Sonoita/Elgin wine area coming of age.

For years, Callaghan Vineyards has been in a league of its own in the Sonoita AVA and perhaps in all of Arizona, producing wines to rival those of California, Oregon, and anyplace else. I dropped in to taste at a few wineries yesterday following a hike near Patagonia and found that things have changed; the Wilhelm Family Vineyards wines impressed me, and I'm not easily impressed by wineries. Their specialty is Albariño, from which they produce a very well-structured white, and they also make a heavily extracted but food-friendly oak-aged Sangiovese. Most of what is produced is labeled "Hawk's Flight" as it's made from sourced fruit. The first estate wines will be released later in the year; given the capability and good taste shown by the winemaker, I have high expectations.

Village of Elgin Winery, too, has quite a bit to offer--and probably the only bargains in the area--buried in its Chinese restaurant menu-like list of wines. Skip the sweet tourist fare and go for their dry reds made from Italian varietals and the perfect Spanish-style rosé.


An interview with Mike Ross, some semi-novel remarks on the budget crisis, and a report on the latest sure-winner lawsuit against Sheriff Joe (hatin' on spics brown people is expensive!) to follow in the next few days. Expect one of those three by the end of Sunday. And as soon as I get his permissions issues settled--does Gmail eat Blogger.com e-mails?--there should be a second co-'blogger.

Criminality of CCW permit holders

Via Arizona's Dave Hardy, an update on CCW in Texas. No surprises: CCW permit holders are far less likely to engage in violent crime or burglary than the rest of the populace.

Arizona doesn't provide a similar breakdown. It should. But is there any reason to believe Arizona's concealed carriers to be more criminal than Texas's?

More on Fan Cans

The Desert Lamp has done a fairly thorough roundup of "Fan Can" news. Notably, Becky Pallack, 'blogging for the Daily Star, heard from Budweiser distributor Golden Eagle that not selling UA "Fan Cans" was a "business decision".

Interesting. There'd probably be more demand for this than for blue, white, and tan cans in Provo (I'm picturing Jim McMahon in the commercial...) but not enough to justify whatever costs in storage, retailer shelf space, and goodness knows what else--I don't know a thing about the macrobrau distributor business!--offering yet another permutation of the famous acetaldehyde-flavored rice brew would entail. I presume that that, and not avoiding being the subject of pseudo-moral grandstanding from Robert Shelton, is the reason for the decision.

On that subject: is there any reason to believe that administration grandstanding makes students less likely to consume? Less likely to consume to excess? The way I see it, responsible position-taking on matters of institutional or public policy entails considering whether or not one can reasonably believe one's preferred policy to be effective. There may be good or at least respectable reasons for administrators of a public university to choose ineffective policy. (Some of my readers may be thinking "principle", but saying that one is doing something "on principle" is saying that one is doing it "just because". I'm thinking more about signaling.) If it's not expected to be effective, one must also consider whether or not it will make things worse. Signs point to "yes" here--today's Daily Wildcat reports at least two cases of extreme intoxication resulting from different instances of clandestine, anti-social drinking. Not taking a hardline position on alcohol consumption by 17-20 year olds would put the administration in a far better position to promote socially normal and responsible drinking behavior. And the signaling to our knuckle-dragging black-and-white-worldview legislature and the public that elects them shouldn't be as problematic as it would be if Shelton and Co. grew spines and took an independent stand. They need only engage in me-too-ism and sign on to the Amethyst Initiative.

This actually gives me a good angle for a Sheriff Joe post I'm expecting to have up within the next day or two...

McArdle on firearms at protests

If you think that his position on healthcare changes the likelihood that he will discharge that weapon, is this a rational belief?

Megan McArdle writes sensibly about open carry at protests, ultimately deciding that the practice is wrongheaded albeit harmless.

On the same topic, it turns out that the AR-15 was part of an Ernie Hancock publicity stunt. (Hancock is the paleocon who runs Freedom's Phoenix. Hat tip on this one goes to Mike Ross.) No demonstration like this is not centrally organized--it turns out that the Left has actually been paying people to work the demonstrations!--but to reveal such an act as "staged" is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Raise "tuition" without raising tuition--just don't mention the acetaldehyde

Actually, now that I think about it, if the acetaldehyde is mentioned it'll be lost on the victims of my scheme, anyway.

The Desert Lamp has resumed, perhaps with the application of a bit of tequila to the flickering wick; among the several topics covered are colored beer cans.

Evan Lisull's most recent post discusses a Federal Trade Commission objection to, of all things, colored beer cans. Anheuser Busch/InBev has been packaging Bud Light in cans with color schemes matching those of the U.S.'s biggest party schools state megauniversities.

The FTC and many colleges have objected, claiming that this may somehow encourage more underage drinking to take place--as though an 18 year old will think harder before he has the regular Bud Light than the one in University of Arizona blue and red--and might be construed as University endorsement of the product. The University of Arizona has been silent on the matter.

They should embrace it and even go one farther: license the "A" logo or the silly Wildcat thing, and charge a per-can royalty.

I'm guessing that the Bud Light drinkers, especially the ones who'd be more inclined to drink it because of the logo, overlap considerably with those who moan--and hop buses to the Capitol en masse to moan--about tuition fee increases (how dare they charge me more for this private good?) even as the State faces extreme shortfalls. I'm fairly certain they're also the ones who shout "ow!" at random on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights, who blast stereos from their cars, who pile five at a time into trucks and harass pedestrians, and who generally lower both the University's prestige and, more importantly, the quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood by others.

Bud Light licensing, like a surcharge for the most obnoxious students. Fair enough, right?

That's not a bug, that's a feature.

The East Valley Tribune recently concluded a reasonably good three-part investigative feature on Arizona's tuition tax credit scheme.

For those who don't remember, Arizona doesn't give a parent tax credit for those sending their kids to private school. But it does give tax credits to donors to "School Tuition Organizations" which then give "scholarships" to students attending private school. It actually forbids parents to make "donations" to their own children or any specific children.

The Trib's findings: Schools "highly encouraged" parents of enrolled children to make contributions restricted to benefiting their school and to recruit others to do the same.

Did anyone not see that coming? Parents, faced with having to make double payments for education (one for their kids via tuition fees and another for everyone else's via taxes) work with schools and STOs to find a way to some temporary and incomplete relief, and it's treated as a surprise? Come on, quit being so naive. And quit treating this behavior as corruption--that's as ridiculous as complaining about illegal aliens giving fake SSNs to employers. The law forces people to act like schemers in their search for simple fair treatment.

My recommendation is the same as it has been since I launched this 'blog: eliminate the STO program and establish an individual tax credit, which provides dollar-for-dollar tax relief, capped per child at the amount the State spends per pupil, for parents, grandparents, godparents, aunts and uncles, neighbors, or anyone else who pays the private-school expenses for a particular child.