Inside UDJ by Editor K.C. Meadows

Hello to blog readers!. As you know, the blog has been down a couple of weeks and the problem was simple. Being somewhat inexperienced in these things I let the domain name lapse and had to get help scrambling to get it back and get the site back up. Won't do that again.
Anyway, I am on vacation right now and writing this from Fresno California where the weather is sunny and cold. Reading past issues of UDJ I have to say I was surprised and disappointed to see that Dennis Kucinich canceled his trip to Ukiah. I know that his local supporters were very excited about it. And then his wife canceled too. Certainly no one thinks the votes in Ukiah are important enough to matter to Kucinich - or his wife - but when you have a center of real support as he does here, you should reward that support. And certainly not make a commitment you can't fulfill. Not to mention all those local restaurants that hoped to see him and the many customers they'd have had that night. I guess now I'm curious to know exactly which votes he had to be in Washington to cast that were so critical. Having worked many years in the House of Representatives myself, I know that congresspeople often use voting as the excuse to get out of things they don't want to do. I like Kucinich and don't want to assume he'd be less than anxious to fulfill this promised trip but you have to wonder....

On another topic, I am hoping people are out there are signing the Restore Mendocino/Repeal Measure G petitions to the Board of Supervisors. The day after our first editorial introducing the campaign appeared I got two angry calls from people in Laytonville who did not identify themselves and who I assume are marijuana growers, haranguing me. One insisted that Measure G had been passed by 82 percent of the voters, (it was 58 percent) the other said that marijuana growing was his right under the law and there was no way Measure G would be reversed in this county. Since I have been out of the office since Dec. 14, I have not been on the scene to keep up with the calls or emails on the subject but I know people are contacting all the supervisors about this. Keep it up folks!

Posted by K.C. at 09:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I got an email from a fellow who lives on Feliz Creek Road in Hopland who is having a terrible time with AT&T phone service and wonders if others on that road or in Hopland (or any other area in our rural valley) are having similar problems. Maybe if this is more widespread we can do something about it. Here's what he wrote;
"Beginning this fall with the first rainstorm we develop such static during heavy rains on our ground phone line that both our phone and computer line become non-usable. Since we have our phone service with MCI we must first contact them for reporting a problem. At that time MCI puts you through this lengthy question and answer problem solving to make sure that the problem is not in one's own residence. Then MCI conducts an on-line check somehow. Then they call you back and tell you the AT&T will have a repair person out one XX day.... can you be there? Put your dogs away! etc. (this all takes time)
"We have done this 4 times now. Each time, by the time the AT&T repair person shows up it has stopped raining and the problem has cleared up. (It usually clears up within 30 minutes after the rain stops). We have had a range of repair technicians ...from novice to experienced. The novice guy, would not listen to our theory that it is rain-related, replaced our connections box (which is always dry) and totally screwed up our two line connections. The second guy spent two hours repairing what the first guy screwed up.
"The third repairman showed up and I met him to explain the problem. Once I told him he said that he had just left our neighbor's place ...and that they continually had service calls out the Feliz Creek line. He said that each time they check to insure that the problem is not in the residence ....and they essentially know and report that the problem is in the mainline. He chose not to even look at our box as he knew that is was not the problem. However, he says that AT&T refuses to address the problem, which would mean replacing segments of the main line, because it is too costly compared to the number of customers out Feliz Creek Road. This repair person said that the problem will continue each time it rains (from a probably squirrel damage on the main line somewhere) and that all we can do is keep calling it in.
"We now have a fourth call in for a repair person who is supposed to show up tomorrow ...for the same old song-and-dance. Of course the connection is fine now that the rains have subsided.
"I am very concerned about the problem in case there is an emergency ...such as fire or medical. We do not get cell phone reception at our house so we rely on the land-line."

Does this sound familiar to you? Anyone out there work from AT&T who could shed some light on the problems?

Posted by K.C. at 01:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Mendocino County wines improved their rankings in the San Francisco Chronicle's 100 Top Wines in 2007 but only slightly and I think they're still way underrepresented on the list. This year eight Mendocino County wines made the list compared to six in 2006. Last year five whites and one red - an Anderson Valley pinot noir - made the list.
This year, five whites and two reds and one dessert wine made the list. All the whites are from Anderson Valley. They are:
Handley Cellars 2003 Estate Brut Rosé
Roederer's 2000 L'hermitage Brut
Roederer's non-vintage Brut Rosé
Esterlina's Cole Ranch Reisling
Navarro's 2006 Estate Dry Gerwurztraminer
In the reds category two Mendocino County wines made the Top 100:
Drew Fog Eater 2005 Anderson Valley Pinot Noir
Naughty Boy 2004 Potter Valley Pinot Noir
In the dessert category, the Lolonis 2002 Eugenia Late Harvest Redwood Valley Sauvignon Blanc made the list.
To my mind there are two categories where Mendocino County wines ought to be tops and got no recognition at all: zinfandel and "other reds and blends."
Inland Mendocino County's zins are among the best anywhere I believe and how we did not make the list there I can't imagine. Also the Mendocino County Coro program which produces a dozen fine red blends from a dozen fine winemakers also didn't show up on the list.
Does this mean our winemakers simply aren't submitting wines for this competition? Maybe the new Winegrapes and Wine Commission can do something about that next year.
I know a lot of winemakers say they don't bother with these kinds of competitions or any competitions - let the wines speak for themselves and all that - but when the San Francisco Chronicle puts out a list like this just before Christmas, it seems to me that there are a lot of people who are going to look for these wines.

Posted by K.C. at 09:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)