Santa Barbara limo company A and J Limousine has a whole stable of vintage cars from the '30s and '40s, including classic Cadillacs, Studebakers and Packards, that you can hire for a day of wine touring in style--with a knowledgeable driver and guide of course. Check out the video below to get a good look at the vintage cars:
So, what are the advantages of renting a Santa Barbara wine tours limo when going on a wine tasting tour in SB’s beautiful Wine Country? Well, please allow me to start off my answer with an anecdote.
A couple of years ago, three generations of Hilton men: my father, son and I (no relation to the hotel Hiltons), went on a wine tasting tour in Santa Barbara’s Wine Country, located in the Santa Ynez Valley, in the mountains behind Santa Barbara city proper. We visited four tasting rooms in all.The first place we dropped in was Fess Parker Winery and Vineyard, on Foxen Canyon Road. It’s a beautiful place with expansive vineyards and a palatial tasting room, though rustic with its wooden beams and stone pillars–and of course there are coonskin caps in evidence since it was owned and established by the Fess Parker (who, sadly, passed away last year) of Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett fame. They make very good wine. As far as reds go, they’ve received high marks for both their Pinot Noirs and Syrahs, and when it comes to whites, they’ve won praise for their efforts with Chardonnay and Viognier.
We enjoyed tasting all of those varietals, at least I and my father did–my son was still in high school at the time. Actually, I ended up consuming a disproportionate amount of the pourings, as dad was the designated driver that day. He was sipping and spitting, and I was drinking down what was left in his glass, along with my samples of course.
Before departing, we enjoyed a lunch of sandwiches and sushi under the trees on Fess Parker Winery’s picnic tables before heading off to the next place, Alma Rosa Winery and Vineyards, which was the first winery Miles and Jack visited in the movie Sideways (they also stop in at Fess Parker, but the winery doesn’t come off well in the film). Alma Rosa has a wonderfully cozy and rustic tasting room where you can imbibe their lovingly made Burgundian varietals: Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, Pinot Gris and Pinot Blanc. Here too, I happily consumed the lion’s share of the libations.
We then moved on to Beckmen Vineyards, a small, family owned winery that happens to be set in one of the most picturesque locations in the Santa Barbara Wine Country and produces excellent Rhone style wines. With our routine now firmly established, I continued to gulp down mass quantities of wine–and enjoy it–but the subtleties of Rhone verses Burgundy style wines now escaped me. By this time it was basically all good. If it was alcoholic, made from grapes and could be poured in a glass, I was willing to drink it.
The last stop on our wine tasting tour was Mandolina in Solvang. According to their website, “Mandolina produces estate-grown Italian varietals including Pinot Grigio, Barbera, Nebbiolo, Moscato, Sangiovese, and ever popular Super-Tuscan blends of Bordeaux and Italian varietals.” I’m sure that’s true enough, but all I can really attest to is that they sure tasted good. What I do remember about this place is that not only the wine, but my mouth also began to runneth over. Before this I was not drunk or even tipsy, but at this last tasting room, though I didn’t get belligerent or make a scene or anything like that, my speech was not the clearest and I was definitely talking too much and probably too loudly–the type of behavior that would be completely acceptable in a bar, but very gauche in a tasting room.
The moral of this little anecdote is: there can be unforeseeable consequences to the designated driver system when going on a Santa Barbara wine tour. Not only is the driver unable to fully enjoy the experience, his traveling companion might get sloshed.
So, since the designated driver idea is a nonstarter, how is one to get from winery to winery when in the Santa Barbara Wine Country? Well, one option is the “Wine Line.”
The Wine Line is a shuttle service that runs on a loop, and you can hop off at the wineries you’d like to visit and hop back on when the van returns at 40 minute intervals. The Wine Line is not a bad option if you’re staying in Los Olivos. They do free pick ups there, and there are over 20 tasting rooms in Los Olivos itself, all within a 2 block radius of each other–many of them serving up excellent wine. From Los Olivos, you can hop on the wine line and hop off at your choice of 10 wineries on the Foxen Canyon Wine Trail.
The Wine Line is pretty convenient if you’re staying in Los Olivos, but at $80.00 per person (plus wine tasting fees–usually 10.00 a pop), it’s not particularly cheap and you are limited as to the geographical area and which particular wineries you can visit.
There are other options with tour companies operating out of Santa Barbara–everything from cycling or riding tours to jeep and limousine tours. To my mind, the best option is a Santa Barbara wine tours limo. Horses and jeeps sound like fun I guess, but it may not be a good idea to wine tasting with all that bouncing around. Besides, when you’re going wine tasting you really want to go in style. Also, limousines come in different shapes and sizes, so if your party is either small or large, there should be a vehicle to comfortably accommodate you. As for price, the service I recommend is A and J Limousine–they’re the most affordable in town, and they offer great personalized service.
Here’s one more option in a Santa Barbara wine tours limo: touring the Santa Barbara Wine Country in a vintage car:
Now, Ed Feulneur, the President of the ultra-conservative The Heritage Foundation, has written an article urging his "fellow consevatives" to hold their ground in the debt limit debate, using the same metaphor of Colonel Nicholson (whom he calls "an upright British colonel") as I did, but with the twist that Congressional Republicans should emulate the Colonel and blow up the bridge. He urges,
"It isn’t too late for us yet. Government spending is currently at 24.3 percent of GDP, and U.S. debt held by the public stands at 69.1 percent of GDP. This bridge needs to be stopped."
The problem with his reasoning is of course that raising the debt limit, of debt ceiling as it's also known, is really a mere formality. It has always been raised in the past because doing so does not mean increasing government spending, it means honoring the debts that the federal govenment has already incurred--not raising the debt ceiling is the same as openly declaring to the whole world that the US government is a deadbeat that doesn't pay its debts. In other words, it would be financial and economic suicide. In the video below, Lawrence O'Donnell gives his take on the situation:
Now, Ed Feulneur, the President of the ultra-conservative The Heritage Foundation, has written an article urging his "fellow consevatives" to hold their ground in the debt limit debate, using the same metaphor of Colonel Nicholson (whom he calls "an upright British colonel") as I did, but with the twist that Congressional Republicans should emulate the Colonel and blow up the bridge. He urges,
"It isn’t too late for us yet. Government spending is currently at 24.3 percent of GDP, and U.S. debt held by the public stands at 69.1 percent of GDP. This bridge needs to be stopped."
The problem with his reasoning is of course that raising the debt limit, of debt ceiling as it's also known, is really a mere formality. It has always been raised in the past because doing so does not mean increasing government spending, it means honoring the debts that the federal govenment has already incurred--not raising the debt ceiling is the same as openly declaring to the whole world that the US government is a deadbeat that doesn't pay its debts. In other words, it would be financial and economic suicide. In the video below, Lawrence O'Donnell gives his take on the situation:
This clip is so relevent right now. George Carlin saw how things work in America long before it got as obvious as it now is. Nowadays, it's hard to believe that a lot of people have not woken up to these facts.
Everytime I hear the Republicans talk economics I'm reminded of a character from the classic World War II movie Bridge on the River Kwai: Colonel Nicholson, the ranking officer of a group of P.O.W.s being held by the Japanese and forced to build a bridge for the Burma-Siam railway--brilliantly played by Alec Guinness.
The failure to realize the treasonous nature of their actions.
The idea that the Republicans have become fixated on is the very strange conviction that govenment spending is, in and of itself, bad. This has become unquestioned orthodoxy for many on the right. You can find plenty of anecdotal evidence of this by perusing blog comments across the political spectrum. You often come across comments something like this, "STOP THE SPENDING!!!" These comments are never qualified by specifics of a certain kind of spending (wasteful?/defense?), no, all govenment spending should unequivocally be stopped AT ONCE!!! (I'm sure these folks are just as unrestrained with their all caps and exclamation points when they write to their local govenment to complain about all of the pot holes in their city streets.)
It seems that the Republicans have started to believe their own propaganda. In fact, they'll come right out and admit as much. When confronted with the stunning failure of their economic policies, Republican leaders will get this strangely smug grin on their faces and say something insane like, "Well, but you see, we believe that cutting taxes increases tax revenues." They keep pushing the tenets of Reagonomics even though it's an economic theory that's been as thouroughly discredited as has communism.
Actually though, this thing about spending being an unequaled evil in and of itself comes from a conflation of Republican rhetoric and their dubious economic theories. There's an old line that the Republicans have used against the Democrats with great success: "He's a tax and spend Democrat."
This accusation is so ludicrous that I still can't believe anyone ever bought into it. That's a job description, not a reasonable condemnation. On the most basic level, what politicians are supposed to do is decide how best to spend the tax revenue that the government collects. But it worked very well on an emotional level, because we even the most patriotic among us hate paying taxes. By repeating this line over and over the Republicans were able to have government spending equated in the public's mind with taxes. So government spending has come to be associated with filling out your tax forms rather than the construction of roads and bridges, public education, clean water and national defense.
Now we've come to the point where the Republicans are threatening to use their mad equation of spending with all that is unholy to permanently hobble their own country's economy, and the Tea Party element in their ranks is eyeing that very prospect with unconcealed glee.
In the final scene of the Bridge on the River Kwai, Colonel Nicholson very nearly foils an attempt by British special forces to blow up his beloved bridge, but at the last moment, he comes to his senses saying, "What have I done? He is fatally wounded, but falls on the detonator and blows up the bridge himself.
The Republicans have gone just as insane as Colonel Nicholson, and I doubt that they will ever wake up to the treasonous nature of what they are doing. Hopefully, those of their number who are only pretending to be nuts will be able to prevent the truly crazy ones from blowing up our nation's economy. I don't think that I can sum up the situation any better than Major Clipton did, in the concluding line of Bridge on the River Kwai: "Madness! Madness!"
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's financial overhaul law is nearly a year old. For congressional Republicans, the fight to weaken it is just starting.
Wary of trying to repeal the entire statute and being portrayed as Wall Street's protectors – banks rank among the country's least popular institutions – GOP lawmakers are trying to nibble away at the behemoth measure. It's a crusade they've waged all year, despite lacking the White House and Senate control they need to prevail.
Days ago, one Republican-run House committee approved bills diluting parts of the law requiring reports on corporate salaries and exempting some investment advisers from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Another House panel voted to slice $200 million from Obama's $1.4 billion budget request for the SEC, which has a major enforcement role.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are continuing a procedural blockade that has helped prevent Obama from putting Elizabeth Warren or anyone else in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which opens its doors in two weeks.
The law hurts "the formation of capital, the cost of capital and access to capital, and you can't have capitalism without capital," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, a leader of the House Financial Services Committee. "So Republicans in the House will be examining each and every one of the 2,000-plus pages" of the law, which he called "a job creator's nightmare."
Confident that Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate can prevent the House from doing major damage, Democrats view the Republican drive as a political exercise – for now.
"It's mostly setting a marker for the election. And it helps with their campaign contributions," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who chaired the Financial Services Committee last year and was a chief author of the law. "But it also tells people in the financial community that if they win the next election, they'll be able to undo it all."
The financial industry leans Republican in its campaign contributions but not overwhelmingly. Sixty-one percent of the $9 million that commercial banks gave federal candidates for the 2010 elections went to Republicans, while 54 percent of the securities and investment industry's $9 million went to Democrats, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Democrats are using the GOP drive for their own fundraising.
In one email sent last week under Frank's name soliciting money for House candidates, the party wrote that Republicans want to "bring back the days of unrestrained excess, deception and de-regulation of Wall Street." The mailing called it "payback to their big contributors in the financial services industry."
Obama signed the banking and consumer protection measure last July 21, a keystone achievement that responded to the biggest financial crisis and most severe recession since the 1930s. It passed Congress with solid Democratic support and near-uniform GOP opposition.
Among its provisions, the law:
_ Created the consumer protection agency to oversee mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.
_ Established a body of regulators to scan the economy for threats to the financial system.
_ Required banks to hold back money for protection against losses.
_ Curbed the trading of derivatives, speculative investments partly blamed for the 2008 financial crisis.
_ Gave the Federal Reserve powers to oversee huge companies whose failures could jeopardize the entire financial system.
Yet the law was just a start, since it ordered federal agencies to craft rules to enforce it. As of July 1, out of an estimated 400 regulations to be written, 38 are complete. That leaves 362 proposed, facing a future deadline or having missed due dates for completion, according to the law firm Davis Polk.
Republicans say the overhaul went too far and has saddled banks and other companies with requirements that harm their competitiveness. The House Financial Services panel alone has held more than a dozen hearings on the law, in part to underscore to administration witnesses that some provisions – like forcing banks to hold back capital as a hedge against losses – will hurt business, according to the committee's chairman, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala.
"What we are doing is rational, it is sensible, it is entirely practical, it is compassionate," said Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-N.Y., a tea party-backed freshman on that panel. "So we are doing the right thing, and it behooves the Senate and the administration to follow suit."
The highest-profile fight has been over Warren, picked by Obama to set up the new consumer bureau. Many Democrats and liberal groups want her to become its first director.
Following a May clash between Warren and a House subcommittee chairman, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., plans to question the Harvard law professor and long-time consumer activist at a July 14 hearing about her role shaping the new agency.
Meanwhile, 44 GOP senators have promised to block a vote on any nominee unless the bureau is made "accountable to the American people" by replacing the director with a board of directors and giving Congress control over its budget. Forty-one senators can prevent a nomination from coming to a vote.
"You try to get leverage where you can. In the Senate, nominations are your leverage," said Mark A. Calabria, who monitors financial regulation at the conservative-leaning Cato Institute.
On another front, Republicans want to cut the budgets of agencies that are supposed to enforce the overhaul.
Besides denying the SEC extra money next year, the House Appropriations Committee would limit the consumer protection bureau to $200 million, well below the $329 million Obama wants. The full House has voted to hold the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees derivatives, to $171 million, short of this year's total and less than two-thirds of what Obama wanted.
Republicans cast the cuts as part of their deficit-cutting drive, but Democrats say the reductions are designed to obstruct the new law.
SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in a speech this spring that budget cuts would mean "an investor protection effort hobbled."
Au Bon Climat is not open to the public for tastings or tours. Check this area of our site for announcements of various tasting events, as well as the dates for our semi-Annual Open House events.
Held twice a year, the Au Bon Climat Open Houses provide visitors with the opportunity to come visit our winery facility, meet with our winemakers, sample all of our available wines and purchase wines directly from the winery.
