meloncholy? maybe a little. illness in the immediate family will do that to you.
and cold. in san diego, of all places: cold. the winds have died down a bit; earlier sustained winds at the airport were 24mph, gusts up to 30, both higher four blocks from the ocean where i live. my feet are cold. my feet! wearing thick-ish socks, and slippers, no less.
preparing a training for homeless youths on how to do legal research. give them the tools to rise up.
all sorts of super extra special commentary may be due, but at the end of a week of a cold/flu-like thing, and the only thing that worked to calm the coughing being copious alcohol, i need to sleep.
happy? heh.

Tom McClintock may be a freako wingnut, but I can't say he's not good for smart soundbites, such as this gem in the San Francisco Chronicle : "If Schwarzenegger's campaign spent a fraction of the time studying the issues as they have trying to muscle me out of the race, they'd be in better shape today," McClintock said.

Indeed.

Good article, once again in the Guardian (UK), on yesterday's protest at the San Diego/Tijuana border (which I acted as a National Lawyer's Guild legal observer for.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3144254,00.html
Why, again, is the only good coverage through foreign sources? (Since the domestic articles are, in a word, terrible:
www.nbcsandiego.com/news/2482162/detail.html ; and
www.kfmb.com/topstory18075.html [confidential to KFMB: Camino De La Plaza Road is redundant, and incorrect: 'Camino' means 'Road')

Finally! A nastygram which yields a quick and good response. Well, it really wasn't a nasty nastygram at all. Maybe that has something to do with it? Nah...

From: "curt [at] SelectSmart.com"
To: "dan gr"
Subject: Re: california recall selector
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:05:25 -0700

Dan,
We think you're right. We made some adjustments to the page. Namely, we disabled the priority function which seemed to the problem in your scores.
Geez...We'd hate to be responsible for putting Gary Coleman in office.
Curt
SelectSmart.com

BTW, no comment on whether I'm voting yes or no on the recall itself: I've gotta keep you in some suspense to make you come back here, right?

hmmmmm. SmartSelect.com's California Governor Recall Candidate Selector seems to suck. Below is the e-mail I just sent them; we'll see if they respond.

Incidentally, I'm going to vote for Peter Camejo . Hold your concerns about Camejo being a potential spoiler (ala Nader 2000); I don't vote for people who kill people -- ever. Therefore Cruz Bustamante simply cannot have my vote -- ever. Not only does he support state-sponsored murder, he also has godtalk prattle on his website, www.noonrecallyesonbustamante.com : "An opportunity for every person to make the most of their God-given talents."

Ironic domain name, that, since he's basically abandoned the "No on the recall" position. How about: www.whateveronrecallyesonmurder.com? I bet nobody has registered it yet -- move quick, Cruz!

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:56:33
From: [dangr]
Subject: Fwd: california recall selector
To: Manager {at} SelectSmart.com

Hello,

I just tried your recall candidate selector, and am pretty doubtful about the results it returned. Almost every single position Peter Camejo has, I support; almost every position Gary Coleman states, I oppose, yet Camejo is scored at 10%, and Coleman at 15%.

For example, I listed the death penalty as something my ideal candidate would fully oppose, and an issue of high importance for me;
yet, all the people who your system scored above 11% for me except Arianna Huffington support the death penalty.

I also disagree with almost everything Arnold Schwarzenegger says, and agree with almost everything Arianna Huffington says, yet they both rate 26%?

Below I've pasted in the results your system returned for me. I'd be happy to tell you how I answered the questions if you like. I'm
curious about why this came up like this, and would love a response.
Thanks!

-Dan

1. Gray Davis (41%) Click here for info
2. Cruz Bustamante (36%) Click here for info
3. Arianna Huffington (26%) Click here for info
4. Audie Bock (13%) Click here for info
5. Peter Camejo (10%) Click here for info
6. Peter Ueberroth (dropped out) (36%) Click here for info
7. Arnold Schwarzenegger (26%) Click here for info
8. Gary Coleman (15%) Click here for info
9. Mary Carey (10%) Click here for info
10. Bill Simon (dropped out) (9%) Click here for info
11. Tom McClintock (5%) Click here for info
12. Larry Flynt (3%) Click here for info
13. Angelyne (0%) Click here for info

WTO meetings update:
speaking of European newspapers, when was the last time you saw an American newspaper print a headline like this: "EU reneges on pledge to third world", an article like this, or a first paragraph like this?

The European commission was last night secretly preparing to sabotage plans to help poor countries trade their way out of poverty, as backstairs wrangling dominated the opening day of the World Trade Organisation's talks in Cancun, Mexico.

I've had no responses to the various nastygrams contained in previous posts here until today, when, almost a month after my message, I got this wholly inadequate response from United. (Reminder: I complained about their ending their partnership with Delta, thus limiting people's options in accrual and renewal of miles.) My favorite part is the nearly incomprehensible line "The mutual agreement to end the partnership was due to the respective alliance relationships both United and Delta have formed." (I provided the bolding.) Huh? What the hell does that mean?

My second favorite part is the "PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL" part which directs me that "If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. ..."
Fortunately for you and me, kind reader, I was indeed the intended recipient, and so my dissemination of it here is just peachy with Laura Marshall (and the legal department at United.)

And incidentally, my Mileage Plus number, which I did, indeed, provide to them, was sufficient to indicate that I am a "Premier" flyer for 2003, which, if you would've though it would result in a faster response than the one I got, well, we were both wrong. Without any further ado, then, here is the peice of crap they sent:

From: CustomerVoice@ual.com
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:53:49 -0500
Subject: RE: ending partnership with Delta
To: me@yahoo.com

Dear _________,

Thank you for contacting us about the discontinuation of the Delta partnership. I'm sorry that you were disappointed with the email
announcement. The mutual agreement to end the partnership was due to the respective alliance relationships both United and Delta have formed.

If you should have any additional questions about the partnership, you may contact our Mileage Plus Service Center staff directly by calling 1-800-421-4655. Or, you may email them from our Home Page under the ABOUT UNITED heading. Click "Contact United", "Email" and then "Mileage Plus" (found under the UNITED PRODUCTS and SERVICES heading). Please include your Mileage Plus membership number.

Your business is important to United and we look forward to the continued privilege of serving you.

Best Regards,

Laura Marshall
Customer Relations
United Airlines

**********************************************************************************************************
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
**********************************************************************************************************

Been a while -- been busy. Really.
Today's quote, thinking about the WTO meetings in Cancun: "The world we want is one where many worlds fit ..." -Subcomandante Marcos. See the Sup's communique in the Guardian (UK):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/article/0,2763,1039754,00.html
Now, why do ya suppose I couldn't find this republished in an American newspaper? And at that, certainly not the detailed coverage on the WTO meetings that the Guardian provides.
Another quote, from the communique: "We hope the death train of the World Trade Organisation will be derailed in Cancun and everywhere else."
Just in case that link above expires, you'll probably be able to find it on this Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN) page , although it may only be in Spanish.

KPBS "These Days" is talking about stuff. You know, why people collect it, and why this is good/bad/healthy/unhealthy.
(traffic-lane-flash: "westbound 8 at Hotel Circle: a box, and some glass, and all sorts of things.")
No responses to report to any of my missives or nastygrams of last week (Kahlua, California-ABC, Panda Express, etc.) I hate it when people don't respond to me.

...

today's yummy cheese of the day, with no consumer protection implications whatsoever: Mike's Beer Cheese: The new Stone 7th Anniversary Ale with Basil and Sun Dried Tomatoes; Stone Imperial Stout and Garlic; Stone Ruination IPA and Mustard; and Double Napalm Bastard. http://www.mikesbeercheese.com

Here's my complaint to Panda Express about their offensive advertising slogan: "Chinese for: yummy", which grates every time I hear it on San Diego radio stations. I contated them at:
http://www.pandaexpress.com/default.asp?nav=contact .
Your Comments were received successfully as follows:
Subject: Other
Comments: I write to express my dismay with your advertising slogan: "Chinese for: yummy", which I find offensive. I am aware that your corporation was founded and is apparently still operated by people of Chinese heritage, nevertheless, such crass sloganeering is typical of the American advertising industry''s lowest common denominator approach: anything for a laugh. I would love a response and explanation about how the company doesn''t think the slogan is demeaning. Thank you for your time. -[DG], San Diego, CA
Require a Response?: Yes

I'm hardly the first to complain about this, as can be seen at the 05.04.02 and 05.03.02 entires of Angry Asian Man's web page/blog . However, I still felt the need to complain, since it's not clear if Panda Express knows that people continue to find this slogan offensive.

Any my letter to Kahlua's US representative, listed on their website, Jack Shea, jack_shea@adsw.com:

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: proof changes in Kahlua
To: jack_shea@adsw.com

August 22, 2003

Jack Shea
Allied Domecq Spirits USA
355 Riverside Avenue
Westport, CT 06880
jack_shea@adsw.com

Subj: proof changes in Kahlua

Dear Mr Shea:

I write to inquire about the changes to the alcohol by volume (ABV) / proof changes in Kahlua’s main product, from 53 proof to 40 proof. Having been purchasing Kahlua for about 15 years, the change in the product’s alcohol content came as quite a surprise. Some questions:

1) Is this a change to be made in all states?
2) In what states has it already been made?
3) Will prices be going down for the lower proof beverage?
4) Will Kahlua publicize this change at any point?
5) When will the www.kahlua.com web site be updated to reflect the lowered proof?
6) Is this change to encourage purchase of the new, high-proof “Kahlua Especial” product?

I very much appreciate your attention to my inquiry, and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
my name and e-mail address included here

Here's the letter I just sent to California ABC on the Kahlua issue, with hyperlinks included for your browsing pleasure:

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Subject: question re: changes of proof
To: SDG.Direct@abc.ca.gov (California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, San Diego District Office)

Hello,

I write with a general inquiry, which may or may not evolve into a complaint -- my question is whether the below practices amount to anything which is complaint-worthy.

I've noticed recently that Kahlua has quietly changed the amount of alcohol in their standard distilled beverage. The change is significant: for as long as I can recall, it has been 26.5% alcohol by volume, 53 proof. Now, almost across the board, it seems to be changed to 20% ABV, 40 proof.

My concern is that this is being done quietly, apparently without any notice to the consumer of the change, yet the price for the beverage has remained constant. I have looked in various retailers, and none have posted any notices regarding the proof change.

Further, there is some significant inconsistency among retailers: For example, while most retailers are selling exclusively the new 40 proof Kahlua, some (e.g., Trader Joe's at 1092 University Ave in San Diego) are still selling the old product (as of 8/20/2003). Another example is that Costco (650 Gateway Center Drive in SD) is selling the new 40 proof Kahlua, but the boxes it's displayed in for browsing and purchase by consumers have the proof/ABV labelling blacked out in permanent marker (as of 8/17/2003). I've also seen some retailers selling various sized bottles of Kahlua, some 40 proof, some 53 proof. (I believe this was at Ralph's, the Sports Arena Blvd. location, but I cannot be positive when this was.)

The company's web site, www.kahlua.com, prominently represents their product as still being 26.5% ABV:

"©2003 Kahlúa® Liqueur, 26.5% alc./vol. (21% alc./vol. available only in Ohio)."

The only information I was able to find on proof changes in Kahlua is that, in the State of Washington, they had to apply to the ABC board for permission to change the proof:

http://www.liq.wa.gov/minutes/reg030205.asp
"Mr. Thompson recommended that the Board approve the suppliers’ request for these proof reductions and also Mr. Thompson stated that his division will post signage in our retail outlets notifying customers of the proof changes."

and in Montana, it was simply noted as something that was changing:

www.mt.gov/revenue/content/4forprofessionals/ 04liquorstore/i-newsletter_feb2003.pdf

I am unsure if any of these practices specifically violate California's ABC laws, but it certainly seems as though their change is misleading consumers, by failing to provide any acknowledgement of the change in proof/alcohol content, while all other labelling and price remain constant.

I would appreciate your position or thoughts on this matter. Please advise me if I need to provide any further information, or submit a more formal complaint or request for investigation, or direct this inquiry to a specific person or office. I would also be happy to provide information under penalty of perjury should that be necessary. Thank you.

Sincerely,
my name, e-mail, address, and phone here

Did I mention that I'm an attorney? (Licensed in Colorado, awaiting bar results in California.) I'm currently available for hire to write nastygrams: write to me at d j g 9 2 1 0 7 {at} yahoo . (Take out the spaces.) We can discuss specifics regarding your problem or situation.
This is not an offer to enter into a contractual relationship, nor is it to be construed or acted upon as legal advice.

Here's this morning's consumer protection project (in addition to the ongoing project of applying for work): finding an address for the California ABC to complain about the Kahlua issue.

Finally: a purpose. In discussion with friends and advisors, I've determined a useful and valuable role for this blog, a purpose which it had previously lacked. I'm going to publish my nastygrams here, in addition to other exploits for consumer protection.

Now, this cute little nickname ("nastygram") may make it sound worse than it is: these letters, print and e-mail, range from minor prods to get something done, to shrill screeds demanding action immediately. My friends know I'm famous for these. Here's the first installment, written to the local food co-op, regarding their recent, successful application to sell organic wine and beer.

August 21, 2003

Dear People’s:

We just picked up the August News, and both as beer aficionados and social justice advocates, we were extremely disappointed to read the general manager’s message, specifically the proud, almost righteous statement: “…and we have willingly agreed not to chill the beer and not to sell single cans.”

Objectively, good beer hates several things: light, heat, and fluctuating temperatures. Ultraviolet light, direct or indirect, leads to protein breakdown and ruins beer over time, rendering it what brewers call “lightstruck,” and what is more commonly referred to as “skunked.” Warm temperatures speed up oxidization (making beer taste stale or old), encourage yeast autolysis (decayed yeast, resulting in smells variously described as sulfur-like, burned rubber, soy sauce, Vegemite, etc.), and promote growth of microbiological contaminants (which can radically alter beer flavor, in bad, bad ways.) Additionally, fluctuating temperatures are terrible for beer storage, which is going to be a particular problem in a building which presumably isn’t temperature controlled overnight. These issues are especially true for craft beer and bottle-conditioned beer, sometimes called “live ale” or “real ale,” i.e., just the type we’d think People’s will be looking for. Most beer is best stored at “cellar temperatures,” or between 50 and 60 degrees, and refrigeration is hugely preferable to beer sitting on a shelf. Try this: call any brewer (organic, local, or other) and tell them you plan to store their product warm, on a shelf, exposed to light, and listen to them shudder. Happily agreeing to not chill beer is essentially agreeing to intentionally ruin a product.

All beer snobbery aside, however, what is vastly more disturbing is People’s participation in the penalization of poverty and homelessness. If we’re mistaken, please correct us, but let’s just put a fine point on it: refusing to refrigerate beer and sell single cans is directly designed to keep homeless and transient people from buying and consuming it, right? Let’s put aside, for the moment, the fact that not selling single cans is a meaningless gesture to placate and please state authorities, since it will be almost impossible to find organic beers in cans. It’s simpler than that: would you discourage a homeless person from coming in to the Co-op to buy an apple? Tofutti? A refrigerated fruit smoothie drink? It IS the same thing: you provide these for members and the general public to buy, and to righteously decline to do the same for beer for a particular marginalized population is reprehensible, and facilitates disgusting stereotypes of who is a valid customer, and who is not; and, by extension, who is a valid person, and who is not.

Please feel free to publish this letter in the News, to contact us directly to discuss it further, or both. Again, if we are mistaken about the reasons for willingly refusing to refrigerate beer or sell single cans, please correct us. As it stands, however, we are appalled by this decision, which we, as Co-op Members, are a part of.

[our names, signatures, e-mail, and phone here]

I've been thinking about how I could better use this space, and browsing through some other blogs for ideas. I think I've decided to just continue prattling however seems best at the moment of the prattle. Some blogs have some neat stuff, and observations, but it'd feel a little fake to me if I just up and changed the style and substance of this blog based on those observations. So, no big changes for now.

KPBS: "...blocked by a disabled vehicle. Apparently, it lost its tire, which was last seen bouncing around on the freeway..." Awesome.

Which spurs today's report from ther Grammar Police: its, it's, it is. It's a simple rule, really: its is the possessive form of it. It's is a contracted form of it is or it has. For examples, see Fowler's Modern English Usage (Rev. 3d ed. 1998):
its: ("The cat licked its paws")
it's: ("It's raining again")
it's: ("It has come")
Summary: if you are not using/contracting two words, don't put in a goddamn apostrophe: it's not needed.

1) shout out to j-ho, since s/he is the only person who reads this anyway: get yer ass down here. and call me.

2) got an e-mail response from fucking United, but only an automated mailer response. it encouraged me to call them if i was trying to change my travel plans, since due to the power outtage things were a little delayed. somehow i'm suspecting i'll get no response.

3) fucking Kahlua. looked in stores in Arizona this weekend, they are fucking around there too, selling the 40 proof stuff -- still no signage witnessed. two other observations: in Costco (in San Diego) found a big box of Kahlua 1.0 liter bottles where someone had taken a permanent marker to cross out the proof marking (advertising) on the outside of the boxes. so they know full well this is happening. and at Trader Joe's (also in San Diego) they have some 53 proof bottles sitting around, clearly old, given the noticable amounts of dust on them. i'm going to try to find an address to write to them and ask for some answers.

4) watched When Harry Met Sally last night on DVD, and was entertained. nothing too deep or moving in it, of course, but it's light and entertaining. and no, i'd never seen it before. (it's a rare, rare movie i'll bother watching twice.)

5) this morning's traffic reports included all manner of foreign objects in the roads, including another big rig which dumped animal poop all over the road, near Julian, a mountain community out in East County.

6) favorite sounds outside our studio apartment: a nearby intersection (well, two intersections, really) which features loud, screeching tires at least once daily, usually two to three times. they really, really need a stop sign, or signal, out at one of those intersections. people drive way, way too fast ont he street (well, all over california, of course) and one intersection is just below a hill, the other just past it, which eliminates most of the important lines of sight. lots of accidents there, according to the san diego police department's handy crime/incident mapping function: Crime & Disorder ;; Vehicle & Traffic ;; Arrests & Citations. i'm toying with the idea of trying to get a stop sign put in, but i don't know if it'll be worth the effort.

7) while wandering around on the san diego police department's website, i found some crime statistics, including those for our current neighborhood (OB: Ocean Beach) and one (NP: North Park) we are considering moving to next year. In July, here's what they say happened (I should note that I don't know how they define the neighborhoods, but North Park is potentially quite a bit larger than OB):
rape: OB: 0; NP: 2
armed robbery: OB: 2; NP: 5)
strong armed robbery: OB: 0; NP: 1
aggravated assault: OB: 3; NP: 15)
total violent crimes: OB: 5; NP: 23
residential burglary: OB: 8; NP: 16
commercial burglary: OB: -1; NP: 2 (no typo: OB is listed as having negative 1 commercial burglary: maybe someone gave some stuff back? =)
theft: OB: 43; NP: 66
vehicle theft: OB: 12; NP: 43
total property crimes: OB: 62; NP: 127

8) on a happier note, we had a lovely weekend hanging out with friends in Tucson, Arizona, possibly the loveliest place on earth, certainly in the Top 3 in america. love love love that desert heat.

Now, continuing my crusading on behalf of the American consumer:
To: customervoice@united.com
Subject: ending partnership with Delta

> United and Delta Air Lines recently announced an agreement
> to end their frequent flyer and lounge program partnerships.

Thanks, as always, for completely and totally failing to give me any pertinent details or worthwhile information whatsoever about why you are choosing to limit my options in acruing and redeeming miles, and thereby making United a less attractive choice for my flying. (Since, as you regularly remind me on board, I do have a choice when I fly.)

Would you like to provide any of that information now? For example: was it cost? Corporate/legal bickering? etc.

Please: do feel free to repspond.

-Dan Gr****
[United frequent flyer number provided here]

sa-phew! was volunteer grillalicious at the co-op picnic today. actually, just made corn, so it's difficult to claim real grillaliciousness status, but... i made a lot of BBQ'd corn. J hung out with the kiddies in the astrojump, probably more fun.

then we rode our bikes to MB, and back, after dipping in the slightly cool ocean.

major topic: THIS WEEK'S CONSUMER PROTECTION / ANTI-CORPORATE GOUGING rants:

okay. stop whatcher doin', cause i'm about to break a HUGE story here:

Kahlua is trying to screw us: out of alcohol.

here's how it goes down: last weekend, we drove to Tecate, Mexico, since we wanted an interesting day trip, but didn't want to deal with Tijuana. while there, we bought a liter (well, just sub-liter: 980ml) bottle of Kahlua, for the nice price of 90 pesos, or almost exactly USD$9.00 at current exchange rates. the alcohol content was the usual that one would expect, 26.5%, i.e., 53 proof. been buying this for years (since about 1993), and i am quite clear that it's always been 53 proof.

then the next day at Costco, to make myself feel even better about the great buy, i looked at the Kahlua liters (about $17, btw), and noticed, to my surprise, THAT IT WAS ONLY 20% ALCOHOL, and so ONLY 40 PROOF! thinking i must be losing my mind, i conferred with J, who also read the label as 20%/40 proof. my first sense thought was to wonder if Costco was just screwing us quietly, by negotiating directly with the manufacturer for a slightly-different-than-market-standard product, so they could sell it cheaper, and/or so it would be a one-off for Costco. (for example, they do this with the Leatherman Juice: they sell a model called the Juice Pro, a model which is unheard of on the Leatherman web site , but which falls somewhere near the KF4 and the XE6. well, they sell it for about $10 or $20 less than a comparable model at REI or a similar outdoor products store, but it's damn difficult to compare them side by side, unless you write down every feature of one tool at one store, and then go to the other store and compare side-by-side with the list on the other tool. i'm sure Costco does this with other items, but this is the one i know about for sure.

a worthwhile tangent on another set of retailers and manufacturers who are screwing us:
this, of course, is the same incredibly irritating tactic, which actually might be illegal, that Fry's, Best Buy, et al., employ to maintain their "110% price guarantee" bullshit. an example you want? sure: find me an emachines desktop computer called the T2484 other than at Best Buy. check, for instance, the emachines.com web site: you'll find a very comparable model, the T2482, for $499 without the monitor. well, we bought the T2484 for $499 with a nice 17" flat screen, but CRT, monitor), the CPU being identical except that it has a 2.4ghz Intel Celeron processor rather than the T2482's AMD Athlon XP 2400+ Processor (which actually runs at 2.0GHz, the misleading fuckers: i mean, come on, most computer buyers in this low range area are going to look at 2400 and assume it means 2.4GHz: it's stupid and misleading crap to have a model name which implies a speed which it DOESN'T ACTUALLY RUN AT.) and don't even get me started on these retailers being unable, and/or unwilling, to tell me the FSB (front side bus) speed of the computers they sell: while Best Buy tried to be helpful but ultimately failed to even look at their OWN WEB SITE, and Fry's was harried and basically made a guess that they represented as fact, the fucking CompUSA saleman LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH: i asked him about the FSB speed on two machines, a HP and a Compaq (yes, i know it's now the same manufacturer), and the lying son of a bitch told me the manufacturer didn't disclose this: didn't tell them, didn't publish it on their web site, didn't admit to it, period, in the low-end machines. long story short, he was lying, or spouting bullshit corporate policy, and it's why i'll never buy a computer from CompUSA, ever.

focus, focus!:
okay. when i go on these rants, i sometimes get a little lost. after noting that Costco does this with the Leatherman, and other retailers do it with computers, my point is this: i was thinking that, maybe, just maybe, it was unique to Costco. but no: i then checked at Von's (which, for non-southern californians, is Safeway's brand name store down here), and it was also 20%/40 proof. same at Ralph's. BUT NO SIGNS, ANYWHERE, ALERTING US TO THE FACT THEY HAVE CHANGED THE PROOF. goddamn cheats. lest you think this is all a figment of my admittedly vigorous imagination, check out this, the only indication i could find in extensive web searching, on the lowering of the proof in Kahlua: from the February 5, 2003, minutes of the Washington State Liquor Control Board:

Purchasing Services Division -- Potential Proof Reductions
Gary Thompson, Purchasing Deputy Director

The suppliers of the following brands are requesting that the Board approve proof reductions for their products. The new lower proof products will be the only proofs that will be produced and available to the Washington State Liquor Control Board.

Brand // Description // Original Proof // New Proof // Retail // Average Monthly Case Sales
067528 // Kahlua Coffee Liqueur, 1.75 L // 53 proof // 40 proof // $39.95 // 277
067526 // Kahlua Coffee Liqueur, 750 ml // 53 proof // 40 proof // $18.95 // 2212
067524 // Kahlua Coffee Liqueur, 375 ml // 53 proof // 40 proof // $9.95 // 295
067521 // Kahlua Coffee Liqueur, 50 ml // 53 proof // 40 proof // $2.00 // 103
... (other brands, including Captain Morgan Parrot Bay, deleted)

Mr. Thompson recommended that the Board approve the suppliers' request for these proof reductions and also Mr. Thompson stated that his division will post signage in our retail outlets notifying customers of the proof changes. (empahsis supplied, and tab delimitation substituted with "//" double slashes)

Board Member Ing moved for approval. Board Member Hoen seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

the above emphasis was supplied because it indicates that at least SOMEONE thought it important to disclose this to consumers. now, i'll admit that i just recently moved back to California from Colorado, but i look at beer and liquor prices in the store a lot (stop snickering, Howk!), including when i have come to visit family in california regularly in the last several years.

and note also that the Kahlua web site advertises their product as "©2003 Kahlua® Liqueur, 26.5% alc./vol. (21% alc./vol. available only in Ohio)." well, Toto, we're not in Ohio, and the Kahlua here in California doesn't have 26.5% alcohol.

PLEASE: tell me (and show me that) i'm paranoid, and we've always been cheated in California on our proof in Kahlua. tell me it's not about the fact that in the last year or so, Kahlua introduced Kahlua Especial, a 70 proof version, priced higher (and which tastes better, IMO.) and that the lowering the proof in the regular version isn't a two-pronged tactic to (1) get us to pay the same amoutn as always for something which cost less to produce, being more sugar and water and less alcohol, and (2) get those who notice to switch to Especial.

lacking information to the contrary, which i invite readers to provide me at d j g 9 2 1 6 7 AT yahooDOTcom, there is a rebuttable presumption that Kahlua is cheating us. anyone from Kahlua care to comment?

the bar, itself, was actually not so bad. i have no fucking idea whatsoever if i passed, of course, but it wasn't nearly as bad as i thought it would be. wanna know why i think the california bar passage rate is so much lower, on average, than other states? it's all about it being three days long. and if i might say so, it's totally unnecessary to have it be three days long. in three days in california, i answered 200 MBE questions, wrote six essays, and took two performance exams. in two days in colorado, i answered 200 MBE questions, wrote nine essays, and took one performance exam. uh, any meaningful difference?

anyway, all is well now, and within an hour of completing the damn thing i'd had two Belgian Abbey Red ales from a downtown brewpub called Karl Strauss, and then a non-alcoholic dinner at a fantastic vegetarian restaurant. lest you think the two beers wasn't much, there are about 8.4% alcohol each, and they were both 20 ounces.

now i wait. and read. and sleep. and eat normally. and poop normally.

oh! the Sea World fireworks are going off outside my window and deck! more soon.

6:30 in the morning. last day of the bar ahead. more essays and another performance test. i'm having a hard time seeing what about california's board of bar examiners, besides unrivaled arrogance, makes them think they need to stretch this crap out over three full days. i mean, i did this in colorado and, in two days, took the MBE, answered a bunch of essays, and took a performance test.

oh well, enough bitching. last day. time for some coffee.

good good good. feeling good! woke up this morning and had that old singing-in-the-shower, screaming, hooting, hollering, grabass, jumping up and down energy. feeling good. both feel fine about the MBE, having done it before, and better in general about the whole proposition. i really don't much care if i pass or not, since we're likely to be fleeing the golden state for the grand canyon state in a matter of a couple of years anyway.

breakfast now!

too tired, and lazy, to write much original, so i'll reprise the only e-mail i sent out tonight, other than complaining about a skunked beer. (ArrBas of all things!)

one day down, two to go. this bar stuff is hard enough to deal with when you really want to pass, and since i don't much give a damn, it's even harder. makes it kind of amusing to sit there, though.

today was 3 essays (securities; constructive trusts; and evidence: trial objections), and a 3 hour performance exam. tomorrow is MBE all day, then thursday is 3 more essays and another performance exam. ugh.

the chief announcer was an obnoxious, sarcastic jerk that talked down to us almost every time he got on the mic. well, i guess we are a bunch of snot-nosed 18 year olds. or not.

had a nice dinner of pasta (complex carbs: brain food!) and veggies sauteed with red wine, and now that it's about 8:20pm, i'm about ready to go to bed. maybe or maybe not more tomorrow.

bar tomorrow. ate mexican food tonight. worried. contemplated. got a little bit of an adrenaline rush (odd.) was in the bay area over the weekend. nice. drove. nice, but scenery, not so stimulating. observation: not nearly as much crap on the roads outside of the san diego area (in fact, nearly none.)

Ballast Point Big Eye IPA now, chasing a benadryl for sleep. nightie-night.

7/23/2003 8:58 AM: northbound I-5 at Gilman Drive: truck tire tread in the roadway

it's a chilly morning here in coastal san diego, but feels like a good one. yesterday the entire female wing of my mother's family was down for a visit (mother, grandmother, aunt), including a big lunch and lots of beer. need to study more today, but it just... feels like a good day for it.

two quickies:

7/23/2003 8:58 AM: three large bags of sawdust reported to be in the lanes on I-805 in National City.

7/23/2003 7:18 AM: Type: Traffic Hazard - Debris/Objects: SINK OR SOMETHING IN THE WB LANE
Location: GOPHER CANYON RD AT E VISTA WY

went to the San Diego DMV this morning to register the car (a Civic Hybrid -- ask if you want to know more about it -- in short, avg MPG is ~47!). got there at 7:03am, got in line (i was about 15th in line), the office opened at 8:00am, and i was walking out to get cash and take the plates off at 8:19am. by the time the office opened, the line was around the building on three sides.

cost was $149 total. there has been a lot of carping lately about the VLF (Vehicle License Fee) being "tripled". well, i had a nice chat with the DMV clerk who helped me, and she explained that it wasn't exactly that: in the salad days of 1997/98/99, they consistently reducded what the VLF had always been, such that it is now 33% of what it used to be. so what is actually happening (as it's now being called a "foregone conclusion" in the media) is that it's being restored to the original level, not raised. ummmm, a pretty significant difference in phrasing.

and today's road hazards are pretty significant, too:

7/22/2003 9:56:03 AM: Traffic Hazard - Debris/Objects
Location: WB SR52 JEO CONVOY
9:51AM - PALLET, STYROFOAM IN #3 LANE

7/22/2003 9:57:37 AM: Traffic Hazard - Pedestrian on Freeway
Location: NB SR15 JNO NB I-805
9:49AM - MAN RUNNING IN CD

7/22/2003 9:58:57 AM: Traffic Hazard - Animal
Location: 3134 OLIVE HILL RD
9:08AM - ONE HORSE CORRALLED AND THE OTHER IS BEING ROUNDED UP NOW TO GET BACK IN FENCE
8:59AM - NEED HORSE TRAILER FOR OLIVE HILL AND AQUA HILL
8:59AM - NEG 1125 HORSES, THEY ARE QUARTERED IN A PASTURE
8:51AM - RP #2 CHECKING WITH NEIGHBORS TO SEE WHO HORSES BELONG TO
8:50AM - OTHER CALLER TRYING TO BLOCK THE HORSES WITH A BLK FORD MUST
8:43AM - 2 HORSES
8:42AM - UNK IF WAS TC , BUT HORSES ARE DOWN
8:42AM - INJURED HORSES IN THE ROAD

and on the 163 NB ramp to I-8 westbound, i personally had to avoid a t-shaped piece of white steel, which looked like it was probably part of a bedframe. sweet!

must be something interesting:
7/21/2003 10:54:57 PM: Traffic Hazard - Debris/Objects
Location: Westbound State Route 54 just East of I-805
10:23PM - UNK OBJ IN SLOW LANE, ABOUT 5 CARS ON RIGHT HAND SIDE CHANGING TIRES

7/21/2003 1:58:07 PM: NB SR125 JNO JAMACHA RD
1:39PM - LUMBER IN #1 AND 2 LANES

7/21/2003 1:58:45 PM: Traffic Hazard - Large Object northbound I-805 at 43rd Street
1:33PM - ladder in the #3 lane

came home long enough to make a sandwich (sourdough, cheddar, grey poupon, onions, onion sprouts, spinach, and pesto spread) and a margarita (cuervo, fuzzy water, and lime juice on rocks w/ salt). lo and behold, the first traffic report i hear on KPBS consists, in its entirety, of hazards on the highway

KPBS 1:03 pm:
northbound 805 @ la jolla village drive:
some wood and a blue tarp in the roadway

and looking for it on the CHP website (didn't find it) did find another pedestrian wandering around on the interstate:

7/21/2003 1:07:54 PM: Pedestrian on a Highway
Location: EB I8 JWO JACUMBA (just west of Jacumba)
1:05PM - CHP Unit On Scene

i've decided i need to enter shorter summaries, otherwise this blog is going to get out-of-control-unreadably-burdensome.

and since no blog is an island, here's a few other thoughts while i eat my sandwich:
(1) you know more than you need to about the sandwich's contents; rest assured it's tasty.
(2) the margarita is a little strong and a little sour, and it tastes good too.
(3) went and studied (for the bar, more later) on the OB Pier, the longest pier on the west coast, right here in my lovely little hometown, the People's Republik of Ocean Beach, USA. the pier is reported, at 1,971 feet, to be the longest pier of any kind on the west coast, and the longest concrete pier in the world. (if anyone knows better, i'd love to hear: d j g 92107 aat ya-hoo!).
(4) there were two little kids not getting nearly enough supervision from their asshole adult companions: they took a recently caught, still alive fish, and were deriving great joy from slamming it down as hard as they could on the pier by throwing it, and gleefully giggling as it skidded on the concrete. why are kids so damn violent sometimes? (i can only guess it has something to do with the four adults they were with, who didn't seem to think this behavior was worth comment, i.e., not newsworthy.)

back to studying. bar is in eight days. ick.

more random shit in the roadways

:

ummmmm... just a "large object":
8 East at Lake Jennings Parking Problem Road
Traffic Hazard - Large Object 9:35 AM
Thomas Guide Map Coordinates: Page 1252, Grid 1D
Ukn Lane 9:35 AM
CHP Unit Enroute 9:37 AM

I previously wasn't going to count (ostensibly disabled) vehicles as traffic hazards, but when it's a charter bus, and especially when traffic is "still coming in hot"
52 East to 805 South Connector
Traffic Hazard - Vehicle 8:35 AM
Thomas Guide Map Coordinates: Page 1228, Grid 6G
Roll Unit for Traffic Control 8:35 AM
Charter Bus Traffic Hazard #2 8:35 AM
Message/Item Delivered Star Towing 8:38 AM
CHP Unit on Scene 8:38 AM
A Lanes is Being Shut Down, Traf Still Coming in Hot 9:00 AM
The Tow is 97 9:00 AM
CHP Unit on Scene 9:09 AM

and, sheesh, if a charter bus on/in the highway is a traffic hazard, surely a pedestrian is:
Incident: 0301 Type: Pedestrian on a Highway
Location: SR54 ONR TO WB I8 Zoom Map: 1251 4J
Info as of: 7/21/2003 9:52:21 AM
54 East
54 On Ramp to 8 West
Pedestrian on a Highway 9:30 AM
Thomas Guide Map Coordinates: Page 1251, Grid 4J
CHP Unit on Scene 9:46 AM
RESPONDING OFFICERS STATUS
9:46AM - CHP Unit On Scene
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
9:49AM - SO FAR UTL, NOW CHECKING OTHER ONR

and if you don't buy a mere pedestrian, how about a juvenile on a bicycle?
Incident: 0293 Type: Traffic Hazard
Location: NB I215 JNO NEWPORT RD Zoom Map: 868 2E Info as of: 7/21/2003 9:54:23 AM
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
9:23AM - KEEPS GOING INTO RT LN
9:23AM - JUV RIDING BIKE ON RS
RESPONDING OFFICERS STATUS
9:24AM - CHP Unit Enroute

and here's the best (?) thing i've found so far: a judgment by the CHP that none of the above is particularly newsworthy:

Incident: 0110 Type: Media Information
Location: DAILY LOG Zoom Map: Click Here Info as of: 7/21/2003 9:56:31 AM
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
9:08AM -
9:08AM - BUSY COMMUTE WITH SEVERAL COLLISIONS, HOWEVER, NOTHING PARTICULARLY NEWSWORTHY
9:05AM - =======================================================

When I was driving in to San Diego about a month ago, on I-15 south near Escondido, I looked over and saw an accident that had just happened on the northbound side. I saw a man who had, for unclear reasons, gotten out of his car, and apparently been hit by another vehicle. I saw gray matter. (If you don't know what that is, you probably don't want to know.) I looked and looked for news reports on this, but didn't find any: apparently this was also deemed a not particularly newsworthy event.

JUST REPORTED on KPBS! Eastbound 8: tree trunk in the roadway
ack! I'm looking for a report on the above mentioned tree trunk, and can't find it, but I did find this:

Incident: 0334
Type: Traffic Hazard - Pedestrian on Freeway
Location: SB 5 JNO THE BORDER (that's southbound I-5, just north of the border at San Ysidro)
Info as of: 7/21/2003 9:59:48 AM
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
9:59AM - FEMALE RUNNING INTO TRAFFIC

still nothing on the tree trunk, but already processed building materials provide a nice substitute, right?
Incident: 0336 Type: Traffic Hazard
Location: WB SR78 JWO NORDAHL RD Zoom Map: 1129 1C
Info as of: 7/21/2003 10:03:38 AM
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
10:02AM - RTH TO CD CT 97
10:01AM - 4 X4 IN 1 LN, NEED UNIT FOR TRAFFIC BREAK
RESPONDING OFFICERS STATUS
10:01AM - CHP Unit On Scene

and finally, although it's not San Diego, this is such a unique roadway hazard that it bears brief mention, in Riverside (~1.5 hours north), at Hwy 60 & I-15:
Incident: 0531 Type: Traffic Hazard - Debris/Object
Location: WB SR60 TO NB I15 CON
Zoom Map: 643 6F
Info as of: 7/21/2003 10:07:09 AM
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
9:51AM - HAZMAT HAS ETA OF 30 MIN
9:48AM - ISSUE SIGALERT AND CONTACT SGT
9:45AM - BOTH LANES IN BOTH DIRECTIONS CLOSED
9:14AM - CHEMICAL CONTAINER IN THE RDWY-- WITH SMOKE COMING OUT OF IT

i was about to sign off for the morning when this gem came up:
Incident: 0347 Type: Traffic Hazard - Debris/Objects
Location: NB I805 JSO EB I8
Zoom Map: 1269 2E
Info as of: 7/21/2003 10:12:13 AM
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
10:10AM - SURFBOARD MIDDLE LANES

and just for the record, to try to introduce some perspective, I just checked the CHP traffic incident site to see if this stuff is happening all over the state, and I'm being histrionic about San Diego's roadway hazards.
Bay Area: Golden Gate Communications Center
Number of Incidents: 0
Last Updated at: 7/21/2003 10:16:23 AM
No Current Incidents Available.
Sacramento Communications Center
Number of Incidents: 4
Last Updated at: 7/21/2003 10:16:23 AM
none are hazards in the roadway.
Los Angeles Communications Center
Number of Incidents: 19
Last Updated at: 7/21/2003 10:18:03 AM
19 incidents, and plenty of stalled vehicles, but NOT A SINGLE foregin object.

man, KPBS is really dialed in -- here's another hazard not reported by the CHP or signonsandiego:
10:22 AM: "if somebody is missing their surfboard, it's on the northbound 805 at the 8"
10:28 AM: oops: it looks like KPBS really isn't dialed in after all. I just realized that this had already been reported above by CHP, at 10:10AM: Location: NB I805 JSO EB I8: SURFBOARD MIDDLE LANES. Too bad. But, uhhh, is the surfboard still there?

okay, this getting slightly addictive. gotta go.
---

San Diego. Sunday. Traffic reports 7 days a week. Bad.

It all started about three weeks ago, when the morning traffic report in San Diego on KPBS reported that there was a traffic hazard. Not just any traffic hazard, though: 74,000 pounds yes, seventy-four thousand pounds) of CHICKEN FEED had spilled out of an overturned truck.

I had already noticed the apparently significant quantities of foreign objects on the freeways around San Diego since moving here (recently. Just out of a slight defensive impulse, I feel the need to note that I was born and raised in California, albeit Sacramento, which is a whole another discussion. But it's not like I just wandered out here in search of an endless summer from some small, dead-end midwestern town. Or worse, New York. OK, I digress. Ok, often.)

Now, let's think about this just for a second. Any object laying about in the traffic lanes of an otherwise normal freeway is, by definition, a foregin object. ( see, e.g., www.m-w.com : 4: alien in character : not connected or pertinent ).

And for that matter, significant is relative: more objects in the roadway than, say, one a day, is a little abnormal. But San Diego's freeways are out of all proportion for this, as anyone listening to the morning traffic reports can learn. (Remember, this is Southern California, where The King isn't ablubbering rocknroll icon, or a shitty, watery, fizzy-yellow beer, but The Car. Nowhere is the more true than in San Diego, where the people are truly addicted to their freeways.) Cars and using them are so pertinent to daily survival here that people will sit in parking lot-style traffic on I-8, where they can occasionally look over to Friars Road and watch the traffic roll by, on an almost precisely parallel route, at 50-80 mph.

See, I think it's like this: Southern Californians, and especially San Diegans, love the potential of being able to go 90 mph on the freeway, even if that's rarely the actual case.

When I started thinking about this, here's the radio report that caught my attention today:

Sunday 7/20/03, 10:46am: 5 South at Del Mar Heights Road, reports of a "traffic hazard": a filing cabinet in the middle lane .

While sitting here and writing this, the following traffic report came on the radio: In Alpine (so ostensibly I-8, there is a FIRE licking onto the road, and here's what seemed to concern them most: no access to the Casino from the westbound side. Here's what Caltrans has to say about it:

Incident: 0670 Type: Structure or Grass Fire Location: VIA LA MANCHA AT WILLOWS RD Zoom Map: 1234 6F Info as of: 7/20/2003 4:15:16 PM

ADDITIONAL DETAILS
4:07PM - PER 63, TRAFFIC BACKING UP EB AT E WILLOWS OFR // BCG
3:28PM - W WILLOWS TO THE CASINO IS GOING TO BE CLOSED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE
3:28PM - THE FIRE IS MAINLY CONTAINED ON THE NB SIDE OF THE RESERVATION
3:02PM - 1039 TO STAM FOR XTRA UNITS
3:01PM - PER 83, COORDINATED W/S/O SGT // THEY HAVE UNITS ENRT OR 1097, JUST NEED 1-2 MORE, S20 COPZ ENRT
2:58PM - DIVERT TRAFFIC OFF FROM EB // REQ ADDTL UNITS
2:40PM - 1039 HEARTLAND
2:39PM - MALE SITTING AT BUS STOP CLAIMS HE STARTED FIRE WITH CIGARETTE
2:36PM - BRUSH FIRE JNO 8

RESPONDING OFFICERS STATUS
2:44PM - CHP Unit On Scene
3:24PM - CHP Unit On Scene
4:12PM - CHP Unit On Scene

Then I decided to look for it on Caltrans' CHP Traffic Information site, http://cad.chp.ca.gov , and found these additional examples:

Border Communications Center
Number of Incidents: 14
Last Updated at: 7/20/2003 4:13:53 PM


University Av On Ramp to 163 North
Traffic Hazard - Debris/Objects (3:20 PM)
Thomas Guide Map Coordinates: Page 1269, Grid 5B
Couple of Wood or Bamboo Room Dividers in Road (3:20 PM)
CHP Unit Assigned (3:31 PM)




5 South Before Clairemont Dr
Traffic Hazard - Debris/Objects (3:42 PM)
Thomas Guide Map Coordinates: Page 1248, Grid 7E
Surfboards 2-3 Lanes (3:42 PM)
CHP Unit Enroute (3:44 PM)
CHP Unit Assigned (3:44 PM)
Trfc Heavy Where Mission Bay Comes on-Traffic Hazard May Be There-Trfc Slow 3:47 PM

IT'S SUNDAY AFTERNOON. Do you know where your surfboards are?
---