mead called pyment). There’s reason why no one pays 50 bucks for a nice bottle of Frontenac from Iowa.
Disposing of the cake.
Once all the juice has been extracted from the grapes, the outer frame is disassembled exposing the “cake” which is the dry, compacted grape skins. In this case, a nylon bag is used as a screen to prevent the skins and seeds from being pushed out between the wooden slats in the frame. The cake is dumped into a handy bin and then disposed of in a way that honors Gaia (e.g., composting, feeding to livestock, sending it FedX Ground to your Representative, etc.).
Yep, all the kids that aren’t drunk are taking an afternoon nap, so they had to call in Team Spud.
I gotta tell you, I’ve been following politics and current events since the Nixon/McGovern debate in 1972. The current bullshit that falls under the category of “things that matter”, just makes me vacillate between “I couldn’t care less” and “I want to punch you in the throat”.
Normandy, Argonne Forest, Anzio, and Iwo Jima are all names that many Americans recognize as American military campaigns.
Lesser known campaigns are recognized in the names Peleliu, Biak, and Khe Sahn. There is an unfortunate possibility that the names Mischief Reef, Parcells and Woody Reef might enter the American lexicon of battlefields. The last three names are all within the South China Sea (SCS), a Mediterranean sized body of water bounded by China, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. Why might the US and China fight over a body of water far, far away? (Except for our Japanese and Korean bridgeheads.) The SCS is a hot topic. Recently “Foreign Policy” and “Foreign Affairs” have both weighed in, as well as many other authors. So what the heck, here is a primer from me. This little bit of writing will hopefully help the Glibertariat to understand some of the issues and to be able to engage with others on what the US’s policy options are.
So who are the players on this game board?
The biggest by far is China and primarily the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), Chinese Sea Police (aka Coast Guard), the People’s Armed Force Maritime Militia (PAFMM) and the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF). China is also has one of the world’s largest merchant marine fleets and uses the SCS to bring and send resources and products to every continent.
The PLAN is executing the world’s most extensive and aggressive fleet expansion and modernization campaigns. It is estimated that by 2020 the PLAN will be the 2d largest navy in the world as counted by tonnage and frigate and larger warships. The PLAN will exceed the USN in the number of combatants. The PLAN is beginning to execute extended blue water operations, determining how to make carrier groups effective warfighting tools, and executing submarine operations well beyond their coastal water. Their stated goal is to be capable of conducting “regional offensive operations” and they currently are part of the combined anti-piracy effort off of Somalia. The PLAN also has two brigades of Marines, with a third being formed. All these units are on Hainan Island or the adjacent mainland coastal region.
The PLAAF is fielding large numbers of modern 4th generation aircraft that can go toe to toe with many US aircraft and outperform Taiwanese aircraft. The PLAAF is preparing to field significant numbers of 5th generation aircraft as well. Like the PLAN they are expanding and modernizing faster than any other nation. It appears that they are also loosening combat control of their formations to enable pilots to use more initiative. The PLAAF is already large and still growing under recent PRC military reorganization.
The CSP is really a second navy but painted white instead of gray. The Chinese recently transferred control of the CSP from the police to the military. The CSP is by far the largest coast guard on the planet and its largest ships are the size of US guided missile cruisers. The CSP operates throughout the SCS and not just around Chinese made features conducting both traditional coast guard missions and para-military operations.
The PAFMM is a newer and less understood military component. They are almost unique in the world with the primary mission to engage in gray zone operations to frustrate effective response by the other parties involved. These vessels can be purpose built or much more frequently are reconfigured otherwise “civil” vessels. The PAFMM are widely seen participating in low-intensity coercion during maritime disputes including harassing or ramming vessels from other nations and even occupying disputed maritime features.
The PLARF controls Chinese tactical to strategic, conventional and nuclear, rockets and missiles. Doctrinally the PLARF conducts deterrence, compellence, and coercive operations. In the event that deterrence fails, the missions of a conventional missile strike campaign could include “launching firepower strikes against important targets in the enemy’s campaign and strategic deep areas.” including command centers, communications hubs, radar stations, guided missile positions, air force and naval facilities, transport and logistical facilities, fuel depots, electrical power centers, and aircraft carrier strike groups. Writers also stress that, “In all, Chinese military writings on conventional missile campaigns stress the importance of surprise and suggest a preference for preemptive strikes.” Preemptive missile strikes to initiate active hostilities are also consistent with China’s overall military strategy of “active defense.” Leaving aside strategic nuclear weapons, China has more conventional missiles than any other nation and is not signatory to the IMF. By being free of the IMF China is not constrained to distances and methods like the US (and Russia). The PLARF like the rest of the PLA believes that “quantity is a quality itself” and so their missiles are in greater numbers, shoot longer distances and with bigger warheads than other nations. Recently they have started fielding the DF-26 which can range Guam from the Chinese mainland with both conventional and nuclear warheads. The PLARF makes no bones about their possible targets since their interior China test range uses model US airfields, ships and ports for targeting.
It is useful to remember that the term “deterrence” is used differently by the US/West and China. To us “deterrence” means taking actions to prevent another party from taking an action. So actions taken to keep the peace. To the Chinese “deterrence” means the use of force to stop another party from continuing an action. This mismatch in definitions could lead to a dangerous situation.
The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is a relatively minor player in the SCS. They are undergoing a large scale modernization campaign. The PLA is also reducing in size as the other components are growing. Ground pounders are less of a player
The second player in the SCS is the Republic of China (aka Taiwan). Their armed forces are small in number and nowhere as modern as the PRC’s new equipment. Taiwan’s F-16’s are capable, but there are too few of them to make much difference. The Taiwanese most likely would try to sit out any SCS brouhaha that does not directly impact them since any active participation would invite a major PRC attack or an invasion of Taiwan.
The third major players are the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam. They have smaller militaries than China, but have intense economic interests in the SCS. None of them has the mass or modern enough equipment to take on a concerted PRC effort in the SCS. Vietnam has demonstrated a long history of challenging the PRC while the PI has weakened their opposition under Duerte. Despite winning their legal challenge the PI’s President has been very friendly with Xi and the PRC.
The fourth major player is the United States. Since our founding the United States has fought multiple wars over freedom of the seas, both declared and undeclared. We have naval forces and aircraft that operate within the SCS for freedom of navigation (FONOPS) and intelligence reasons. While we have no permanent military installations within the Philippines we do have Special Operations, Ground, Air and Maritime forces operating throughout the country on a regular basis. Our attack submarine force is very advanced, but the SCS is not a great operating area. We, and several other countries, conduct FONOPS around the multiple features and we have been known to send one or more complete Carrier Groups through the Formosa Strait to deliver a point.
These operations are not without risk. During the early days of the Bush the Younger administration, a P-3 and a Chinese J-8 bumped over the SCS. The J-8 was destroyed (the pilot died) and the P-3 made an emergency landing in the PRC on Hainan Island. After much brouhaha we got the crew back and eventually most of the P-3 shipped back in crates. More recently we had military aircraft, surface combat ships and support ships repeatedly harassed and threatened with unsafe maneuvers by Chinese aircraft and vessels. The latest that made the news was in October and involved the USS Decatur and a PLAN destroyer near Gaven Reefs which are claimed by Vietnam, China and the Philippines and are located approximately 1000km from China’s Hainan Island.
Gaven Reefs 2014 Construction
Gaven Reefs Recent
FONOPS also cause debate within the international defense community. Some regard FONOPS as too provocative, while others regard them as too timid. The two camps arguments can be summarized. The provocative camp says why twist the dragon’s tail and ruin negotiations? The too timid camp’s thrust is that 12 mile nautical free passage FONOPS are granting recognition for rights that don’t exist under international law. Therefore FONOPS undercut the correct legal position that the features are not islands so have no exclusionary or economic zones. Under this viewpoint we could sail as close as we want while conducting military operations and be fully lawful.
Other regional nations with a considerable interest in the SCS are Japan, Republic of Korea and Australia because of the importance of the SCS in trade and seaborne transportation. Japan is more concerned with their disputes with China over the East China Seas and islands. While the Japanese does have a Self Defense Force with modern equipment, the SCS is only a secondary issue until the Chinese shut free transit of vessels. The ROK concentrates on the Norks and their view of the SCS mirror Japans concerns. Australia sits outside the island chains and has more concern over free access and Chinese interests in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. (Say hello to the Guadalcanal Campaign V2.0?)
What does SCS playing board look like?
The SCS is a salt water sea bounded at the north by Taiwan, the south by the Strait of Malacca area the east by the “first island chain and on the west by mainland Asia. For an idea of scale the SCS, less the Gulf of Thailand, is roughly 1.4 times the size of the Mediterranean with China claiming sovereignty over almost the entire space. They are doing this through the “nine dash line” and construction. “The nine dash line” is the PRC’s claimed area of sovereignty and reaches throughout the SCS, at times encroaching on the 12 mile limits of the various states.
“The first island chain” stretches from the Japanese home islands, through the Ryukus (home of US military bases on Okinawa), Taiwan, the Philippines, Borneo and closing at the Strait of Malacca. The Chinese view this as “their” lake and their military publications stress the first island chain as the area it must secure and disable from American bases, aircraft and aircraft carrier groups. The PLA states that within this area it must be prepared to tactically unleash pre-emptive strikes against an enemy with the aim of sealing off the SCS and ECS.
“The second island chain” stretches through the Japanese home islands, the US territory of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and to New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. This is the area that the PRC wants to achieve maritime and air dominance over to provide a buffer zone for the SCS and mainland.
Sea lanes, fish and oil. These three things are a large part of the why the PRC and the neighboring nations are squabbling about the SCS. Fifty percent of all the oil shipped in the world transits the SCS; the bulk of the rest of the world’s maritime traffic moves through the SCS (the America’s), or the SCS and the Strait of Malacca to get to/from, India, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Over half of the planet’s population lives in nations near or adjacent to the SCS. The SCS is one of the last great fishing grounds so everybody is interested in this source of protein. And that brings us to oil. There are large known or suspected oil fields in the SCS and the nation that controls them will gain a regional advantage. By not having to bring oil from the far side of the planet makes this resource cheaper to use or sell.
SCS maritime trade routes and densities
The fisheries in the SCS provide ~12-14% of all the commercially caught fish on the planet. China harvests ~73% of all the fish they consume or sell from the SCS. If you buy Chinese seafood you have most probably consumed animals harvested from the SCS. While there is some oil production in the SCS the fisheries are the here and now reason why the Nations surrounding the SCS all are concerned about China’s claims.
Claimant EEZ 200 miles boundaries (blue) and Nine Hash Line (red)
Twelve and 200 nautical miles. International law states that a nation has sovereignty over large bodies of water out to 12 nautical miles. That means that they can regulate “innocent passage” and in some cases prohibit transit of vessels and aircraft which are not registered to that nation out to that distance. After that distance the water (and air above it) is open for the transit of any user, and for nation permitted commercial uses. So a Russian or Chinese “oceanic research vessel” with a forest of antennas can hover 13 miles off of Cape Cod or Los Angeles with no legal objection. By the same token a US Navy carrier strike group can transit the Formosa Strait between the PRC mainland coast and Taiwan. Commercial aviation also makes use of this legal principle all over the world. So a Singapore Air flight from Singapore to Tokyo can overflight the SCS seeking without permission of anybody except for Japan. There are some exceptions to this law. Where there is less than 12 nautical miles the border is equidistant. For bays and gulfs the rules are a bit more convoluted. Ronald Reagan and Qudafi famously disagreed about this point in the Gulf of Sidra.
Why do we care about 200 nautical miles? This is the exclusive economic zone for a country over salty water. Within that space a nation controls the use of natural resources above, in, and below the water. They may reserve it for their exclusive use or set up means to regulate persons from other nations to use it. This is why both the UK and Norway control only parts of the North Sea oil fields and there are no French platforms. Like the 12 mile limit, if there isn’t 200 miles between nations the zone boundaries meet at the midline.
Shoals, Rocks, Islands and manmade features. See the illustration. The key point being that features must be naturally occurring and not manmade. Manmade features receive no mileage around them. China is taking shoals and rocks and constructing large manmade features within the SCS then claiming the features as islands and hence that the 12 and 200 miles laws apply. The map shows China is claiming all the oil and fish within the Nine Dash Line in the SCS. China’s opinion is that has exclusive use to the natural resources and it can close the SCS to maritime and aerial traffic. This has gotten the neighbors, and others like the USA, concerned because of the economic and free trade impacts. To be clear the Chinese have not announced any maritime exclusion or air defense zones, yet. They have claimed an air defense identification zone a bit farther north over the East China Sea which the US ignores and has stated it will not comply with.
The Chinese efforts are not small scale. They have created multiple square miles of “land” replete with jet capable runways, multiple military radars, missile farms and supporting structures. More worrisome is that over the last half decade the pace and scope on construction steadily increases.
Mischief Reef
At first the Chinese claimed the features were to aid navigation and search and rescue, now they openly fly modern fighters in and out of them and increase their arming of the features by adding modern radar systems, as well as anti-ship and anti-aircraft weaponry.
SCS Spratly outposts and Slightly old Claimant EEZ 200 miles boundaries (blue) and Nine Hash Line (red)
The Chinese actions in the SCS started in 1974 when it seized the Vietnamese claimed Parcell Islands. This led to a long term feud which culminated in 1988 when the Chinese machine gunned and killed 72 Viet fisherman and sunk two boats at South Johnson Reef. China continues to dispute Vietnamese claims and has multiple steps top block fishing and drilling. The PRC has carefully watched the international scene and in 2012 started making their move. First they seized Scarborough Shoal from the PI. They watched what the US would do and when they saw acquiescence from the Obama administration they moved to the next phase to construct new features. Their main dredger (the Tianjing) can dredge and hose out 4,530 cubic meters of soil per hour. They first used it at South Johnson Reef where it created an 11 hectare “island” in less than four months. Again the US, ASEAN and the West took no action. The Chinese started building at an ever increasing pace and now have seven features in the SCS.
Now these features have port facilities, military buildings, radar and sensor installations, hardened shelters for missiles, logistical warehouses for fuel, water and ammunition. Most tellingly these features now have heavy transport and military jet capable runways and airstrips and the PRC has landed these aircraft on them. The international tribunal ruled against China actions in 2016 and China ignored the ruling, again without any cost. Now the PRC has expanded their control further by strong-arming the other SCS nations into suspending the exploitation of natural resources within their own 200 mile exclusive economic zones. The new USINDOPACOM Commander during his confirmation hearings told the US Senate that for all practical purposes the PRC had won the race to develop a military capacity on these features in the SCS and now the US needs to determine the next steps to take.
Still here, but we are in the countdown stage now. 10 days until the movers come and load up.
Why does it have to be one or the other? 
