Thursday, July 14, 2011

Writer asks, "So what if Paul Ryan drank a $350 bottle of wine?"

By now you’ve probably heard that Congressman Paul Ryan drank some pricy wines at a Washington, DC restaurant last week and was confronted by another diner who thought it was hypocritical of him to be enjoying such extravagance while pushing draconian budget cuts. Amid all the back-and-forth about Ryan’s big night out, not much has been said about the wine at the center of this kerfuffle, other than the fact that it was expensive.

More: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2011/07/12/so_what_if_paul_ryan_drank_a_350_bottle_of_wine_.html

My Old Man --- the same crusty coal miner who distrusted Republicans (he could remember Herbert Hoover) --- kept a gallon of Gallo red under the sink. It was good enough for him, and it's good enough for me:


I'll drink to that!

Does alcohol really kill brain cells?

By Jim Castagnera

Catholic guilt ... that's what it was all about when I was growing up in a German-American parish in Jim Thorpe, Pa.

Believe me, it was scary. If you choked on the first bite of a hamburger on a Friday, you went straight to hell. Girls who hid pictures of Bobby Rydell in their purses were tramps by definition. A "C" in obedience or self-control on your report card meant a slap in the face from the parish priest in front of your entire class. At age 11, I missed Anthony Quinn in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", because I had to sit home that night and write 500 times, "I will not talk when Father Adolph is in the classroom".

Worst of all, though, was the news - first delivered in high school by a portly nun, who I suspect enjoyed her port-ly wine after school back in the convent - that "every sip of alcohol kills a million brain cells".

This news flash didn't stop me from guzzling my share of beer as a college fraternity member a few years later. But the notion gnawed at the back of my brain, regardless of whether the alcohol was gnawing away in there, too.

Over the years, and now (heaven help me) the decades, I've encountered this dire warning again and again. Drinking buddies have mouthed with cavalier aplomb, "I'm not killing brain cells. I'm just pruning to allow for new growth". Ha, ha, we replied with uneasy snickers.

Sometimes it seemed to me that Mother Nature's message - like that stout old nun's - was, "If it's fun, it'll probably kill you".

No longer! The latest news from our nation's laboratories has been nothing but good.

For instance, a team of scientists at the University of North Carolina has demonstrated that alcoholic mice, having been forced to go cold turkey, experienced a burst of brand-new brain cells. I'll bet they stopped tripping over their own tails, too.

Other researchers have demonstrated that moderate consumption of alcohol results in better thinking, reasoning and memory skills than tea-totaling.

What, then, about some immoderate consumption?

Well, Hemingway, Faulkner and Fitzgerald all wrote some great stuff under the influence. Of course, Hemingway also shot himself. But, hey, no pain, no gain. Or, if you prefer: no bottle, no genie.

Some scientists actually counted the number of neurons inside the heads of alcoholics and non-alcoholics - after they were dead, I assume - and found that there was no real difference.

This terrific news doesn't solve all my "Catholic guilt" problems, of course. I can't look at one of those Internet porno sites without expecting my eyeballs to roll onto the floor. It's hard to see the screen with my head tilted way back, and holding the monitor overhead makes my arms really tired.

I also feel guilty when I stub my toe, while answering a late-night call of nature, and forget to shout, "Oh, fudge".

Still, as I grow older, I have learned to count life's little blessings. That I can drink my cheap red wine without worrying that it is making me any dumber than old age acting on its own ... well, let's just say, I'll drink to that.

Jim Castagnera is an attorney and a journalist who lives and writes in Havertown.

***********************************************************************************************
The issue I see it is this: If the Wall Street financier mentioned in this article paid for Bryan's wine... at that price, isn't it kind of a... well, a bribe? I've known government employees who wouldn't let me buy them a cup of coffee. So what was this all about? Access?
***********************************************************************************************

Here are the restrictions imposed on executive branch employees:

Gifts From Outside Sources

Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Generally they may not accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from certain interested sources ("prohibited sources"). Prohibited sources include persons (or an organization made up of such persons) who --

* are seeking official action by, are doing business or seeking to do business with, or are regulated by the employee's agency, or
* have interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee's official duties.

In addition, an employee can never solicit or coerce the offering of a gift, or accept a gift in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. Nor can an employee accept gifts so frequently that a reasonable person might think that the employee was using public office for private gain.

There are a number of exceptions to the ban on gifts from outside sources. These allow an employee to accept --

* a gift valued at $20 or less, provided that the total value of gifts from the same person is not more than $50 in a calendar year
* a gift motivated solely by a family relationship or personal friendship
* a gift based on an employee's or his spouse's outside business or employment relationships, including a gift customarily provided by a prospective employer as part of bona fide employment discussions
* a gift provided in connection with certain political activities
* gifts of free attendance at certain widely attended gatherings, provided that the agency has determined that attendance is in the interest of the agency
* modest refreshments (such as coffee and donuts), greeting cards, plaques and other items of little intrinsic value
* discounts available to the public or to all Government employees, rewards and prizes connected to competitions open to the general public.

There are other exceptions, including exceptions for awards and honorary degrees, certain discounts and other benefits, attendance at certain social events, and meals, refreshments and entertainment in foreign countries.

These exceptions are subject to some limitations on their use. For example, an employee can never solicit or coerce the offering of a gift. Nor can an employee use exceptions to accept gifts on such a frequent basis that a reasonable person would believe that the employee was using public office for private gain.

If an employee has received a gift that cannot be accepted, the employee may return the gift or pay its market value. If the gift is perishable (e.g. a fruit basket or flowers) and it is not practical to return it, the gift may, with approval, be given to charity or shared in the office.

Reference: 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.201-205.
http://www.usoge.gov/common_ethics_issues/gifts_outside_sources.aspx

Gee, isn't a Congressman a public employee? And doesn't he wield a bit more power and influence than your average DC bureaucrat? So shouldn't he be even more squeaky clean than that functionary?

***********************************************************************************************
I do like this comment from the Slate.com article:

All that said, I think this is one of the more asinine controversies we’ve seen in a while, which is saying something. I’m not a fan of Ryan or his plan, but the guy was entitled to have a private dinner with some friends and not be harassed about the choice of wines. Moreover, I fail to understand how this episode reveals Ryan to be a fraud. If anything, it seems perfectly consistent with his public policy aims. Were the Ryan plan enacted, its biggest beneficiaries would be wealthy people like Asness, who’d be left with even more disposable income with which to buy vacation homes, fancy cars, and overpriced Burgundies.

Amen, Bro'... enough said, I guess.

No comments:

Post a Comment