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.