Sunday, August 31, 2008
G.I.'s Lost in Iraq
This site follows the casualties thanks to Mike at GratefulWeb for posting a link on the main site, thought we should have one here.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Follow up on VA ASAP Entry - Don't be Afraid to go to Court If They're Jerking You Around
The editorial I ran about the VA ASAP program has gotten more responses, and more adament ones, than any thing else I've written here. Which I'd say is reflective of a pretty serious problem, considering this is a national, not a VA site. I'm surprised MADD isn't responding, considering the fact that they have a very good point with their organization/it could do a lot of good and maybe does some. They seem, however, to think there's nothing wrong with a program that only has a 7-9% success rate. That's ridiculous. They should be lobbying their asses off to have an effective program implimented, or to audit and fix existing problems in the one that there is now, based on the statistics alone.
Drunk driving is a serious problem. The main problem, it seems to me, is that the behavior is condoned by bar owners/workers to the greater part. Now, I've worked in restaurants myself and am going back to work in one next week actually. So I get their side of it/the financial place bartenders are coming from with this. But, as I think I said in my last blog on the subject, no one should be put in that position to begin with. People not dying should be a bigger priority than anything else when you get right down to it. And there should, without question, be penalties for the bar owners if their policy does not prevent people who have clearly had too much to drink from getting in their car and driving. It's like someone coming in with an empty gun who thinks it's ok to fire it at random when loaded and putting the bullets in it for them.
However, nothing is in place to prevent this and the reality is bartenders won't be able to pay their rent, feed themselves or their families or probably keep their jobs if they go around cutting people off and/or insisting they take their keys. So, regardless or the right or wrong of it, they're in an incredibally difficult position. MADD has no excuse. They're supposed to be preventing drinking and driving, that's their self-proclaimed job. Whereas the self proclaimed job of bar owners and tenders is to provide an environment for people to drink in, responsibility is generally acknowledged to rest on the drinker. And that means not just taking prevention measures in the schools but addressing the situation head on and making sure offenders don't become repeat offenders. IE ensure that your program is effective.
I don't know the why or wherefore of it, maybe it's because everytime someone goes to court people make money, maybe it's also because the system is punishment based, but ASAP seems to be pretty trigger happy over sending people to court when they're not clearly in violation of anything or only of very minor infractions that have nothing to do with alcohol. Since nothing outside of ASAP is challenging this, it's up to the individual to handle it on their own. If they are truly violating your rights in some way, the judge is not going to agree with them if you present your case clearly. You are not supposed to go to court for innability to pay, for example. And mistakes happen, if you legitimately forget or confuse an appointment chances are the judge isn't going to side with them either.
So, before they send you to court consider the situation carefully and think about going on your own to prevent the mark against you. You have a right to make a motion any time court is in session. THe judge can choose whether or not to hear that motion, but you can show up and make one and he or she will probably hear it. Seeing that you're taking the situation into your own hands to try to correct it will make a much better impression on him or her than seeing your case brought before court over and over again by people who are saying you're wrong. If you're not wrong, they do not have a right to do that to you. Officially they might, but it is going to create more problems for you, that's why they're doing it, don't let them.
For example, someone had a legitimate medical issue that led them to confuse appointment times. This was supportable by physicians records and statements. The person showed up an hour late on 2 occasions, but was not trying to miss the appointment or not participate, rather genuinely believed it was at the time they appeared. He was not allowed to make another appointment but told that he might be able to. So, he called his attorney, who contacted ASAP and was told that the client did, in fact, have another appointment schedueld and was assured that all that was needed was for that one not to be missed. When he went on the date the attorney was told the appointment had been moved to, he'd been told it had been sent to court. The judge was annoyed, but sided with the defendant.
ASAP had not sent anything to the current address of the defendant, by the way. No notice of hearing, no communication at all, in spite of the fact that the new address had been repeatedly given. If he hadn't known where and how to look up court information, he may well have had a whole new set of trouble, though, technically, if you don't receive service you can't get in trouble for not showing up. However, if service is posted on your door, or someone else receives the document for you, that counts. So, first and foremost, don't trust them to communicate with you, even when required by law.
When he returned to be re-enstated, he was told his appointment was the next morning. When he arrived, he was told that because he couldn't pay, he couldn't go. He said he was starting a job in a few weeks, could the appointment be moved to when he was able to pay and they said no, re-scheduled it for a week away, and was told if he didn't have the money then it would go back to court.
Instead of playing into this and spending another month completely paranoid, annoying the judge again by again being sent to court on a false non-compliance charge etc, he went to court on the morning of his next appointment. The judge wasn't happy about the situation, but threw it out and ordered that he be given 30 days to pay. Chances are, if it had been brought to court by ASAP, which would have created the immediate impression that he was wrong, wheras going of his own accord created the immediate impression that he was the one in the right, chances are it wouldn't have gone as well.
So, know what your rights are, limited though they may be. Yes, you made a mistake and yes you should face consequences for that. But not allowing you to participate because you can't pay is outside of the realm of reason. The law itself says that should not be the case. The same goes for pennalizing people for medical conditions. No law about anything thinks that's ok. But they're getting away with it and more. Why? Partly I think because people don't think there's anything they can do about it. But you can. You can go to court for anything they're doing, report it, and request that they be ordered to stop. The above described address situation alone, for example, would be a legitimate motion. If the person hadn't had so many other issues at hand, that point would have also been made and they would, no doubt, have been ordered to correct the problem.
If everyone who encountered a legitimate issue with these people took it before judges, things might change in the way they run things. The judges would probably do something just to clear the court-rooms of cases money isn't being made on. Some of them may well want to reform the programs themselves so that they're more effective, everyone in the system isn't just about money.
I'm not an attorney, so talk to one or look up the law on your own (the entire code of VA is on-line), but as I understand it, you can probably successfully fight the above issues, non-service/not recording current contact info if provided (if you don't report it, it makes it look like you're not giving it to them - which is probably what they'll say and that will get you in trouble); any time you're threatened with court or anything else because you're not able to pay, the law clearly states that it's intent is not to incarcerate people because they're poor. The judge can waive most fees permenantly or for periods of time and ASAP itself is supposed to work with you to make payment arrangements; and - if you miss an appointment go as soon as you realize it or are able and try to sort the situation out. If something legitimate occurred that's truly drastic, child care, a medical issue, you were going to not have a job otherwise, you might be found in the right and re-instated. The same goes for if you do not speak english and don't have an interpreter at the time of your appointment. The missed appointment situation is iffier than the others and you're not guaranteed that you will be re-instated, but there's a chance.
Whatever is happening, you're better off taking control of it than letting an obviously corrupt and flawed organization control it for you.
Drunk driving is a serious problem. The main problem, it seems to me, is that the behavior is condoned by bar owners/workers to the greater part. Now, I've worked in restaurants myself and am going back to work in one next week actually. So I get their side of it/the financial place bartenders are coming from with this. But, as I think I said in my last blog on the subject, no one should be put in that position to begin with. People not dying should be a bigger priority than anything else when you get right down to it. And there should, without question, be penalties for the bar owners if their policy does not prevent people who have clearly had too much to drink from getting in their car and driving. It's like someone coming in with an empty gun who thinks it's ok to fire it at random when loaded and putting the bullets in it for them.
However, nothing is in place to prevent this and the reality is bartenders won't be able to pay their rent, feed themselves or their families or probably keep their jobs if they go around cutting people off and/or insisting they take their keys. So, regardless or the right or wrong of it, they're in an incredibally difficult position. MADD has no excuse. They're supposed to be preventing drinking and driving, that's their self-proclaimed job. Whereas the self proclaimed job of bar owners and tenders is to provide an environment for people to drink in, responsibility is generally acknowledged to rest on the drinker. And that means not just taking prevention measures in the schools but addressing the situation head on and making sure offenders don't become repeat offenders. IE ensure that your program is effective.
I don't know the why or wherefore of it, maybe it's because everytime someone goes to court people make money, maybe it's also because the system is punishment based, but ASAP seems to be pretty trigger happy over sending people to court when they're not clearly in violation of anything or only of very minor infractions that have nothing to do with alcohol. Since nothing outside of ASAP is challenging this, it's up to the individual to handle it on their own. If they are truly violating your rights in some way, the judge is not going to agree with them if you present your case clearly. You are not supposed to go to court for innability to pay, for example. And mistakes happen, if you legitimately forget or confuse an appointment chances are the judge isn't going to side with them either.
So, before they send you to court consider the situation carefully and think about going on your own to prevent the mark against you. You have a right to make a motion any time court is in session. THe judge can choose whether or not to hear that motion, but you can show up and make one and he or she will probably hear it. Seeing that you're taking the situation into your own hands to try to correct it will make a much better impression on him or her than seeing your case brought before court over and over again by people who are saying you're wrong. If you're not wrong, they do not have a right to do that to you. Officially they might, but it is going to create more problems for you, that's why they're doing it, don't let them.
For example, someone had a legitimate medical issue that led them to confuse appointment times. This was supportable by physicians records and statements. The person showed up an hour late on 2 occasions, but was not trying to miss the appointment or not participate, rather genuinely believed it was at the time they appeared. He was not allowed to make another appointment but told that he might be able to. So, he called his attorney, who contacted ASAP and was told that the client did, in fact, have another appointment schedueld and was assured that all that was needed was for that one not to be missed. When he went on the date the attorney was told the appointment had been moved to, he'd been told it had been sent to court. The judge was annoyed, but sided with the defendant.
ASAP had not sent anything to the current address of the defendant, by the way. No notice of hearing, no communication at all, in spite of the fact that the new address had been repeatedly given. If he hadn't known where and how to look up court information, he may well have had a whole new set of trouble, though, technically, if you don't receive service you can't get in trouble for not showing up. However, if service is posted on your door, or someone else receives the document for you, that counts. So, first and foremost, don't trust them to communicate with you, even when required by law.
When he returned to be re-enstated, he was told his appointment was the next morning. When he arrived, he was told that because he couldn't pay, he couldn't go. He said he was starting a job in a few weeks, could the appointment be moved to when he was able to pay and they said no, re-scheduled it for a week away, and was told if he didn't have the money then it would go back to court.
Instead of playing into this and spending another month completely paranoid, annoying the judge again by again being sent to court on a false non-compliance charge etc, he went to court on the morning of his next appointment. The judge wasn't happy about the situation, but threw it out and ordered that he be given 30 days to pay. Chances are, if it had been brought to court by ASAP, which would have created the immediate impression that he was wrong, wheras going of his own accord created the immediate impression that he was the one in the right, chances are it wouldn't have gone as well.
So, know what your rights are, limited though they may be. Yes, you made a mistake and yes you should face consequences for that. But not allowing you to participate because you can't pay is outside of the realm of reason. The law itself says that should not be the case. The same goes for pennalizing people for medical conditions. No law about anything thinks that's ok. But they're getting away with it and more. Why? Partly I think because people don't think there's anything they can do about it. But you can. You can go to court for anything they're doing, report it, and request that they be ordered to stop. The above described address situation alone, for example, would be a legitimate motion. If the person hadn't had so many other issues at hand, that point would have also been made and they would, no doubt, have been ordered to correct the problem.
If everyone who encountered a legitimate issue with these people took it before judges, things might change in the way they run things. The judges would probably do something just to clear the court-rooms of cases money isn't being made on. Some of them may well want to reform the programs themselves so that they're more effective, everyone in the system isn't just about money.
I'm not an attorney, so talk to one or look up the law on your own (the entire code of VA is on-line), but as I understand it, you can probably successfully fight the above issues, non-service/not recording current contact info if provided (if you don't report it, it makes it look like you're not giving it to them - which is probably what they'll say and that will get you in trouble); any time you're threatened with court or anything else because you're not able to pay, the law clearly states that it's intent is not to incarcerate people because they're poor. The judge can waive most fees permenantly or for periods of time and ASAP itself is supposed to work with you to make payment arrangements; and - if you miss an appointment go as soon as you realize it or are able and try to sort the situation out. If something legitimate occurred that's truly drastic, child care, a medical issue, you were going to not have a job otherwise, you might be found in the right and re-instated. The same goes for if you do not speak english and don't have an interpreter at the time of your appointment. The missed appointment situation is iffier than the others and you're not guaranteed that you will be re-instated, but there's a chance.
Whatever is happening, you're better off taking control of it than letting an obviously corrupt and flawed organization control it for you.
McCain's VP Choice Contradicts His Own Claims
After saying that someone in their 40s with no foriegn policy experience has no business in office, he selects someone fitting that exact description. Now, surely, his advisors said choose this person if Hillary doesn't run w/Obama, someone else if she does. So it's total, manipulative nonsense. Yet another needle on the haystack of had it for me and this race.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30assess.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30assess.html
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Obama to Announce VP Tomorrow
Thank God Tim Kaine is out - as a Virginian, I just can't understand the logic on that. I wouldn't exactly call this a forward-moving state.
VP to be announced tomorrow
VP to be announced tomorrow
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The Accidental Terrorist
A retired Air National Guard Officer, now a commercial pilot, has found going to work a bit troublesome these days. Impossible actually, because his name is on the terrorist "watch list". It's a mix-up, someone has used his name or has the same name who perhaps belongs on the list, perhaps doesn't. The ACLU reports that 1 million people have been added to the list since Sept. 11. The FBI, who controls the list, says the real numbers are about 1/2 that but that 95% are American citizens. What does the former Brigadier General say?:
"There's going to come a point in time where everybody's on the list," Robinson said."
From CNN.com
"There's going to come a point in time where everybody's on the list," Robinson said."
From CNN.com
One Size Really Does Fit All - Sort of - Spray on Condoms
Invented by a guy in Germany. Only thing keeping them from selling appears to be that the latex takes too long to dry. You've got to read it to understand this one: custom condoms in a flash
Seems to me the way to go with this would be to combine the mechanism he's invented with something that allowed you to just make your own custom condoms. I mean, if he's come up with something that molds latex to you on demand but the problem is it takes too long to be satisfyingly useful, that would be the solution. And it would save a ton of money if you could just pay a few hundred or something upfront, then have them on an as-needed basis ad infinitum.
Seems to me the way to go with this would be to combine the mechanism he's invented with something that allowed you to just make your own custom condoms. I mean, if he's come up with something that molds latex to you on demand but the problem is it takes too long to be satisfyingly useful, that would be the solution. And it would save a ton of money if you could just pay a few hundred or something upfront, then have them on an as-needed basis ad infinitum.
A Columnist from the "New York Daily News" Compares Dylan and Diamond
Yep. Somewhat absurd but interesting to read. And the comments are hillarious - jump to page 2 if nothing else and see what people are saying. He certainly picked a topic that grabs your attention:
Dylan or Diamond - will New Yorkers be able to decide who to go see?
Dylan or Diamond - will New Yorkers be able to decide who to go see?
Would Lowering the Drinking Age Really Cut Down on Alcohol Abuse?
I'm not sure. Presidents of some pretty major colleges, however, say it will. Check out the list of leaders who are pressing legislators to make the legal age 18:
" William Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland, William Brody, president of Johns Hopkins, C.D. Mote Jr. of the University of Maryland and the presidents of Washington and Lee, Sweet Briar, Towson, Randolph-Macon, Duke, Tufts, Dartmouth and others have signed on to the effort.
Other area school leaders to sign on include those from the College of Notre Dame of Maryland, Goucher College, Hollins University, Hampden-Sydney College, Washington College, Gettysburg College and Dickinson College..."
From The Washington Post
One college town is installing rubber sidewalks because kegs keep cracking the concrete.
I see the point - people, in college or otherwise, are going to drink if they've made up their minds too. And the drinking age being 21 doesn't effect it much one way or the other, especially in the case of college parties/campuses where alcohol is readily available. The illegality of it, to an 18-21 year old, probably gives it more appeal. Sort of like still getting one over on your parents/the whole appeal of doing something you've been told is wrong. Legalizing behavior that is, essentially, already mainstream just makes sense when you get down to it. Though I'm not sure it'll do but so much to effect binge drinking on college campuses. As above, people do what they've made up their mind to do as a general rule.
And, frankly, the good old argument that if you're old enough to be sent off to die in combat you should be allowed to make your own decisions about drinking is not such a bad point. Same goes for the age to vote, have sex, buy cigarettes... all of these decisions are, arguably, more serious than the decision to drink. So if 18 year olds are mature enough to decide all of these things...
Why can't University leaders apply the same logic to marijuanna laws? I mean, really, a better way to stop binge drinking would be to legalize the mellower, less physically, socially and otherwise destructive mainstream substance.
Gateway drug my foot. You're a lot more likely to try harder drugs drunk than stoned.
And a lot less likely to break sidewalks with kegs if you can go down to the corner store and buy all the weed you want. I'd be curious to see the results of a survey showing how many people, of any age, would visit a weed bar rather than an alcohol bar. The numbers in favor of weed would probably be pretty high.
Ha ha
" William Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland, William Brody, president of Johns Hopkins, C.D. Mote Jr. of the University of Maryland and the presidents of Washington and Lee, Sweet Briar, Towson, Randolph-Macon, Duke, Tufts, Dartmouth and others have signed on to the effort.
Other area school leaders to sign on include those from the College of Notre Dame of Maryland, Goucher College, Hollins University, Hampden-Sydney College, Washington College, Gettysburg College and Dickinson College..."
From The Washington Post
One college town is installing rubber sidewalks because kegs keep cracking the concrete.
I see the point - people, in college or otherwise, are going to drink if they've made up their minds too. And the drinking age being 21 doesn't effect it much one way or the other, especially in the case of college parties/campuses where alcohol is readily available. The illegality of it, to an 18-21 year old, probably gives it more appeal. Sort of like still getting one over on your parents/the whole appeal of doing something you've been told is wrong. Legalizing behavior that is, essentially, already mainstream just makes sense when you get down to it. Though I'm not sure it'll do but so much to effect binge drinking on college campuses. As above, people do what they've made up their mind to do as a general rule.
And, frankly, the good old argument that if you're old enough to be sent off to die in combat you should be allowed to make your own decisions about drinking is not such a bad point. Same goes for the age to vote, have sex, buy cigarettes... all of these decisions are, arguably, more serious than the decision to drink. So if 18 year olds are mature enough to decide all of these things...
Why can't University leaders apply the same logic to marijuanna laws? I mean, really, a better way to stop binge drinking would be to legalize the mellower, less physically, socially and otherwise destructive mainstream substance.
Gateway drug my foot. You're a lot more likely to try harder drugs drunk than stoned.
And a lot less likely to break sidewalks with kegs if you can go down to the corner store and buy all the weed you want. I'd be curious to see the results of a survey showing how many people, of any age, would visit a weed bar rather than an alcohol bar. The numbers in favor of weed would probably be pretty high.
Ha ha
Who Will Be Obama's VP?
Frankly, my vote's in for Clinton, b/s pointed out in the previous blog aside. For one, I hate to see him take the fall for this giant mess of Bush-shit. If she's in there, maybe she'll, (deservedly), take some of the heat or, indeed, most of it. I mean, the Clintons definitely had a hand in creating it, though I hate to point it out and am, as an overall, a big fan of Bill. I am not a fan of Hillary, but it seems to me, fall taking aside, that having someone in there who knows the mess pile our country is in inside and out might help navigate us out of it.
He's just not going to be able to do much about the things we're hating right now. I mean, it's already disturbing as hell and clear as a bell - he's shifted key policies over to the Republican side of things, for example. To me that suggests a situation, or set of them, that he can't do anything about. What a dissappointing position for someone with so much potential to be in. So, rather than pick an unknown, he might be better off, we might be better off, with an insider from the instigators of the disaster at his side.
Again, what a dissappointing waste of potential this may turn out to be. I hope not. I truly hope not. If anyone can do it he can but I just am far from certain that anyone can.
Obama's VP
He's just not going to be able to do much about the things we're hating right now. I mean, it's already disturbing as hell and clear as a bell - he's shifted key policies over to the Republican side of things, for example. To me that suggests a situation, or set of them, that he can't do anything about. What a dissappointing position for someone with so much potential to be in. So, rather than pick an unknown, he might be better off, we might be better off, with an insider from the instigators of the disaster at his side.
Again, what a dissappointing waste of potential this may turn out to be. I hope not. I truly hope not. If anyone can do it he can but I just am far from certain that anyone can.
Obama's VP
Republicans Plan Counter-Convention
They're going to have Romey speak, (oh goody), at a Denver event to rival the Democratic Convention: Republicans compete
Now, allow me to digress for a moment -- I understand that candidates who drop out are going to support the winning candidate in their party - that makes sense. But campaigns have gotten so asinine with the mud slinging and the finger pointing nonsense that I wonder if I'm the only person who finds all of their opionions about one another completely uncredible. Wouldn't it be an interesting change if people actually stuck to real, valid points during their campaigns instead of assulting one another? Imagine that - we might actually have an informed voting population. In fact, I'll bet that if campaigns were conducted that way more people would vote. And you know what - then when people backed the winning candidate after dropping out, we'd believe them because there wouldn't have been a bunch of nonsense preceeding the action.
But noooooo - on with the masquerade.
Now, allow me to digress for a moment -- I understand that candidates who drop out are going to support the winning candidate in their party - that makes sense. But campaigns have gotten so asinine with the mud slinging and the finger pointing nonsense that I wonder if I'm the only person who finds all of their opionions about one another completely uncredible. Wouldn't it be an interesting change if people actually stuck to real, valid points during their campaigns instead of assulting one another? Imagine that - we might actually have an informed voting population. In fact, I'll bet that if campaigns were conducted that way more people would vote. And you know what - then when people backed the winning candidate after dropping out, we'd believe them because there wouldn't have been a bunch of nonsense preceeding the action.
But noooooo - on with the masquerade.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Paris Hilton is Kinda Cool
Ok, you've probably heard about this already - and have probably seen it and formed your own opinion. Or maybe not. Either way, I think Paris Hilton officially kicks ass. After McCain used her in an ad, she struck back by making him look like a total dumb-ass.
Well done. Hope you do run for President. Hell, you've got the best campaign ad yet:
Paris gone wild
Well done. Hope you do run for President. Hell, you've got the best campaign ad yet:
Paris gone wild
Monday, August 4, 2008
Up Snake Road
As the final strains of the Appalachian String Festival echoed across the hollers of good and evil I turned off the highway on to Snake Road. I thought my boyfriend was kidding when he said that's what a sign had said, commenting that something called that would be one windy ass, slippery slope. Lo and behold it unfurled before me.
I hoped I wouldn't have to turn around.
As I rounded the twists of the fiercely coiled snake, a little sorry I'd gotten us into all this, I realized that, since it was Sunday, everything in the town we were eventually going to find at the head of old snake here to was probably going to be closed.
It seemed that way at first. When we finally got into town we parked by the river and I now realize completely forgotthe meters that were somewhat surprisingly there. As we walked past one closed store after another I was really becoming sorry we'd come. I mean, it was great to be out of the car and all but the place was was utterly deserted. We saw maybe 4 people. Up and down the mountainsides houses were somewhat precariously perched but no one was outside. It was like nothing so much as a ghost town.
Appropriately, we found a saloon.
As we crossed a street I thought I saw a door open and a corner of red light flash, as though something around here was open after all. As we walked up to it I saw that it was really pretty cool looking, with a second story porch across it 1880s style. As we swung open the door voices lurched into the sidewalk, "...because you're going to kill your damn self, that's why." a woman cried in alarm, the unheard response followed by her final word, "it's that moonshine."
Small groups of people, mostly fairly rough looking but very polite men, (in spite of the moonshine comments, some banging of empty glasses on tables and a few other isms everyone was far, far more together than they are at bars in any city I've been to), filled the place. It was as alive with energy as the streets outside were devoid of it. A woman beside me talked hillariously about her pill-peddilng, unfaithful (ex) husband, (who had since re-married. His new wife, she said, "Had a baby a month after they got married. I told him, it took me 9 months to have every one of mine, how did she do that?")
This was all pretty damn diverting, so it took a while to notice the bar itself appeared to be mahogony cir. 1880ish itself. When I asked about it the bartender said it had been brought over from the West in a wagon. I remarked on the apparant strength of whatever horses pulled that one, it was massive. I wish I'd asked how many bullet holes it had in it. I imagine there were at least a few...
To Be Continued...
I hoped I wouldn't have to turn around.
As I rounded the twists of the fiercely coiled snake, a little sorry I'd gotten us into all this, I realized that, since it was Sunday, everything in the town we were eventually going to find at the head of old snake here to was probably going to be closed.
It seemed that way at first. When we finally got into town we parked by the river and I now realize completely forgotthe meters that were somewhat surprisingly there. As we walked past one closed store after another I was really becoming sorry we'd come. I mean, it was great to be out of the car and all but the place was was utterly deserted. We saw maybe 4 people. Up and down the mountainsides houses were somewhat precariously perched but no one was outside. It was like nothing so much as a ghost town.
Appropriately, we found a saloon.
As we crossed a street I thought I saw a door open and a corner of red light flash, as though something around here was open after all. As we walked up to it I saw that it was really pretty cool looking, with a second story porch across it 1880s style. As we swung open the door voices lurched into the sidewalk, "...because you're going to kill your damn self, that's why." a woman cried in alarm, the unheard response followed by her final word, "it's that moonshine."
Small groups of people, mostly fairly rough looking but very polite men, (in spite of the moonshine comments, some banging of empty glasses on tables and a few other isms everyone was far, far more together than they are at bars in any city I've been to), filled the place. It was as alive with energy as the streets outside were devoid of it. A woman beside me talked hillariously about her pill-peddilng, unfaithful (ex) husband, (who had since re-married. His new wife, she said, "Had a baby a month after they got married. I told him, it took me 9 months to have every one of mine, how did she do that?")
This was all pretty damn diverting, so it took a while to notice the bar itself appeared to be mahogony cir. 1880ish itself. When I asked about it the bartender said it had been brought over from the West in a wagon. I remarked on the apparant strength of whatever horses pulled that one, it was massive. I wish I'd asked how many bullet holes it had in it. I imagine there were at least a few...
To Be Continued...
Friday, August 1, 2008
Congress Gone Wild - Republicans Stage Sit-In
Ok - this is truly, completely insane. When the House closed, Republicans remained on the House floor. They chanted, booed Democrats, invited tourists (usually banned from the area) in for the spectacle... really: from the AP
As of 1 hr. ago they're still there (5:00 pm EST) from the Guardian
So, absurdity of this aside, you realize this basically is pretty disturbing - I mean, the routine move to adjourn Congress was refused by an entire party.
Congress is still in session I'm guessin', but for a one sided argument only, defeating it's entire purpose. And they're asking all Republicans in town to join them.
Since when can you just take over Congress?
I hope they cut it out.
As of 1 hr. ago they're still there (5:00 pm EST) from the Guardian
So, absurdity of this aside, you realize this basically is pretty disturbing - I mean, the routine move to adjourn Congress was refused by an entire party.
Congress is still in session I'm guessin', but for a one sided argument only, defeating it's entire purpose. And they're asking all Republicans in town to join them.
Since when can you just take over Congress?
I hope they cut it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
