Thank you very much for leading me astray,,,!

There I am trying to stay on the path of righteousness, minding my own business and pretending to be careful with what I eat and, especially, my intake of drink, and YT decides out of the blue to have a birthday. In all honesty he has one every year, much like anyone else, but I am not going to allow that simple fact to detract from his role in my downfall. You see, as the sinister person that YT is, he doesn't stop there, but invites me and a small group of close friends to a celebratory dinner for his birthday not at home, as per usual (regular reader, you know all about that, don't you?), but at a favourite superb restaurant (a post on that to follow soon...). The bonus there is, of course, that YT is allowed to bring his own wines so that we are not only in for a rare treat of drinking stuff ordinary mortals can only dream about, but doomed to overconsumption. And before you start lecturing me, clever clogs, let me see YOU being abstemious when jewels of the wine world are set in from of you; if you are, you are fools and not worth talking to in any case!

We kicked off with a 2007 Sancerre from Cottat. Now many wine guides (and some 'experts'...) will tell you how Sancerre should be young and fresh to  best portray the vibrant aromas typical of the area and Sauvignon Blanc - when you are talking about serious growers in my not so humble opinion this is nonsense, I'm afraid, as their wine is complete and able to age with panache. Our wine was young-looking and not only subtly full of the typical aromas of cat's pee and gooseberries, it was also fresh as anything, stylish and elegant. On the palate this was a vibrant Sancerre, complex and very long, showing the European style that makes New World Sauvignon Blanc seem far too brash and obvious - this was class in a glass.

I'm being quiet about the food that we enjoyed, as there will be a separate post on the restaurant to follow, but YT is a fiend for matching wine to food, far more meticulous and exacting than I could or would ever be, but supremely good at it as well. All you need to know for now, dear reader, is that the wines perfectly complemented and augmented the food presented to us; everything was consumed with gusto!

You know the old saying: if it talks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck? Well, our second wine was like a Vin Jaune, made exactly in the Vin Jaune style and adhering to all the rules but, alas, made just outside the Vin Jaune Appellation area so not entitled to the name... Well, screw that, this was a wonderful wine, sort of dried apricot essence, no sweetness, long, complex, delightful and full of character, needing no-one's official approval to be wonderful. Not a Vin Jaune, but as good as any V.J., so, so gluggable and old world quaint. This 2002 gem was a last bottle, but I'm keeping the grower's name a secret so you eager beavers don't all rush out and buy his wine, pushing prices up; as a diligent sort of chap, though, I reserve the right to reveal all at a later, more confusing date.

Mas de Daumas Gassac is an amazing property in the south of France, in an area (the Languedoc) that not that long ago was not considered capable of making great wines but was thought of as a bulk wine source and little else. This domaine was created out of nothing by its owners in the 1970's and with vision, good judgement, lots of luck and great advice, has become one of the leading estates of this part of France, if not the world. This is family-owned, passion-driven wine, not your market-led nonsense, and its quality is quite staggering. It may lack the sheer finesse of great Burgundies or Bordeaux but the red 2001we had is a grand wine indeed, primarily Cabernet Sauvignon (around 80% give or take) but with a special Languedoc character. Jammier, riper than Bordeaux reds, this is full of sour cherry and strawberry fruit, ripe and complex on nose and palate, explosively expressive yet classy, long and impressive. A great wine created from nothing in a decent but previously 'second rate' area through love, application and patience - wow!

Marc de Bourgogne is rarely anything but special, and in the hands of passionate people it's entrancing. While Fine de Bourgogne has the edge on finesse and, ultimately, can be a class above, the marc can be great, especially when coming from the right 'home' and aged for a while. That tempter YT would, of course, only serve superb aged Marc de Bourgogne 2012 from the hands of Sophie Guillemot-Michel - the daughter of a small, biodynamic domaine in the Maconnais, she has made the distillate side her own and, if this one was anything to go by, she should keep on doing this. Her clean, stylish marc had no hard edges, its hints of caramel and alcohol well balanced, giving us not only a lot of pleasure but allowing us to rap up the meal and enjoy the closing espresso in superb style.

I overindulged by official standards (units of alcohol etc.), of course I did, but I blame YT for putting all that temptation in front of me - how could I resist? Whilst I can feel your sympathy for my ordeal growing by the minute - you are kind, dear reader - please focus on this : I have just had another memorable evening spent with good food, great wines, splendid company - there exists for me no better combination to add texture (he-he!) to my life.

I drink, you're a drunk, they are alcoholics

Recently I mentioned that I cannot imagine my life without wine, as it provides me with variations of taste and texture to every meal, giving colour to food and, thus, to life. It is easy to go on about the smells and tastes of different wines, from the humble 'jug' examples to the exalted bottles of fine wine; a living thing, wine DOES provide all that if we just stop to look. And then there's the alcohol...

Many of us like drinking wine for the taste, with the 'buzz' an added - and not always welcome - factor. Others find the taste indifferent, but the 'buzz' is their motivation and wine, despite being slower to provide it than spirits, can be consumed in some quantity with limited immediate consequences and, as importantly, less social condemnation. Are they all alcoholics?

Yes and no is my honest response. Anyone whose first thought (more or less) on waking is to rediscover last night's 'buzz' probably is. Certainly anyone who is unable to get through a day without a glass (or six) of something, has no alcohol-free days (and is unable to so do) and needs the alcohol as a crutch to face other people/life is a good candidate for being a typical alcoholic.

But I feel we sometimes allow ourselves to slip into the constant drinking mode without having the underlying need, simply because it makes for a pleasant lifestyle full of 'happy' days. We may start from a position of strength, feeling like masters, on top, in control; if we allow ourselves to relax too much and for too long, however, we may well end up servants, under the cosh, even out of control. Then the problems start, though we may not recognise them as such immediately and fail to react. It is possible to step back, but it is not easy. And the looming abyss has a way of appearing ever so seductive...

Yet wine, when approached with care and respect, is a wonderful thing! The complex aromas, the many different tastes, the way it can express or complement a mood, accompany food, complete a meal, make wine a truly unique and wonderful thing. Furthermore, most people involved in the production of wine are committed, passionate people who love their product, respect the earth that nurtures it and want their customers to appreciate their 'love-child' - but not excessively. Wine is more often than not their life, and they put their heart and soul into making it to enrich yours, not to dominate or annihilate you.

Respect is a word often bandied about far too casually these days, but respect wine, get to love it and it will love you back, giving you lots and lots of pleasure. My personal experience is that it keeps on giving to me in so many ways, for which I am hugely grateful, but allows me to keep my distance when I want to; long may this wonderful relationship continue!

Great little wines, great little evening

As far as I'm concerned, wine is the answer; the question hardly concerns me. I cannot conceive of my life without the enrichment that wine brings to every meal, adding colour, smell, taste and texture (pace, Yanni!). Nothing else comes close to allowing a meal to reach its full potential, and that is not to factor in the alcoholic effects, welcome or not as they may be. My loyal reader will know that my current circumstances limit me from too many independent wine explorations aside from the occasional trade tasting, so that invitations by friends to dinner with interesting wine are welcome and always gratefully received.

The YT/MT duo are also well known to my loyal reader, as they - most generous of hosts - regularly invite small groups of friends to their flat for a glass (or three...) and a bite, many of these occasions reported to you faithfully by yours truly. The food is invariably excellent, be it simple or elaborate, and the wine is always ultra-gluggable but also often challenging, rare and interesting to any oenophile (and yes, if there was a sexual angle to our love of wine we would be called oenerasts NOT oenophiles). So they, two other friends and I were at their place yesterday evening to taste, eat, discuss, remember, enjoy.

We kicked off the evening with a splendid old white wine from the Jura region of France - a 2002 Cotes du Jura Chardonnay from top producer Ganevat. The normal cuvee - Ganevat has an old vine version as well - this was as fresh as anything, its golden colour the only hint of its great age.

Our next wine was an even bigger surprise, a 2003 red from ET (no, not that one, Austrian grower Ernst Triebaumer) single vineyard (Mariental) and a single grape variety (Blaufrankisch - blue- Frankish) popular in Central Europe but of rather obscure lineage. Very old vines, a very specific microclimate and poor limestone soil combine with expert winemaking and passion to make an amazing wine - at 15 years of age it showed little signs of ageing either in the colour or the substance. What a wine: concentrated red fruit aromas, mainly of strawberry and sour cherry, chunky yet complex, bursting with fruit but maybe just a touch short. If I'd encountered this in a blind tasting I would have been totally lost!

The next wine was a 2004 Barolo Bussia from Parusso, traditionally a big, big wine. Our bottle, however, was evolved and lighter in colour, which to my mind made it far more sensual and complex than some Barolos, perhaps younger, I have tasted in the past. This was full of juicy red fruit, delicate tannins and good balance, warmth, and more a charm than a power wine.

And for dessert an amazing 2007 Riesling eiswein (ice wine) from Dr. Deinhard, deliciously luscious, sort of liquid lychees, juicy and complex. Eiswein is something rare - the grapes are picked late and frosty - and the wines are always concentrated, sweet and never cheap to produce, a product of passion, not balance sheet. I've never come across one I didn't like!

The food was an accompaniment, simple and scrumptious. We started with a few slices of Bresaola and lightly smoked venison (from the Czech Republic) with a red cabbage salad, simplicity and yet perfection on a plate. The main course was vegetable lasagne with fresh pasta and an amazing homemade tomato sauce - were I not already overweight and pretty full I could happily have eaten all of it.

The conversation? Great, fuelled by great food, lovely wine and friendship! Is there anything better?

What was that question?

Do you know who I am?

Anyone who lives in or spends anytime in Greece and understands the language will have seen at one time or another, possibly often, an irate person demanding of one or many around him 'Do you know who I am?'; this is not an existential question, born from uncertainty and angst, but a ludicrous assertion of perceived status.

My first response to the question would be 'and who might yourself be, then?', closely followed by 'well if you don't know, I'm not sure I could shed light on the matter...'; I have now reached my final offering, along the lines of 'if you need to ask, mate, you are of no account, no account at all'.

Though the ancient Greeks invented the concept of Aristocracy (or perhaps just gave an existing practice a name, write in dear reader and tell me if you have facts on this to impart), the rule of the best, the excellent - not, it should be noted, creating a hereditary privilege based on perceived 'breeding', as degraded in the West later - modern Greece has singularly failed to live up to it. Of course modern Greece is a young country not even two hundred years old, so the social structure is not sufficiently developed compared to other, older European nations; the area's four hundred years under the yoke of the Ottoman Empire imposed its preferred structure anyway, limiting local individuality. Furthermore, successive governments have sought to undermine any sort of 'Establishment' (and established values) for political gain, thus undermining the stability of any social structure that does not help them achieve and maintain their goals.

Obviously the 'Do you know who I am?' demand is not a phenomenon restricted to Greece, with many less-developed countries having similar versions. The reason why it is so surprising when encountered in Greece, especially in a big city like Athens, is that the country gives a particularly good impression of being civilised, westernised and modern, while at the same time maintaining habits encountered in its eastern neighbours.

Pompous, silly people do, clearly, exist everywhere irrespective of the level of civilisation around them, as the infamous orange person shows. They are usually the newly rich and privileged, demanding from those around them what they see as their due and behaving in a way that they think is how people of serious social standing should behave, unwittingly thus giving themselves away. In Greece, however, it goes way beyond that - almost everyone perceives his status as far more important than what is obvious to the naked eye. This is partly why few Greeks make good waiters, a job perceived as demeaning and often done grudgingly - I may be serving you now because I deign to do this job, but I am at least as good as you if not better. Indeed when the late Andreas Papandreou, socialist Prime Minister in the 1980s and 1990s, wanted to illustrate a level to which Greeks would not sink declared 'we will not become the waiters of Europe' and sabotaged investment in tourism to avoid it. This was a strategic mistake that the country is paying for still, but that is a story for another day.

Back to our little man - and it is, sadly, mainly men who adopt this pose - who is offended by something or someone, feels belittled, needs to impose his perceived status, to show everyone that he is worthy of respect, but no-one pays him the attention he feels he deserves. A deep breath taken, he stretches to his full height and intones: 'do you know who I am?'

He feels better, strong; he's shown the world that he is someone. Alas he doesn't realise that he has just pigeon-holed himself, and not in the way he thinks he has.

Ship of Fools

Not that long ago I wrote about the Greek government, its handling of the economy  and its efforts to create growth again after at least a decade (more or less, depending on the numbers you choose to trust) in the doldrums. I described them, including everyone from the Prime Minister Mr. Tsipras down, quite politely I thought, as clueless. This was for the following simple reasons:

1. The financial meltdown has been borne largely by the private sector, with countless businesses being forced to close and their proprietors, usually through little fault of their own, bearing the cost - with homes being lost, mountains of debt assumed to cover not only the cost of closing down but ever-increasing taxation of one form or another, reputations and lives left in tatters.
2. Through the inept handling of the crisis, successive governments (yes, previous governments bear some of the blame but this one has proven to be a master of idiocy and ineptitude, partly because of dogmatic political affiliations) took the easy, somewhat medieval in approach, route of taxing private enterprise heavily to shore up the failing treasury, leaving both companies and most beleaguered owners perilously short of liquidity. An informed schoolkid could tell you, Mr. Tsakalotos, why this is unsustainable.
3. Growth that is real, sustainable and better than short-term can only come from the private sector, something which has been proven time and again throughout the world. This does not mean an unregulated free-for-all 'market', but it does mean that a robust, creative, FUNCTIONING private sector is needed.
4. An over-regulated, expensive to run private sector is not made more efficient and productive by more regulation, higher costs, new encumbrances. The KISS principle applies to this as to most everything in life - keep it simple, stupid! - but that, I fear, would tread on toes that are 'sacred' in one way or another.

So when ministers come out and announce their blueprint for growth which includes higher basic wages, new collective bargaining agreements and various other measures to boost employees welfare they are putting, quite literally, the cart before the horse. These things can and should, perhaps, happen (I believe the Greek labour market is already over-regulated, badly, with selective enforcement having different aims for those involved) when an economy is buzzing along happily and producing results. They should never, NEVER be imposed on an economy trying to recover from a long crisis.

Then this Minister for Employment, Social Security and Social Cohesion (itself a wonderfully b/s title), a person with an apparently excellent law degree but minuscule work experience, holds a press conference announcing all these wonderful measures and claims they are going to benefit the majority of Greeks as higher basic wages will mean more money in the actual economy being spent, meaning happy faces all around as this new money trickles down in this spending frenzy. Where the money to pay for increased salaries/taxes etc. will come from in an economy starved of liquidity, she seems strangely unconcerned. Whilst I would respectfully accept that you do not get a doctorate in Law anywhere in the world by being an idiot, no worldly experience and rigid ideological allegiances can do it for you every time.

My criticism is not about politics, though, but about practicalities - I would have been prepared to laud and salute the SYRIZA-ANEL governments of Mr. Tsipras and his cohorts if they had produced any real results out on the street, any real opportunity for growth - despite the fact that I have never been a communist support in my life. Instead, this mob is trying hard to convince me that they are, despite any education they may possess (and some actually do), absolute fools.

For Greece's sake I would love to be proven wrong.

Ghosts, and other creatures in my life

Let me start by saying that I am indebted to Ian Rankin for, not only the immense pleasure his books have given me over the years, but his concept of ghosts surrounding his main character, John Rebus. As Rebus gets older his private moments are more and more dominated by the 'presence' of people who have been part of his life but are alive no more, to the point where he finds it difficult to get a peaceful night's sleep in his bed but sleeps in an armchair instead. While not quite at this Rebus stage yet, I find that my life is very much populated by my ghosts, all the wonderful people who were important to me in one way or another but are no longer physically present.

I dare say that Rankin's concept is not necessarily original - I would think that many others have expounded on this over the years in one form or another and I have missed it - but it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, as his writing has made it accessible to me. Philosophers, no doubt, have grappled with similar concepts, as have the believers of the supernatural; alas I am not among them. The original source doesn't worry me, the concept itself, though, I find absorbing.

Like the fictitious Rebus I am no longer young and have lived an active life. Many, many people have played important roles, some unknowingly, but have now gone forever, existing in my mind as my ghosts. To some I owe debts of gratitude, to others apologies, but to all I am forever indebted for enriching my life, which is why they are often on my mind. Unlike Rebus I have little guilt, hardly life and death stuff, so there is little torment other than light self-flagellation, wishing I had been able to have been a better friend/son/lover, always there in the right way when needed.

As life takes its natural toll my ghostly community increases by the day and not just by people of previous generations - only a couple of weeks ago I lost two friends suddenly and in rapid succession, leaving me shocked and upset, a tad lonelier. One was a classmate from school, a successful actor, fit and healthy, the other an ex-supplier slightly younger than me; both died suddenly.

Lots of my favourite authors have also died, taking with them their creations. These creations had become part of my life, 'friends' to me in a strange but real sort of way, as I patiently waited for our next meeting; now with many of them that can only take place in my head (or in the future...???), as they have accompanied their creator down to Hades.

My ghosts are with me as I write this, with me as I go to bed, more lively at night but never absent during the day. My life, my ghosts.

Making mistakes

The saying goes that 'the only person not to make a mistake is the one that never does anything' and I must admit that I fully agree with it. If this is an example of popular wisdom then I appear to be in support of it, something that in general I'm not famous for. Over the years I have found most of the various sayings attributed to popular wisdom to be either fatuous or downright ridiculous - please don't write in, dear reader, with what you consider sparklingly clear and true examples - and so have not been a fan. Forget that.

There are no infallible people in this world, none, however wise they may happen to be. Nobody knows what the right thing to do is all the time and about everything, much as we like to think otherwise. The only all-knowing - and, consequently, all-powerful - people exist in popular fiction, whether in novels or films; it is always compelling stuff, watching these people control the world around us. Alas it is also untrue and fairly easy to debunk with a bit of research.

Mistakes will be made, but they are acceptable provided our decision-making is based on rational thought, even a deep instinct, and is not purely a matter of whimsy. We must seek to avoid mistakes, yes, but not be afraid of them - should be treating them as learning experiences. We must also not be casual about accepting them constantly because 'we're human, and we all make mistakes'; one doesn't need super intelligence to see that this is a cop out. Be rigorous in trying to avoid them, be equally rigorous in analysing and trying to learn from them.

The people who claim - on whatever stage, public and grand or humble and private - that they never make mistakes are always, ALWAYS being dishonest with others and, probably, with themselves as well. Their usual tactic in order to promote this image is to trumpet every correct action and be deathly quiet about the failures, thus building the desired reputation in the eyes of others. This image and accompanying reputation does not bear close scrutiny, as it is based on perception that is itself created by falsehoods.

Luck is also a factor in life, whether we like it or not, and whilst we should not be reliant on it for our success it may always play a part in it or, indeed, our failure. Timing, the single most important determining factor in the success of everything, is more often than not down to luck, even when we insist on believing otherwise; this does not mean that we should not consider options carefully, giving them serious thought, before deciding to do something.

Looking back on life - mine and others - I can see many mistakes, including some that (with hindsight at least) could have been avoided. Even when I feel I would do things differently given the chance, knowing what I do now, I would still run the risk of making perhaps other mistakes and, therefore, I could still be creative and adventurous, if well researched, in my approach. Certainty when regarding future events is a myth, so we shouldn't allow ourselves to be seduced by its siren calls; the unexpected could always be around the corner. Sometimes we will be able to cope with it when it occurs, others perhaps not, and that is just the way life is.

We need to do our best, thinking things through and trying our hardest, but mistakes will still be made and, unless they involve wanton carelessness, there should be no shame attached. We then have to face and correct them, accept and walk away from them or, hopefully rarely, tell ourselves they haven't happened and ignore them, which is surely less than fruitful. Our mistakes are part of us, to be acknowledged, considered, even cherished. By pretending they do not exist we are poorer.