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.