Is ‘Australian Wine Snob’ an Oxymoron?

This is without doubt The. Most. Gozno. Episode. Ever.

This week “Lucretia” (“That’s DoctorLucretia to you, kiddo!”) and I put down our whisky and take up Australian red wines instead (with brief consideration about whether the banana daiquiri represented the nadir of the West during the Cold War), as we range from Hegel to Snoop Dogg (“That’s Mister Dogg to you, kiddo!”), from cyber espionage to cork versus screw-cap wine bottle coverings, from Mark Twain to Kurt Vonnegut, from folky Phil Ochs to punky Jello Biafra, with a side of Wagner and Roger Scruton (“That’s Sir Roger Scruton to you, kiddo!”), all overlaid with commentary from Monty Python.

Above all, we finally get to our long-promised (or threatened?) seminar on how snobbery is the formal core of modern liberalism, because how could you not after the "Dr. Jill issue" blew up sky high. The metaphysical roots of liberal snobbery is much worse than wine snobbery, for certain.

One avenue into the depths of this is introduced with this astounding proposal from "anti-racist" Ibram Kendi a few months back:

“To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.”

The presumptions embedded in this statement are breathtaking, and all the more astounding given than it never even occurs to leftists why there might be anything defective about such a presumption. The side of history, and all that.

We may need to stick with Australian red wines for several more episodes, but let is know if you want us to go back to single malt whisky.