David Coffaro Vineyard
          and Winery Winemaker's Diary

arrow May 19 - May 25, 2013

Sunday May 19, 2013 

I have been having a debate with a friend about how our US Government is doing. I see today Barack Obama's approval rating is up to 53%. This friend I will call "D" rates him maybe as low as 10%. He claims on some issues Barack Obama is worse than George Bush. Let me set you straight: D is a liberal Democrat who maybe has never voted for a Republican. He feels our Government is invading our privacy in too many ways. I have told him I have nothing to hide and within 100 years we will not be able to hide almost anything. Just think about fingerprint identification. The next Smart Phones will have the capability to have you touch your finger on your phone before you may use it, thus prevent anyone else to use it. What about Google Glass, have most of you heard of that? There are at least too places that have banned these wearable devices which can take constant videos or pictures of anyone around them without their knowledge. Below is an interesting link that my good friend "D" sent me.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/plenty-hide

Then here is this presented by "D", from http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/:
  • Every so often, you hear the argument “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, in order to justify increased and invasive surveillance. This argument is not only dangerous, but dishonest and cowardly, too.
  • In the comments to yesterday’s post about Sweden’s DNA register, some expressed the “nothing to hide” argument – that efficiency of law enforcement should always be an overriding factor in any society-building, usually expressed as “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. This is a very dangerous mindset. The argument is frequently raised in debates by pro-big brother hawks, and doing so is dangerous, cowardly, and dishonest.
  • There are at least four good reasons to reject this argument solidly and uncompromisingly: The rules may change, it’s not you who determine if you’re guilty, laws must be broken for society to progress, and privacy is a basic human need.
  • Let’s look at these in detail. They go from the less important and more obvious, to the less obvious and more important.
  • One – The rules may change: Once the invasive surveillance is in place to enforce rules that you agree with, the rule set that is being enforced could change in ways that you don’t agree with at all – but then, it is too late to protest the surveillance. For example, you may agree to cameras in every home to prevent domestic violence (“and domestic violence only”) – but the next day, a new political force in power could decide that homosexuality will again be illegal, and they will use the existing home cameras to enforce their new rules. Any surveillance must be regarded in terms of how it can be abused by a worse power than today’s.
  • Two – It’s not you who determine if you have something to fear: You may consider yourself law-abidingly white as snow, and it won’t matter a bit. What does matter is whether you set off the red flags in the mostly-automated surveillance, where bureaucrats look at your life in microscopic detail through a long paper tube to search for patterns. When you stop your car at the main prostitution street for two hours every Friday night, the Social Services Authority will draw certain conclusions from that data point, and won’t care about the fact that you help your elderly grandmother – who lives there – with her weekly groceries. When you frequently stop at a certain bar on your way driving home from work, the Department of Driving Licenses will draw certain conclusions as to your eligibility for future driving licenses – regardless of the fact that you think they serve the world’s best reindeer meatballs in that bar, and never had had a single beer there. People will stop thinking in terms of what is legal, and start acting in self-censorship to avoid being red-flagged, out of pure self-preservation. (It doesn’t matter that somebody in the right might possibly and eventually be cleared – after having been investigated for six months, you will have lost both custody of your children, your job, and possibly your home.)
  • Two and a half – Point two assumes that the surveillance even has correct data, which it has been proven time and again to frequently not have.
  • Three – Laws must be broken for society to progress: A society which can enforce all of its laws will stop dead in its tracks. The mindset of “rounding up criminals is good for society” is a very dangerous one, for in hindsight, it may turn out that the criminals were the ones in the moral right. Less than a human lifetime ago, if you were born a homosexual, you were criminal from birth. If today’s surveillance level had existed in the 1950s and 60s, the lobby groups for sexual equality could never have formed; it would have been just a matter of rounding up the organized criminals (“and who could possibly object to fighting organized crime?”). If today’s surveillance level had existed in the 1950s and 60s, homosexuality would still be illegal and homosexual people would be criminals by birth. It is an absolute necessity to be able to break unjust laws for society to progress and question its own values, in order to learn from mistakes and move on as a society.
  • Four – Privacy is a basic human need: Implying that only the dishonest people have need of any privacy ignores a basic property of the human psyche, and sends a creepy message of strong discomfort. We have a fundamental need for privacy. I lock the door when I go to the men’s room, despite the fact that nothing secret happens in there: I just want to keep that activity to myself, I have a fundamental need to do so, and any society must respect that fundamental need for privacy. In every society that doesn’t, citizens have responded with subterfuge and created their own private areas out of reach of the governmental surveillance, not because they are criminal, but because doing so is a fundamental human need.
  • Finally, it could be noted that this argument is also commonly used by the authorities themselves to promote surveillance and censorship, while rejecting transparency and free speech. Those who want to have a little fun can play the reverse card as illustrated by Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.
  • The next time you hear anybody say “if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide”, tell them that’s an absolutely false and dangerous argument, and point them at this article.
I really feel most of these are very hypothetical examples and I feel paranoia is rampant in people who are stating these examples of civil liberty and privacy issues. We still have our constitution. These examples above are false in many ways. I really don't believe, in except for very rare times, these things happen in The U.S.A. Call me naive, but I will stay here and not fear that my privacy will be invaded in the wrong way. I trust my government to get it right In The End even Though I think many people in control are incompetent, corrupt and out to get us.

Let me state a little experience I had last night and this morning which is somewhat related to this subject:

I was out in my vineyard yesterday at 6:00Am to put a fine mist of sulfur dust on the vines to prevent Powdery Mildew......SO I was bounced around a lot on the tractor and my back was hurting and I was very tired when Pat and I headed out last night to a close friend's 60th birthday party. I was very grouchy because the party was set to start at 7:00Pm way past my cocktail time of 5 to 5:30. I sure needed a tequila but decided to get there earlier and have a glass of Sauv Blanc because the restaurant was 35 miles away. We arrived at 6:20 and I had a few glasses of wine before dinner which was served at a very disappointing time of 10 minutes to 9:00Pm. I had another glass of wine at dinner but had nothing to drink after that. We were on the road home by 10:30. Pat and I had a discussion about the new Fiesta I purchased. I looked at the miles and was happy to see 5,600. I said to Pat, I had the car for a year now and that was low mileage. She said she thought I bought it in the Fall. I said I did not think so and said I thought I purchased it in April or May.

I headed home cautiously. I knew if I was stopped and had a urine test I would not pass but after an hour and a half I might be able to pass a Breathalyzer. I set the speed control at 62 in a 65 mile zone so I had nothing to fear but something maybe to hide. I made it home with no trouble BUT in the middle of the night I woke up and thought about when I purchased the Fiesta. If it was in April, my license would have expired and I could have been stopped by a cop for a small reason but could have developed into a big problem. I got up this morning and saw my license on the back of the car expires in September. For a change I was so happy Pat was right. The bottom line is I should not have been driving after drinking, especially 35 miles from my home. My friend was worth the risk, because I have never been stopped by the government while driving under the influence. I rarely do it anymore.

Monday May 20, 2013

I know I will die or just disappear from this earth. Before i go I want people to remember me.

Now that could be how I did not capitalize the "i" in the last sentence. As I write this diary, I know I make mistakes but I am a horrible typest so I want to just drive a long, that could be making typografical mistakes, so be it........

Remembering me could be something I said to offend them which is more what I say, but not do. some who have heard me know i can be gruff. Some of you have heard me on this diary know I can be gentle and caring. As i said before a few people came by for my 70th birthday and I was honored. Two who were not there passed away within the last two weeks.

CK as we called him was the most important person in my life in the 80's besides Pat and of course my two daughters in 1985 and 1987 after he appeared in my life. He was right up there....... when he hired Pat at a raise in salary to steal her away from another attorney. I was so happy because I was barely getting by running the vineyard. Pat was paying for almost everything and our grape sales to Gallo were fair I thought but only paid for our debt service. CK was gruff like me and helped me strive to be what I have now. CK passed away and I am saddened but I will never forget him and that is what I think life is about. There is no God who looks after us but we are God and influence others who follow us. Thank you CK.

Gallo got caught up in the White Zin craze and the price of Zinfandel went up from $400 a ton to $1000 by 1990. CK lost Pat so she could take care of Kate and Susie and i had a little money from grape sales to start a winery in 2004.

Just last night I learned about Harry passing away. Harry and Loretta provided most of our solar here at the winery. I donated some wine to a Barack Obama gathering near here in Windsor WAY back in 2008. I heard from Loretta the next week that she loved my wine, even though I was not there. Loretta and Harry joined my new wine club started around that time so they are one our first customers. Harry was so much fun and could be so friendly. He came in my office one day when the only time I could look at a Raider game was on my computer by sound. It was live so I could not record it. Harry wanted to know how I was doing.....harry wanted to know how the Solar was doing.....Harry wanted to just sit and talk to me.......I wanted to tell him to go away and probably implied it BUT Harry stuck around for awhile and I have never forgot it That Harry was a trusting, nice guy and I will miss him. I wish I had met him 30 years ago...................I am crying now.........

We need to make an impression while we are here.........  

9:00 Pm: We are so happy that we are easily getting ready for our bottling at the beginning of July. The 2012 wines are fabulous and I can't wait to try some in the bottle.

It has been a hard day. I got little sleep last night, I have heard to day and before today that some people I hear from are not as concerned about someones death. We die and the survivors go on, I know that but i do not believe there is life after death. I understand some people think there is a life after death, and i have respect for it.

I stopped believing in GOD and then after that when I realized there was no Heaven either. I was 10 when my father died of an accident and my mother then married another man. He was a tough Navy survivor from the 2nd World War and told us every night. We did not get along for most of my time with Larry. That is when I knew there was no Heaven.....would my Mother be united with both my Father and Larry. At 12 years old I asked that question and no one gave me an answer.

Like I have said I believe as most of you we remember people who have died by the way they made an impression on us whether good or bad.......I remember Larry, good and bad........impression is good, it keeps me alive........

Tuesday May 21, 2013

The first day after Taurus

My two daughters, Kate and Susie will join Pat and I in New Orleans, I hate planes so I have been on two only in the last 15 years. I went up to Seattle a few years ago and it took us two hours to obtain a simple car request we had booked a head of time. Then three years ago Pat convinced me to take a trip to Hawaii, one of  my favorite places from the past. When I came back on the plane it was raining so the Captain was making a joke, obviously not making me happy......"It is raining right now in San Francisco so if we have to make an emergency landing don't try to take off your baggage in your compartment". I was not happy I had no baggage, carry on. I hate plane flights so I am not looking forward to the flight to New Orleans but i do know I will enjoy the food,,,,,,,,,,if i survive the flight......

Saturday May 25, 2013

Pat is away attending Giants baseball. It has been interesting to see how many customers have an opinion of our 2010 wines. I have tasted many other wines from other winemakers who have produced wines from this most challenging vintage. I still think the 2010 vintage will be unique and some of the wines I have created will be the best I have done.

The character of all the Zinfandel based wines from 2010 were very different than any of my 34 years growing gapes and making wine from each vintage..........all have been unique but the 2010 vintage was extremely complicated. All the 2010 zinfandel bunches turned to raisins and thus created a strange flavor that is extremely intense. Either you like it or not. At first I did not like any of the zinfandel wines produced by my winery or any of the wines produced by other wineries. Some of the wines have come around and I am enjoying them with highly seasoned food. These wines will stand up to anything.

Many of our customers feel like I do about 2010 Zinfandel based wines and they do not like the wines. I have had several customers say the wines are spoiled. They are not spoiled. They just need a lot more time to show their best. They are extremely high in acid so I have several customers who love them. Since we are sold out of many of them, it has been fun to take from the customers who do not like the wines and give to the customers who enjoy them. Like I have said, I can't please everyone. In the 2012 vintage, I may have no trouble pleasing all. Time will tell.



For any comments or questions I encourage any of you to e-mail.....david@coffaro.com

Dave


Home | Read | Diary | Tell Us What You Think of Our Diary | Last Week | Next Week