Not that I want to add to Jeff's headaches these days. But it appears that he might be softening his stance on drugs ever-so-slightly. At least, with respect to Mary Jane.

I think a lot of people smoke weed regularly when they're in high school or college, and then stop later on because it's too much of a bother and they're busy. And I still think alchohol is more dangerous than weed, because of the collateral damage it causes: stoned people do not mow people down when they drive.

In no way do I see the coercive effect of the State as the correct instrument for solving the problem of drug addiction.

And I honestly think people can get addicted to damn near anything: shopping, eating, keeping messy files (I have friends who do this), gambling, surfing the internet, watching television, taking warm baths.

I also had a friend who used heroin on a semi-regular basis for a while. Then he stopped. Just like that—no willpower involved; no support group. No nothing.

So I am, and remain, a libertarian on this issue. Legalize hard drugs so we can regulate 'em, tax 'em, and re-funnel enforcement money into treatment programs. And sell Prozac, Wellbutrin, and Ambien over the counter, please. Pretty please.

Don't make me ruin my middle-aged skin with too many hot baths.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:21 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The last reason to legalize drugs is to tax them. The state is sucking plenty of cash out of our pockets the way it is. The fact that the drug war has been pretty ineffective combined with philosophy of individual liberty are more persuasive to me. This is from someone who has never done anything stronger than Everclear. Really. No one believes me when I tell them I've never done any drugs and never had the opportunity, not that I was looking.

Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at March 17, 2006 09:34 PM (JAozc)

2 Well not that I'd really enthusiastically support taxing drugs either. But it would still be a darn sight lighter burden on society to legalize/tax/regulate than to prohibit/wage war/destroy liberty.

Posted by: Desert Cat at March 17, 2006 09:47 PM (xdX36)

3 The last thing I want is for the state to have more money. They can't spend the stuff they don't have fast enough the way it is. Drug legalizers just have to drop the "tax it" part of their arguement. It has nothing to do with how ineffective the drug war is and liberties is may violate.

Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at March 17, 2006 09:53 PM (JAozc)

4 Okay, try this: if street drugs were at least decriminalized and enforcement efforts weren't going into analyzing people's electricity bills to see whether they might be growing marijuana, a big cash drain would be removed from the Feds, and they might be able to do something useful with that time and money. Also: drugs would be a lot cheaper without them being illegal, and all of those secondary crimes--the theft and prostitution to support costly habits--would cease.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 18, 2006 07:03 AM (s96U4)

5 Have to disagree. People on pot do mow down people. That is why most laws have been changed to driving under the influance and not while drinking. It is just that alcholhol is much more prevalant. I am extremly familiar with what alcholhol does to ruin lives. I am not therfore in favor of adding more drugs to ruin more lives. But I also understand that trying to ban drugs is not working well either. The war on drugs is as big a failure as the war on poverty. I have another thought on controlling this problem. 1. Give any addict an identity card. With this they can purchase drugs legally and cheaply from government outlets. 2. If you are not already an addict and can prove it, no card. Therefore no new addicts. 3. Make it a capital crime to import drugs, and enforce it. 4. Card holders can not hold any job that requires lucidity, truck driver, nuclear power plant operator, etc. 5. Card holders may at any time join a government sponsored program to quit. 6. The US buys all of the drugs from foriegn countries and also all siezures are used to supply government drug outlets. This would take away the incentive for drug dealers to sell. Anyone who gets addicted can quickly abandon their dealer and get drugs cheaply from the government. This would make drug importation nonprofitable and lethal if caught. This would allow us to monitor drug traffic and users. The only problem would be that the government would be helping drug addicts slowly kill themselves. But after a generation or so this would taper off. If we can control cigarettes we can control drugs, we just have to hard enough to let a generation of addicts die. Therefore there is absolutely no way the people of this country would try this. We will instead continue on this path of futility.

Posted by: Jack at March 18, 2006 07:36 AM (Zv9pv)

6 AG I agree with you that much of the 'War on Drugs' is an exercise in futility. A sizeable portion of homo sapiens just like the feeling of 'getting high.' (and if National Geographic is right, monkeys and birds seek out fermented fruit for the same reason). What it comes down to is attempting to find a reasonable and pragmatic approach to minimize the ill effects of drug addiction; to the addict and to society as a whole. As you know, CA has three, count 'em, three state programs overseen by the courts that are 'rehab in lieu of jail' for addicts. PC1000 (diversion) PC1210 (prop. 36) and Drug Court. Yep, some people "graduate" from these programs (PC1000 is first time offender and if such a person can keep clean for the 2 year probation they can have the case dismissed) but the 'graduates' are WAY out numbered by the ones that fail and keep rotating through our doors. The drug of choice we see in the judicial system...even outstripping people arrested for alcohol related crimes ... is meth. Cheap and easy to manufacture, those addicted to it really lose all sense of judgement (as opposed to people who use pot or functionally addicted to heroin or alcohol -- judgment can sometimes be impaired but not wholly absent). I think the decriminalization/regulation route is probably the best...with these strict caveats. The drugs are ONLY available through government run stores AND they are taxed at a non-profit rate (taxes calculated and retained within the drug-store system NEVER going into general funds). We must still be vigilant in prosecuting people who do crime while 'high'... public intoxication, DUI*, child neglect/abuse, etc. Ironically, here we are discussing addictive drugs that have a profound and noticeble effect on personal judgment, while those who use an addictive drug that does NOT affect judgment are being hounded and new laws enacted against them. Nicotine and the newest draconian law banning almost all smokers in Calabasas.

Posted by: Darleen at March 18, 2006 08:22 AM (FgfaV)

7 Whoops...forget to explain my "*" Jack... you're correct about the laws concerning DUI In CA a DUI is a two part charge... VC23152 (a) - driving under the influence, VC23152 (b) - driving with a BAC of .08 or more First time DUI offenders who want to plead out are usually offerred to plead to count 'b' and have 'a' dismissed. This is because then there is no question that the DUI was for alcohol and not an illegal substance.

Posted by: Darleen at March 18, 2006 08:29 AM (FgfaV)

8 Never done any drugs, Sean? Check out Andrew Weil's Drugs from Chocolate to Cocaine and see if there might be one int there you have dabble in. Driving: The studies show that the impairment from alcohol and that from using marihuana (trhe federal government spelling) are approximately the same, but that those impaired with marihuana are morelikely to compensate for the i9mpairment than those impaired with alcohol, The key is to do as Thomas Szasz suggested, backed by fellow conservative Wm. F. Buckley, and leggalize all drugs, BUT to hold those who cause harm to others while under the influence in full responsibility. At the time Szasz suggested this, "I was drunk" was a valid positive defense in many states. For those wanting to decriminalize drugs and dispense them from govefrnment run facilities to needy addicts: take your lewft-wing, big-government, statist control back to the USSR where it belongs. In fact, this was tried in Britain without much success. To those with the get tough attitude, get real. We CAN'T buy up all the dope in the world. We can't even buy up all the poppy in Afghanistan. Asw William S. Burroughs (the author of Naked Lunch) told us 40 years ago, the only solution to the drug problem would be to decrease demand at the most basic level. So long as there is demand, there will be illegal traffic. I'm not so sure about the notion that drugs will be cheaper if legalized. In fact, i buy legal drugs and they are not cheap. One thing is sure, hoever. heroin is a fairly safe drug developed to be a safe means of pain relief. In the early seventies, a retrospective study of drug deaths was done in NYC, and NO (I reapeat, NO) case was found of someone who died from heroin alone. Some deaths were attributed to heroin taken concomiitantly with other respiratory depresseants, like alcohol, barbituates, or, most commonly at the time, quinine, a common cutting agent. What was noted was that there were usually no deaths among those rich enough to support their habit and take care of their health. In this population, it was noted, It was common for people to simply quit one day, usually in their forties. They often attributed this to just growing up. The above-mentioned Cr. Weil ran a heroin detox facility in San Francisco where he had great success using only aspirin (for the flu-like sypmtoms of withdrawal) and a kind companion in a darkened room. We should also note here that quittihjng is always a success, no matter what the future brings. A person who quits for a few months and then relaposes is more successful than one who never quit. Itr may take a few tries. Unfortunately, rather than building on these successes to encourage more, family and mental health workers tend to see the relapse as a failure and excoriate the addict, making the matter worse. The fact is that someone who quit for two weeks should be encouraged to think that he now knows that he can quit for two weeks. And he certainly knows he can qwuit for one day.+ My message, in brief: we sjhould avoid all putative solutions which begin with, or have embedded in them, anything like, "the government should...."

Posted by: Averroes at March 18, 2006 12:17 PM (jlOCy)

9 I'll get/publish some hard stats on this, but what I'm hearing from law enforcement is that almost no one has trouble driving while stoned, versus the awful results of driving drunk. Of course, it's illegal to drive under the inflluence of any drug that conceivably could affect your driving ability, and if the cop thinks your cold medicine is making you a hazard, you can be busted for that. I'm not advocating driving stoned, I'm pointing out that the double standard between alcohol and pot is particularly obscene when one examines the effects on driving. Sean watches television; as far as I'm concerned, that's a drug.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 18, 2006 04:48 PM (s96U4)

10 Attila girl You might also take in to account the number of people who smoke pot and are sitting at home and not driving. After all you don't go down to the local bar order a few joints and try to drive home. A couple of items to consider are; People drink to relax and socialize, they do not have to get drunk to enjoy themselves. People who smoke pot ALWAYS do it to get high. They always try to get a buzz on. Pot lasts in the blood stream for months. I have yet to hear of a reliable test to tell if someone who gets in an accident smoked pot that night or yesterday. This makes the determination of whether they are high when they are in an accident harder to prove. And having several pot heads in the family I also know that it is usually what they become. Little or no ambition. This is in no way says that booze is especially safe. The alcholholics far outnumber the pot heads in the family. One thing I find kind of hillarious (being from MT) is that while you are trying to ban smoking cigarettes in CA there are people in CA that still want to legalize pot. What,... doesn't it cause cancer too? Mean while, fearing incarceration and huge lawyers fees, I will sit back in my recliner, have a scotch, and stay home in front of the fire place, totally safe from arrest. Especially since it is snowing out.

Posted by: Jack at March 18, 2006 06:50 PM (aPcqh)

11 Whoops one more comment. I absolutly positively think that heroin should be legalized for terminally ill patients. I have absolutly no fear that they might become addicted. And anything to ease their pain is fine with me.

Posted by: Jack at March 18, 2006 06:57 PM (aPcqh)

12 Jack, I'm not sure I see the difference. People who drink alcohol, do it solely for the effects, else why drink? Relaxation and social lubrication are definitely a couple of the effects of alcohol. Just as a couple of drinks will give you a mild buzz and facilitate relaxing with friends, so can a shared joint. Too much alcohol and you're drunk and disoriented--too much pot and you're blazed out of your mind. It's a matter of degree. I think you're making a false distinction.

Posted by: Desert Cat at March 18, 2006 08:55 PM (xdX36)

13 Statistics in this area will be very misleading because the major emphasis in this area has been the elimination of alcohol-related, motor-vehicle-fatalities. Pot testing remains a problem for reasons the other commenters mentioned, especially for tests where blood is not drawn. From talking with police, pot is involved in most accidents, but so is alcohol. The States Attorneys direct the police to go with the alcohol tests because they are more likely to get a conviction. Further pressure comes with State, Federal and Local money designed to take drunk drivers off the road. This has ticked off a lot of cops since the 70's. As a result, pot is not mentioned in most of the reports. So every time you hear of one of those "inexplicable" rear-end collisions where a driver plowed into the car ahead and then applied his brake, think pot. Or drove miles on the wrong side of the road, or spaced out and didn't see the traffic signal...Or caused a major mass transit accident... Nobody should be operating any machinery using any drug. Pot use today isn't sharing a joint with friends with the 20-something set. They get up at 8 PM and fire up a hollowed-out blunt--the equivalent of 5-6 joints. They finish off a couple of those before realizing its after midnight and time to do some partying at clubs. They wind down after drinking by having a couple more.

Posted by: Darrell at March 18, 2006 09:43 PM (aRapR)

14 Um. I know people who have a joint on a Saturday afternoon, and then maybe a bowl on alternate Wednesday nights, while holding down demanding jobs. And, um, some of us are so absent-minded that we probably shouldn't drive at all. I once put window-washing fluid in my radiator, and I don't think it gets more absent-minded than that. No chemical assist needed at all. I really don't see the difference between a hit on a joint vs. the weak gin and tonics I make for myself with shocking regularly. Each will deliver a degree of relaxation that's just this side of being stoned/tipsy. I've had cigars that affected me more biochemically than my average experience with pot, which doesn't do much to/for me (except for a couple of times when I've had a lot). And I just don't see much of a material difference between passing a cigar around after midnight after a party vs. doing the same thing with a joint. The cultural connotations are quite different--and one will hype you up like caffeine or sugar, whereas the other will relax you a little. Other than that, there's no huge difference, if everyone's over 30 and no one's driving. Re: pot vs. alcohol, all I know is what the cops tell me. And make no mistake: the cops on the scene know when someone is very stoned. You can smell it on their clothes if they've had any marijuana recently. Cops know.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 18, 2006 10:30 PM (s96U4)

15 BTW, Jack--i think the attitude toward smoking these days borders on hysteria. The fact that I live in California doesn't mean I support the ridiculous measures being taken here--and elsewhere--to curtail individual liberties in such a ridiculous fashion. When I was a teenager I smoked half a pack a day all summer one year because I was seeing a friend who smoked. Then I stopped. The nicotine didn't work its way into my brain, pervert my soul, remove freedom of choice, and chain me to tobacco for the rest of my life. Honestly.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 18, 2006 10:37 PM (s96U4)

16 I've weblogged over six years. I must be addicted.

Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at March 18, 2006 11:01 PM (JAozc)

17 I thought of bringing that up, but it would have been too easy

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 18, 2006 11:36 PM (s96U4)

18 That's the whole point. The cops do smell it all over then clothing and car, but it goes unreported unless there are fatalities and alcohol wasn't involved. Judges haven't accepted the "smell test" as proof of the level of impairment. And even the stupid manage to toss any leftovers before the cops arrive when an accident is involved, so there isn't even a possession charge linked to the accident.

Posted by: Darrell at March 19, 2006 07:07 AM (6Xem0)

19 And even the stupid manage to toss any leftovers before the cops arrive when an accident is involved Well, there's stupid and there's stupid ... like the two guys passing a joint between them at a red light with a cop car in the lane next to 'em... true story ... Or the guy busted for cultivation because his next door neighbor's home had been burgled and when the cops came to take a report they just couldn't miss the 3-4 foot plants growing on the FRONT patio next door...

Posted by: Darleen at March 19, 2006 08:13 AM (FgfaV)

20 Darleen, What do your friends in the CHP tell you about the frequency/danger level of marijuana use in traffic accidents (that is, vs. pot)? I don't qualify as an experienced user, but those who are tell me the motor coordination simply doesn't suffer in the same way, and one is much more likely to forget where one is going.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 19, 2006 08:52 AM (s96U4)

21 Hello America, 18 years a cop..this is what I learned. Having us chase Willie Nelson smokin dope on his back porch = less time to go after DUIs and pedophiles. Chasing medical marijuana gardens in California by my fed colleagues = less time to go afte people flying airplanes into buildings. In 18 years I went to zero calls for service generated by the use of pot. I checked with the National Hwy Safety Administration. The number of people killed by a person high only on pot is so small they don't keep a separate category. FYI, all fatals are given autopsies, etc. We know what you had for lunch + plus any drugs in your system. Pot is a poor choice, as are all mind-altering drugs. Having cops chase pot users decreases public safety greatly. PS..Yes, a blood test can determine exactly the level of pot in your blood. To my knowledge, no state has set a level which would be the threshold for intoxication. Most have gone to 'per se' = any amount = DUID. It is a foolish level but politicians almost always take the easy route. PSS. Drug prohibition is a liberal approach ie using government police, punishment and prison to try stop an adult from putting something in their mouth in the privacy of their own home. Jefferson is rolling over in his grave. howard

Posted by: Howard at March 19, 2006 09:19 AM (rYrUt)

22 Okay--so as a legal matter, one hit on a weak joint while it's going around at a party makes someone stoned. Charming.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 19, 2006 10:49 AM (s96U4)

23 AG Truly we have very few DUI where its solely cannabis in the lab analysis (I can't think of any off hand, but most 1st dui's are direct filing so I might not even see 'em), or even cannabis mixed with different drugs. Howard above makes very valid points. Alcohol #1 followed by meth. Usually meth abusers are too far gone to even get behind the wheel, but occassionally they do. Alcohol being legal and widely available goes toward it being the drug-of-choice abused.

Posted by: Darleen at March 19, 2006 05:12 PM (FgfaV)

24 Okey-doke. i don't want to be provocative--or perhaps I do--but I'm wondering if legalizing pot would make 20% of the alcohol abusers switch over. I'll specify that no one should drive under the influence of anything, but if 20% of the drunk drivers out there were replaced by mildly buzzed/totally stoned drivers, what would the difference be in the traffic casualty rate?

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 19, 2006 08:00 PM (s96U4)

25 Atilla, i'll repeat, since i investigated this years ago, and it was reported in reputable scientific journals. Both alcohol and pot have a negative and similar effect on reaction times and other physical measures. in the test where actual diriving was done and recorded, it was noted that those who drank alcohol tended to actually drive faster than they normally would, while those on pot would tend to drive more slowly tgan normal, compensating somewhat for slower reaction times. (I actually know quite a few people who were pulled over while high for driving suspiciously slowly.) marihuana smoke cause cancer? Yep. it's the tar. For your final question, it MIGHT reduce causalty levels, since pot smokers tend to drive like little old ladies. But best is to drive only when unimpaired, while fully awake.

Posted by: Averroes at March 19, 2006 08:53 PM (jlOCy)

26 Now you're going to tell me I shouldn't talk on my cell phone while I'm driving. But I have to. After all, there's NO INTERNET IN THE CAR! I need an IV drip . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 19, 2006 10:39 PM (s96U4)

27 Legalize pot!! Legalize pot!! BAN MUNCHIES!!! Or raise their prices/taxes! All that junk food (in my case, Pepperidge Farms’ Milano cookies) can potentially do more harm to my health than an occasional weekend toke. If pot were legalized maybe the chemist that work for cigarette companies could work on a joint’s THC “delivery mechanism” and alter it so that its effects make you crave spinach salad and grapefruit over Chitos and Big Macs.

Posted by: Yolanda at March 20, 2006 08:40 AM (fBXTa)

28 "Now you're going to tell me I shouldn't talk on my cell phone while I'm driving." Yep! The scientific evidece is that talking on a cell phone in a car impairs your ability to drive, and that this is true whether or not you are using a "hands free" system! And of course, more and more evidence is coming forth that sleepiness is the most common impairment among drivers. Of course, if you were driving on a private road with no other drivers, or only those who knew your predilections and agree to assume the risk, there would be no problem. Unfortunately, driving is usually done on public roads, and impaired drivers, impaired for any reason, is a public health problem. btw, i don't know of any studies about driving and internet use. You could take the first step in the science by getting one of those new wide area accounts, and using your laptop to surf the net while driving. I will await your anecdotal report, which may lead to more formal research.

Posted by: Averroes at March 20, 2006 03:22 PM (jlOCy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . who isn't a compulsive forwarder, but loved this, for what he calls "The Frozen Chosen." I hope that isn't me; I'll bet it is.

Hymns Of The Lukewarm Church: For God's Frozen People

The LukeWarm Church announces publication of "Church Songs," whose title, according to the editor, was selected because "we didn't want to turn anybody off with threatening words that no one understands anymore like 'worship' or 'hymn.' People in today's society get kind of uncomfortable with too much talk about things like commitment and dedication. They'd much rather have a religion that they can turn on or off at will. Our book seeks to meet that need."

Sample contents:

— A Comfy Mattress Is Our God
— Joyful, Joyful, We Kinda Like Thee
— Above Average is Thy Faithfulness
— Lord, Keep Us Loosely Connected to Your Word
— All Hail the Influence of Jesus' Name
— My Hope is Built on Nothing Much
— Amazing Grace, How Interesting the Sound
— My Faith Looks Around for Thee
— Be Thou My Hobby
— O God, Our Enabler in Ages Past
— Blest Be the Tie That Doesn't Cramp My Style
— Oh, for a Couple of Tongues to Sing
— He's Quite a Bit to Me
— Oh, How I Like Jesus
— I Lay My Inappropriate Behaviors on Jesus
— Pillow of Ages, Fluffed for Me
— I Surrender Some
— Praise God from Whom All Affirmations Flow
— I'm Fairly Certain That My Redeemer Lives
— Self-Esteem to the World! The Lord is Come
— Sit Up, Sit Up for Jesus
— Special, Special, Special
— Spirit of the Living God, Fall Somewhere Near Me
— Stick Nearby, It's Getting Dark Outside
— Take My Life and Let Me Be
— There is Scattered Cloudiness in My Soul Today
— There Shall be Sprinkles of Blessings
— What an Acquaintance We Have in Jesus
— When Peace, Like a Trickle. . .
— When the Saints Go Sneaking In
— Where He Leads Me, I Will Consider Following
— God of Taste, and God of Stories
— Lift Every Voice and Intellectualize

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:21 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

So, I'm talking to Attila the Hub, and casually remark, "you know all those songs with those easily improved, entirely regrettable lyrics?"

"What are you talking about?" he responds. (This is not an unusual phrase on his lips.)

"Well, you know: so many song lyrics don't really scan properly as poetry, and the singers have to sing them weird. And of course there's always a really obvious edit that would fix the problem."

"And how do you know about the songs?" he enquires.

"Well, you know: because they had some commercial success, and made the songwriters rich and famous. But that doesn't mean they were true creative successes."

He looks at me.

"Okay," I tell him. "I guess I'll go upstairs now."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:13 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

I worked most of the day in Los Angeles at my proofreading job, and then dropped my mother's laundry off (don't ask) at her house near the L.A. airport. We got a bite to eat, and then I came home to finish proofreading the final of the newsletter for my Twelve-Step group. I sent those changes off to the editor, and now I'm (of course) exhausted-but-wired.

It might be time to ingest some carbs and let them work their magic.

When my husband went to bed I told him he was lucky to be only a decent proofreader, as opposed to a really great one. No one has asked him to do it since he escaped from publishing.

So now I need to see how much sleep I'll be able to get before it's time to . . . go back to L.A. and do yet more proofreading. But quickly, because I still have to get to the printer in Culver City tomorrow afternoon in time to pick up the final version of our newsletter, and deliver it to the office. Then I need to go to my DA meeting that night, because we'll be sharing memories of Roger.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:58 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

Today is a better day. I had a nice little minor row with Attila the Hub. This spring we've been together sixteen years. In fourteen months, we will have been married for a full decade. So I guess, as he put it, we've already "beaten the odds."

It's gratifying that we're learning how to cajole each other out of our bad moods and grumpy moments without it being a manipulative thing, or a way of sweeping all conflicts under the rug. Both of us find the extremes rather tempting, and find it challenging to stay on the balance beam of life. Less so, of course, as we get older.

And it amazes me that we seem to be able to fight fair. Of course, that's one of the essential skills in any relationship, but the formula for "fairness" changes according to who the other person is: there are no abstract rules.

I'm even getting things done around the house, in anticipation of my niece's visit from Chicago next week. The place still looks like a horror show: papers and books everywhere. But it's sllllloooooowwwlllyyy improving.

The niece is coming out for a Dir en Grey concert, and staying for a full week. We're in the process of compiling our L.A.-area "must sees," and I find myself a bit confused, since one feels like one ought to go downtown, yet I get there so rarely in the course of a normal year.

I just don't feel like L.A. has much to do with that city called "Los Angeles." If you know what I mean.

The one non-negotiable cliche is Venice Beach. She does need to see that—and on a weekend, so she can experience the full brunt of the craziness to be found there.

Of course, we're both so overprotective of her that we might come off more like bodyguards than an aunt and uncle—particularly at the concert, which may be a bit punk-ish for our tastes.

How lovely to be an old fogey. I can't think of a better thing to be.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:43 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

I've been checking my e-mail every five minutes, hoping someone would send me a cheap distraction. A note. A link. A joke. Something to keep me from feeling what I feel tonight. I'm just empty inside.

I suspect plummeting blood sugar is part of what I'm coping with, along with anxieties about this new gig I might or might not get at the end of the month—and a glimmer of hope that I might be able to keep the good client, ditch the bad one, and get the staff position I'm hoping for, which would get the husband and me back into the benefits game. Sponsored health insurance, of course, would a big plus for us right now. And we could also use some kind of steady income: there should never be two freelancers in the same family.

But that was just the beginning of my emotional tailspin: annoying projects—seemingly without end—for my nonprofit volunteer work, the fun symbolism of getting together with Attila the Hub to cash in one of our last few assets . . . and then hearing about Roger Borden's death last night. (I called him Matt Carnation, here. He loved that post, and sent the link to a lot of his friends and relatives.)

He's in his early fifties—was, I suppose, dammit—and succumbed to a liver cancer he told me he'd probably beat. I believed him, because 1) I'm stupid, and 2) my friends aren't alllowed to die. Not that I've heard of anyone who survived liver cancer, but this was going to be the time. I was sure of it.

I'm in a state of rage right now: rage at Roger for dying, rage at myself for not keeping in closer touch, rage at cancer for taking the young, and rage at God for giving us this gift of life, only to snatch it away. I want to shake my fist at the sky and yell out, "what's the freakin' point?"

All of which is irrational, of course, so I start over again, and find that I have an inexplicable fury at myself for being such a child, for being unable to accept that life ends. And fury at my pathetic attitude that I don't really have to grow up until one or both of my parents die. Fury at all the procrastinating I do, at the chances I take of leaving this earth with my dreams unfulfilled. Whatever those were. (I've forgotten. Well, maybe I haven't.)

At least I had some warning the last time someone died on me, though that was a particularly rough one, because the person involved had a stroke, and worked hard to get his life back to normal. He'd just about succeeded when they found the . . . cancer. (See? I almost swore. And I can't, because Dave always thought I was a lady. His mistake, but one wants to be respectful.)

I've been trying to think of solutions. I've considered the option of not getting close to anyone who's older than I am, but 1) it's too late in the day for that, and 2) even people who are younger than I am can die: there's no guarantee at any age.

Then, brainstorming-style, I consider not getting close to anyone. But that doesn't entirely solve my problem, because I'd still die someday. And if all my human affiliations magically vanished, I'd simply die lonely (though perhaps it would make my final years seem a lot longer than they really were).

For a couple of years, I've been trying to operate with a sense of how finite life is, and how precious. I'm even being polite with my parents, whenever feasible, because theoretically they might die someday. And even when it comes to the young and/or tough—people I presume will outlive me—my time with them is still finite, because I'm mortal, too. Kinda.

But I don't much like it. Not for me. Not for anyone with class and verve. Roger was a funny guy, and he didn't get many breaks. At least, it didn't seem that way from where I was sitting. I've known several people in my twelve-step group who buried their children, and I admired most of them for being able to speak of it without crying. I admired Roger because he almost always cried when he mentioned his son.

Roger was special. He did work in our program that will live on for many years. He's a guy who made a difference.

Edna got it right:

I am not resigned to the shutting away of loving hearts in the hard ground.

So it is, and so it will be, for so it has been, time out of mind:

Into the darkness they go, the wise and the lovely. Crowned

With lilies and with laurel they go; but I am not resigned.


Lovers and thinkers, into the earth with you.

Be one with the dull, the indiscriminate dust.

A fragment of what you felt, of what you knew,

A formula, a phrase remains—but the best is lost.

The answers quick and keen, the honest look, the laughter, the love,
They are gone. They have gone to feed the roses. Elegant and curled
Is the blossom. Fragrant is the blossom. I know. But I do not approve.
More precious was the light in your eyes than all the roses in the world.

Down, down, down into the darkness of the grave
Gently they go, the beautiful, the tender, the kind;
Quietly they go, the intelligent, the witty, the brave.
I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned.

Roger: "For me? Well, as long as you turn it into something productive at some point." I'm pretty sure that would be his take.

So I will try. I'm not promising. Not quite yet.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:16 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 975 words, total size 6 kb.

1 The only thing in life that is certain (beyond death and taxes) is the here and now. Tomorrow is a bright, shiny promise, and most of us will live to see it, and it will become the here and now. Thankfully. So tell those special people that you love them when you have the chance. Remind them that they're important to you, and that you value having them in your life. And it's OK to rage, and to even feel childish for doing so. It may not be particularly rational. But it is the human thing to do. And you are human, yes? Let me leave you with two thoughts: I appreciate you. I enjoy your writing, and wish I had even a measure of your skill. And a thought, stolen from a master of the written word: "End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path, one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass, and then you see it." "What? Gandalf? See what?" "White shores, and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise." At least I hope so.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at March 15, 2006 05:55 AM (1hM1d)

2 Sorry for your loss...I have no words to lessen your pain. Thanks for all the good you do for all of us! You are making the world a little bit better for all of us! Hoping all will go well with all your plans in progress.

Posted by: Darrell at March 15, 2006 11:37 AM (i8Wby)

3 Thanks, guys. You're sweet. All will be well at some point. I just kind of thought people would be amused at the sheer childishness of it: "Roger died, and it's all about me!

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 15, 2006 03:38 PM (s96U4)

4 My condoleences to you. Your words are heartfelt and I admire the character behind them. As for a desired cheap distraction, I'll share an old med school joke which I hope doesn't offend too many. The time came for a guy and his gal to get physical so off they went into the woods. The guy removed his shoes and socks revealing deformed toes and nails. Girl: Uhmm, whats that? Guy: Tolio Girl: Tolio? Do you mean polio? Guy: No, Tolio! Next, the guy removed his pants revealing dry, scaly patches on his legs. Girl: Uhmm, whats that? Guy: Kneesles. Girl: Kneesals? Do you mean Measles? Guy: No, Kneesles! Finally, the guy removes his underwear. Girl: OOO, I know! Small cox! The end. All the best to you.

Posted by: Dalsan at March 15, 2006 04:14 PM (8gN76)

5 Um. How many, um . . . how many did he have?

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 15, 2006 04:18 PM (s96U4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Bachelor #1 hails from Amsterdam: Damrak is made at one of the world's oldest distilleries, established in 1575.

This is a serious, grownup gin. As a matter of fact, it's so serious that I've concluded it shouldn't be paired with tonic water. Ever. It has an almost bitter quality to it that reminds me of tequila; this could be the perfect gin for a gimlet. It's rich and flavorful—but its bitterness combines with the quinine in the tonic, and the two together can be a bit much. (Yes: I tried. I had to.) Something like a gimlet that has a bit of lime and a slight sweetness would work very well.

And if you're looking for a "sipping gin," this is truly your ticket. It contains a cornucopia of botanicals that buttress the juniper taste and may take me years to fully figure out. Which is lovely: I live for this kind of challenge.

Let's see what others say:

Jim Clarke at Star Chefs concurs, explaining that the Dutch tend to drink their gin chilled and neat, but the orangey notes in Damrak work well for fruity cocktails:

I particularly liked it in Gimlets and Cosmopolitans; as a martini gin it definitely prefers a twist to olives. It was heavier than London Gin with tonic, and mixed somewhat less successfully in some Old School cocktails. For example, I liked a Damrak Negroni but not a Pink Gin.

Yes. It does pair well with citrus, and the idea of using it for a dirty martini makes me shudder. Think sweet, not savory. And put that Angustura away. Thanks.

I stumbled across a Brit review of the KLM airline, which was too amusing not to quote, when it proclaims that the Dutch airline serves "horrible Dutch gin" (not that British tastes are supreme in such matters, of course):

The drinks policy on KLM is firmly adapted to the Dutch tastes - on the rare occasions when you can get on a plane that isn't dry. KLM carry Damrak Gin, which is the Dutch version. Admittedly the Dutch invented Gin in the 15th century, however Bombay Sapphire or Tanqueray - or even Gordon's for that matter - is an improvement. Alas, not for KLM, and the airline continues to serve Damrak.

Arrogant Limeys. They think the world revolves around them, you know.

Get your own bottle.

This is the first in my "Gin Palace" series, for which I'll be reviewing . . . gin. I'm actively fielding requests for other brands that readers would like previews of. (I'll also be looking at whiskeys on occasion, and a few red wines—because I'm super and splendid, and a bit of a lush.)

Darrell, I'm still looking for Cascade Mountain Gin. I'll check one more place, and then buy it online if need be.

Oh, and—everyone should send me money to finance this important public works project. Thanks.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:52 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I hope distillers are taking notes! See, Cascade Mountain Gin is ALREADY hard to find! Nobody gets the product flying off the shelves like LMA. Sorry to rain on the Dutch gin parade, but gin has its origins in Italy, where it was used as an elixir for kidney problems and stomach upsets. It made its way to the Netherlands over time (around the mid-16th century, not the 15th, so much for the Beeb's fact checking)becoming "Genever," (or jenever)(from the French genièvre, meaning juniper). I loved the first installment in your "Gin Palace" series...I'm looking forward to having the complete series! A fitting tribute to the beverage that kept Western civilization alive in the time before regular hygienic bathing. I believe someone once said "If women are the Gatekeepers , gin is the hinge oil." Then the women killed him and ordered another round of G&Ts... It took courage to be snarky in the old days, and the Thirty Years' War (1618-4 brought Dutch courage to English-speaking masses, where they promptly added a lime wedge and made it perfect...

Posted by: Darrell at March 14, 2006 12:18 PM (qMfx0)

2 I'm not a big drinker so I can't add too much here but maybe you'd like this article on gin in our local version of your LA Weekly. Or maybe not.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2006 05:35 PM (GIhW0)

3 Who drinks gin? People with good taste! Pity the vodka drinkers who look for the perfect brand. What's their benchmark? No taste! There are better ways to warm your tongue...

Posted by: Darrell at March 14, 2006 08:48 PM (HCquN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . as seen through the eyes of hard-drinking Texan Jews.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

I did like the Big Love premiere, and not just because I think Bill Paxton's cute and Tom Hanks is a sharp producer. I'm not the only one.

It's essentially a nonviolent (so far, though that could easily change) version of The Sopranos: a guy lives half in the shadows, and half in Suburbia, and gets bounced like a pinball between his nuclear family and his extended family and his secrets and the modern world and the forces of darkness. Except that Bill is a good deal more likeable as a character vs. Tony Soprano.

It's all good.

I'm sorry some Mormons are upset, but the show does make the sharp division clear between mainstream Mormonism and the various polygamous cults that are tied to that church's roots. In fact, most people who study counter-cultures agree that the majority of the polygamous sects live elsewhere in the West, rather than in Utah. The show only needs to be set in Salt Lake City in order to create tension between cultists and mainstream Mormons.

In real life, of course, they'd live in New Mexico or Arizona, but we need to see Respectable Mormons recoiling from polygamy, and I imagine that we will. (At least, the first episode sets such a situation up.)

The show also captures the real moral problem in these sects: the "marriages" of young girls who haven't yet reached the age of consent to grown men.

I would love to see prosecutions for polygamy strictly confined to sects that prey on young women. That would, as I see it, be a much better use of law-enforcement dollars.

My husband's line on polygamous quasi-Mormon sects: "three wives, but no coffee? No thanks." Of course, I get the impression that he thinks one wife is an awful lot sometimes. Of course, he is, um, taking the graduate course in marriage.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:19 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

That's the real reason I don't watch "enough television." When I get hooked, I really get hooked. And when my husband and I get hooked together, it's ugly.

I love this picture: there's so much in it. The symbolism is so layered. And nearly everyone is looking over his/her shoulder. Wonder why.

The video of the trailer is at the official site, here.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:53 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Then maybe I'd best switch to vodka. If only I didn't like gin better.

Darrell's talked me into running reviews for gin, whiskey, and red wine. With a little luck the distillers and wineries will start sending me stuff on their own. Then if I can't quite make money off of blogging, I can at least get the consoluation perk of all publishing underlings: a few freebies here and there.

How funny, then, to see the gin Darrell thinks I should try (Cascade Mountain Gin) reviewed on the same page with one that had previously caught my eye (Hendrick's).

Cascade is first, and Darrell's handling fundraising to reimburse me for the cost. You know, this could turn into a fun little project.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:53 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . of an enigma, no?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

1) I have sadly decided that I will not be driving up to the San Francisco Bay Area tomorrow, after all. There's just too much that needs to be done around here—particularly with the imminent threat of employment in the air, and my niece coming by at the end of the month. (It takes a while for all the systems to be in place when one is trying to spoil young relatives.)

2) There will therefore be time to finish painting my bathroom.

3) Very little, if any of the time saved by staying home will go into my blog.

4) I fully intend to figure out how to live-blog my next road trip, whether via cell phone or by stopping off at hotspots along the way.

So you have that going for you.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:39 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

I'd like everyone to please stop writing until I catch up. I can't even think about Glenn Reynolds' An Army of Davids; I'm still working (to my shame) on The Singularity is Near, which—by the way—has way too many pages in it. Way. Too. Many. My background may also be a bit light for it in the following arenas:

1. Biology. (I took human physiology in high school, because I couldn't relate to the creatures that inhabit tidepools; it was all about my species back then.)

2. Mathematics. (I never learned the mutliplication tables, because whenever my mother or stepmother pulled out the flash cards, I found myself looking at the numerals, and wondering how architecturally stable they would be if they were buildings, or how they would dance if they were people. Apparently, these were the wrong things to focus on, and it held me back just a little bit with higher math.)

3. Computers. (I spent my 20s hanging out with computer programmers, but their concerns were a good deal less interesting to me than who was sleeping with whom, and whether they were going to break up soon, and who made the best omelet, and what shape the ideal teapot would be, and why William Butler Yeats is so underappreciated as a poet. I regret the error.)

Bye the bye, Tigerhawk has a cute review of Army of Davids, in which he calls it "romantic."

Hat tip: . . . wait for it . . . Instapundit.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:48 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Let's all just step back, shall we?

If I called Secretary Rice to ask her what the game plan is, would she tell me? She shouldn't, of course.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:30 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

This bothers me, because it just isn't right. But no one consulted me, and the consensus out there seems to be that it's okay to have a British company running our ports—as long as there aren't any sand niggers involved. Sigh. What a defeat for liberal ideals.

Now. Is there an American company out there that can even do this? Anyone? Bueller?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:34 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Are there any legislators out there with anything between their ears? Morons, indeed.

Lewis' signature line reminds me of Archie Bunker's complaint that it was hard to get "American food, like hamburgers and spaghetti."

Memo to the GOP: you're slow-dancing with Chuck Schumer. Isn't there some kind of clue in there that emotion has trumped analysis?

UPDATE: Sean points out this article, in which former CIA officer Larry Johnson expresses concerns about how existing DPW ports are being run:

"When you look at three of the top world ports for smuggling, counterfeit and contraband activity, those are, by my count, Hong Kong, Dubai and Panama. Dubai Ports World controls two of the three" Johnson said, referring to Dubai and Hong Kong.

Of course, my understanding is that the same command strucuture will remain in place at P&O: the only difference is that dark-skinned people who well might be Muslims will be sitting in a boardroom, half a world away, providing oversight to P&O.

And if there are two "wild West-style" ports being run at present by DPW, how many others are they running with very little contraband going through? (As I recall, there are 21 others.)

Kenton E. Kelly—aka Dennis the Peasant—wrote a scathing commentary in Reason Online about how the hysteria over the DPW port deal does not make us look very good among pro-Western factions in the Middle East. Not at all. We are pissing off people whose help we need badly.

The rough draft for that article ran as a blog post that later got pulled off his site (which is fair enough; after all, he'd sold the piece to Reason Online). But the original gets quoted a fair amount by The Lounsbury—another curmudgeon in Dennis' mold—right here, with some brilliant commentary and amplification.

(In general, the best information about the DPW Ports deal is being covered very well both at Dennis the Peasant and at Lounsbury's place.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:45 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 3 kb.

Attila the Hub has started to make little jokes about me being indolent. These jokes make me want to take a nap.

Of course, when I think about napping I spend hours wrestling with guilt, catching up on chores, and wringing my hands about whether it'll screw up my sleep cycles (more than they already are screwed up at any given point). Then I have to read for an hour before there's any chance that "drowsy" will cross the line into "sleepy." And I set an alarm, to make sure I won't sleep too late.

When my husband wants to nap, he goes into the bedroom and lies down. Grrrrr.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:41 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Hm. I'm starting to think I need to get some more RAM into this machine, ASAP. I wrote a brilliant post—okay: it was stuffy, quasi-literary, and rather dull—over at The American Mind, and Sean's MT wouldn't take it.

I mean, my overwrought prose is safe in a Word file, but I need to fix this problem. The difficulty is definitely here, rather than at Sean's website, because I'm experiencing similar incidents with other interactive sites, and my relationship with my e-mail program has turned downright quarrelsome. (It has always reserved the right to decide that my password is somehow wrong, but it's doing this more and more often. In fact, I think it's determined to make me its punk.)

The computer is just . . . well, it's pale, and ill, a shadow of its former self. I know you guys try to discourage me from putting medications into it through the CD-Rom drive, but I thought a few iron pills might pep it up a bit. Or I could just stick some raisins in there . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:11 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Over the next week I'll be dividing my time between this blog and Sean's digs over at The American Mind. Sean will out of his snowy element for a week between the mesas in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.

He'll be enjoying something called baseball. I gather it involves grown men standing around in a field, playing with balls and sticks and being watched by other grown men who drink beer. As I understand it, this is all followed by more drinking of beer, supplanted (in Sean's case) by the consumption of margaritas, just to break things up.

I'll be driving up to the Bay Area on Sunday, and I'm hoping to get you all a little coastal photoblogging action. So with some luck both blogs will be filled with pretty pictures from warm places.

Enjoy. And make sure to meet me over at The American Mind when you have the chance.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.