harikari.com

A few weeks ago, Rose — who is 91 — went with her daughter Elizabeth, 52, to enjoy a Christmas Eve cocktail at Von’s Grand City Cafe, a martini bar on Pine Street in downtown Seattle’s shopping district.

Rose didn’t bring along her purse. She’s been forgetful of late, leaving things behind. Her daughter was buying anyway, so why bother?

Big mistake. The waitress carded Rose. When Rose couldn’t produce proof of her age, she was told she couldn’t order a drink and would have to leave the bar.

“I was kind of in shock,” Rose says. “I didn’t know I looked so young!”

…

“In the good old days,” Rose says, “I don’t remember things being so fussy.”

This story reminds me of an incident at a Belltown bar a few weeks ago when a bouncer would not let a fifty-year-old friend of ours into the bar because he did not have his ID. Granted, it’s kind of dumb to go out without your ID, but it’s also pretty ridiculous to deny someone entry into a bar that is obviously at least twice the legal drinking age.

The bouncer did let our friend in the bar after about twenty minutes. We asked him why, and he told us that he determined our friend wasn’t a cop. He said the undercover cops that try and get in without ID so they can bust bouncers don’t stand around waiting for their friends, they move on to the next bar.

This is what we Seattleites get thanks to a recent police crackdown on underage drinking. I don’t have any problem with police issuing citations to bars that aren’t careful about checking ID’s and end up serving minors. It’s the law, and drinking establishments should comply with it.

I do have a problem with the police bothering bars for serving people that are, without a doubt, well over the legal drinking age. For one, I’m not even sure that drinking without an ID is against the law; and two, sending undercover cops out to see if bars will serve people who are obviously over age 21 that don’t happen to be carrying ID smells like entrapment to me.

The bars don’t want any citations that will put them at risk of losing their licenses, so they end up doing stupid things like not serving a ninety-one-year-old lady a martini and then, as if that’s not bad enough, they make her leave the premises.

I thought it was bad enough around here that we can’t walk around Bumbershoot festival grounds with a beer in our hands, and that we can’t open a beer or a bottle of wine on a public beach. But now, old people get denied a drink and kicked out of bars.

Hey Seattle! Pull that stick out of your ass and loosen up a little.

Drink some today, if you can find some.

Oscar Wilde said:  “After the first glass, you see things as you wish they were. After the second, you see them as they are not. Finally you see things as they really are, and that is the most horrible thing in the world.”

Albert Maignan painted it.

Find out more in this New York Times article.

This site lists all that is currently available in the U.S. and has some photos of the liquor bottles.

Hey you Washington State residents – I checked the W.S.L.C.B. site for availability and it looks like the only one available is Absente. 

The Atlantic Monthly article on European and American shifts in secularism/religion is a good history and a good analysis.  In the long haul I think that scepticism will probably carry the day but a lot of new “crusades” will be undertaken – but the banners will be only symbolic because they serve a political and economic purpose to rally the troops and raise the funds for maintaining/replacing political structures.

Speaking of stupid political structures…

The stupidity and arrogance of Homeland Security, particularly as it plays out in airport security is beyond belief.  On 60 Minutes this past Sunday the TSA said that the most dangerous players are not on the list because they don’t want to tip people off that they know who they are but, if your name is Robert Johnson, just accept the inconvenience of being searched every time you try to board–they had a room full of Robert Johnsons who related their experiences. 

That reminded me of the time I was challenged trying to take too much booze into California and, in the interrogation room, I asked to see their written guidelines.  When they asked why, I–big mistake–pulled out my ACLU card and said, “Because they tell me that I have some rights.”  He said that, when I was at the border, I had no rights and that they could even search my body cavities to which I replied, “Oooh, will you?” with a smile.  My wife cringed.  The upshot was that they let me leave with my booze but I couldn’t bring it into California.  It was a case of the border police enforcing a California law, not a federal law which would have allowed the gallon of rum that I was carrying.  From then on, I just hid it in a bag of charcoal in my car figuring that at least they would get dirty retrieving it.

I’ve been thinking about James Bamford comparing the Bush Administration’s call for the dismissal of the wiretapping suit with that of a bank robber claiming he shouldn’t be prosecuted for past crimes because he’s stopped robbing banks… for now.  (See two posts down.)

Robbing banks is a pretty good analogy, but not as good as drunk driving.  Why?   Robbing a bank implies that some sort of weapon or the threat of using a weapon was used to force a victim to relinquish something valuable that the robber wants—usually money.  There are usually eyewitnesses to a bank robbery, and there’s almost always some physical evidence that can be used to prosecute the robber long after he thinks he got away with the crime.  Plus the victim of the crime usually wants to recover the stolen goods.  Warrantless wiretapping is surreptitious.  It doesn’t leave much of a physical trail.  Victims most often don’t even know their rights have been violated.

Which brings me to drunk driving.  If they person driving near you is drunk and you don’t know it, well what’s the problem?  If you don’t perceive him or her to be doing something that endangers you, why worry?  And, like warrantless wiretapping, drunk driving is difficult to prosecute unless the perpetrator is caught in the act or is found to be intoxicated at the scene of a car accident. 

If someone drives drunk and nobody catches him, then it’s true that he can’t be prosecuted for his past crimes.  He can say “I don’t drive drunk anymore, and even if you know I did, you can’t prosecute me for what you might have heard that I did.  You don’t have any evidence and besides, nobody was hurt.”  True… And, as in the wiretapping case, there’s nothing stopping a drunk from getting a good buzz on and hitting the road.  Nothing but the fear of being caught and being held responsible for his actions.  Oh, and drunk driving is something that Bush and Cheney can both relate to.

So what I’m getting at here is that maybe… just maybe… Gonzales came up with his wacky dismissal argument because he’s spent so much time hanging around with former drunks.  They are used to getting away with what they perceive to be maybe not quite on the up-and-up, but basically harmless since they didn’t hurt anyone and they’re not doing that sort of thing anymore anyway.

It’s kind of like how Bush and his boys stopped sidestepping the FISA Court shortly after the Democrats took power because they perceived there to be a new sheriff in town—one that might want to watch them more closely, catch them in the act, and then throw them in the slammer.  So they say “Hey? What’s the big deal you guys?  We told you we’re not doing that anymore.  We are law abiding public officials now.  You should leave us alone and go on about your business of raising the minimum wage, solving the healthcare crisis, stopping the war or whatever.  We won’t be tapping phones again… for a while anyway. (wink, wink.)”

But we know they can’t stop themselves.  All it takes for a drunk to get behind the wheel again is a good party, a bottle of whisky, and a car.  All it will take for Bush to start his illegal surveillance program again is a good scare, a fearful public, and a submissive congress.

Not only can it loosen you up a little before you head home, it can also lead to greater wealth:

People who consume alcohol earn significantly more at their jobs than non-drinkers, according to a US study that highlighted “social capital” gained from drinking.

The study published in the Journal of Labor Research Thursday concluded that drinkers earn 10 to 14 percent more than teetotalers, and that men who drink socially bring home an additional seven percent in pay.

“Social drinking builds social capital,” said Edward Stringham, an economics professor at San Jose State University and co-author of the study with fellow researcher Bethany Peters.

…

The researchers found some differences in the economic effects of drinking among men and women. They concluded that men who drink earn 10 percent more than abstainers and women drinkers earn 14 percent more than non-drinkers. link.

So I’ve got to wonder now if that extremely small percentage of the population that is getting most of the benefits from our nation’s economic growth over the past dozen years or so are all hanging out at the same exclusive bars laughing their asses off at the rest of us.

Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a companion during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets.

Harry Whittington, a millionaire attorney from Austin, was “alert and doing fine” in a Corpus Christi hospital Sunday after he was shot by Cheney on a ranch in south Texas, said Katharine Armstrong, the property’s owner.

He was in stable condition Sunday, said Yvonne Wheeler, spokeswoman for the Christus Spohn Health System in Corpus Christi.

Armstrong in an interview with The Associated Press said Whittington, 78, was mostly injured on his right side, with the pellets hitting his cheek, neck and chest during the incident which occurred late afternoon on Saturday.

…

Armstrong, owner of the Armstrong Ranch where the accident occurred, said Whittington was bleeding and Cheney was very apologetic.

“It broke the skin,” she said of the shotgun pellets. “It knocked him silly. But he was fine. He was talking. His eyes were open. It didn’t get in his eyes or anything like that.”

“Fortunately, the vice president has got a lot of medical people around him and so they were right there and probably more cautious than we would have been,” she said. “The vice president has got an ambulance on call, so the ambulance came.”

link.

Well? What would you expect from a leaky, gun-toting, dishonest dick?

Update: Go here to take part in Bob Harris’s current poll: How will the White House explain Dick Cheney shooting a guy in the face?

Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper wrote a special column for The Los Angeles Times that appeared in the Sunday paper. The column outlined his argument for legalizing drugs. Not just marijuana, all drugs. Here are a few excerpts:

I’ve never understood why adults shouldn’t enjoy the same right to use verboten drugs as they have to suck on a Marlboro or knock back a scotch and water.

Prohibition of alcohol fell flat on its face. The prohibition of other drugs rests on an equally wobbly foundation. Not until we choose to frame responsible drug use – not an oxymoron in my dictionary – as a civil liberty will we be able to recognize the abuse of drugs, including alcohol, for what it is: a medical, not a criminal, matter.

…

It’s not a stretch to conclude that our Draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery. Want to cut back on prison overcrowding and save a bundle on the construction of new facilities? Open the doors, let the nonviolent drug offenders go. The huge increases in federal and state prison populations during the 1980s and ’90s (from 139 per 100,000 residents in 1980 to 482 per 100,000 in 2003) were mainly for drug convictions. In 1980, 580,900 Americans were arrested on drug charges. By 2003, that figure had ballooned to 1,678,200. We’re making more arrests for drug offenses than for murder, manslaughter, forcible rape and aggravated assault combined. Feel safer?

…

In declaring a war on drugs, we’ve declared war on our fellow citizens. War requires “hostiles” – enemies we can demonize, fear and loathe. This unfortunate categorization of millions of our citizens justifies treating them as dope fiends, less than human. That grants political license to ban the exchange or purchase of clean needles or to withhold methadone from heroin addicts motivated to kick the addiction.

…

How would “regulated legalization” work? It would:
- Permit private companies to compete for licenses to cultivate, harvest, manufacture, package and peddle drugs.
- Create a new federal regulatory agency (with no apologies to libertarians or paleo-conservatives).
- Set and enforce standards of sanitation, potency and purity.
- Ban advertising.
- Impose (with congressional approval) taxes, fees and fines to be used for drug-abuse prevention and treatment and to cover the costs of administering the new regulatory agency.
- Police the industry much as alcoholic-beverage-control agencies keep a watch on bars and liquor stores at the state level. Such reforms would in no way excuse drug users who commit crimes: driving while impaired, providing drugs to minors, stealing an iPod, assaulting one’s spouse, abusing one’s child. The message is simple. Get loaded, commit a crime, do the time.

…

The demand for illicit drugs is as strong as the nation’s thirst for bootleg booze during Prohibition. It’s a demand that simply will not dry up. Whether to find God, heighten sex, relieve pain, drown one’s sorrows or simply feel good, people throughout the millenniums have turned to mood- and mind-altering substances.

They’re not about to stop, no matter what their government says or does. It’s time to accept drug use as a right of adult Americans, treat drug abuse as a public-health problem and end the madness of an unwinnable war.

I happen to agree with him. If drugs had been legalized many decades ago, we probably wouldn’t have the big problems we have now that are associated with very harmful, highly concentrated, extremely addictive, easily concealed drugs like meth and crack.

But, on the other hand, without the War on Drugs, would we have Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? Probably not, so I don’t think we would be able to laugh uncontrollably at this passage from pages 146-147:

“You’d never believe it,” said my attorney. “In L.A. it’s out of control. First it was drugs, now it’s witchcraft.”
Witchcraft? Shit, you can’t mean it!”
“Read the newspapers,” I said. “Man, you don’t know trouble until you have to face down a bunch of these addicts gone crazy for human sacrifice!”
“Naw!” he said. “That’s science fiction stuff!”
“Not where we operate,” said my attorney. “Hell, in Malibu alone, these goddamn Satan-worshipers kill six or eight people every day.” He paused to sip his drink. “And all they want is the blood,” he continued. “They’ll take people right off the street if they have to.” He nodded. “Hell, yes. Just the other day we had a case where they grabbed a girl right of a Mc Donald’s hamburger stand. She was a waitress. About sixteen years old… with a lot of people watching, too!”
“What happened?” said our friend. “What did they do to her?” He seemed very agitated by what he was hearing.
“Do?” said my attorney. “Jesus Christ man. They chopped her goddamn head off right there in the parking lot! Then they cut all kinds of holes in her head and sucked out the blood!”
“God almighty!” The Georgia man exclaimed… “And nobody did anything?”
“What could they do?” I said. “The guy that took the head was about six-seven and maybe three hundred pounds. He was packing two Lugers, and the others had M-16s. They were all veterans…”
“The big guy used to be a major in the Marines,” said my attorney. “We know where he lives, but we can’t get near the house.”
“Naw!” our friend shouted. “Not a major!”
“He wanted the pineal gland,” I said. “That’s how he got so big. When he quit the Marines he was just a little guy.”
“O my god!” said our friend. “That’s horrible!”
“It happens every day,” said my attorney. “Usually it’s whole families. During the night. Most of them don’t even wake up until they feel their head going-and then , of course, it’s too late.”

Hunter Stockton Thompson was born July 18, 1939 in Louisville, Kentucky.

Here are a few quotes from the doctor:

America… just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.

In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile.

If I’d written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people – including me – would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism.

The Edge… there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over

More here..

HST took his own life on February 20, 2005.