What, they don't have to put nutrition information on wine?

116. That's all I'm going to say. I'm ALMOST back to where I was at the end of last week.

So I went to the fridge to check and see whether the two (well, REALLY only one and a half) glasses of wine did it. And -- no nutrition information. Say what? So the FDA requires detailed information about vitamins, minerals, calories, and fat on milk and juice, but not the nectar of my life? That doesn't seem right. Other food warns you that it will make your ass fat. Why not wine?

[Trusty internet search.]

"In contrast with most foods and beverages, regulations in the U.S. and most other countries do not require wine producers to disclose ingredient or nutritional labeling on wine, and the industry has strongly resisted any legislative efforts to change that." Wonder why? Because each glass has about 100 calories and no redeeming qualities. Other than the fact that it makes you feel so darn good if you consume enough empty calories. I've been meaning to invent a wine that is good for you. (Originally, I just wanted to add bacon. You could put a strip in the bottle like a tequila worm. How cool would that be? "Put some pig in your pinot!") I bet if you added vitamins A & D and maybe threw in E and wrote "contains antioxidants" in big letters, it'd sell like, well, wine. Even if it wasn't that great. At least in California.

So in the end, I guess you CAN'T have that second glass of wine if you worked out. Double darn -- I thought there was maybe a loop hole. Well, I promised myself less sucking today and so far it isn't working out. Gotta go eat a pound of oatmeal and then try to walk it off.