Aiming lower: Trader Joe's Italian Roast

Since we're broke trying to save money in the current economic crisis, as I went shopping yesterday for dinner I bought some cheap coffee. Trader Joe's Italian Roast, which at $8.65/lb is less expensive than the $10.50/lb I pay for any of the brands at QFC, or even the (gasp) $16/lb I would spend these days for Dead Man's Reach. (When I get a job, though, I am so buying myself some DMR, though.)

Trader Joe's Italian Roast is an unremarkable coffee. It's more bitter, closer to the historical coffees you might remember when your father drank it, but definitely better than that; it's smoother and more forgiving, and when you first pour the beans out they're dark and oily and just they way they should be. It's like heirloom coffee, in a way.

The taste is slightly bitter and has a high palette, very little nose with some chestnut in it, and a very strong chocolate aftertaste that is nice. It's not great coffee-- the opening notes are somewhat astringent, but that fades very quickly-- but it'll do.

On the other hand, it has a lot of caffeine. I mean, make the "Elf jittery with one cup" lot. I don't know whether this recommends it to you, or not, but there you have it.

The Job Search Continues

Well, today was unproductive job-wise. I found one opening through a recruiter I'd already spoken with, so it was a different position and I need to get a job number from my contact at this recruiter. Otherwise, pretty bleak.

I did do a technical interview, and the engineer and I talked around all the development issues I did. I kinda flubbed the SQL "Inner joins and Outer joins" technical, but I confessed to using the ORM and taking the default recommendations. I was not aware-- and this was bad-- that ISAM isn't fully ACID, but then most modern installs don't activate the ISAM component anyway. But all of the development layer questions, especially about test driven development and acceptance testing and all that, I knew my stuff, so it was all good that way.

I find that when I'm using the earpiece I tend to pace all around the house, up and down the hallway between the living room and the bedrooms, using motion to activate portions of my brain.

Anyway, we'll see how things go. According to the guy I talked to, a lot of people use the Renton P&R and bus it up to Bellevue. It's faster than driving.

Proposition 8, the real secret: the supporters lost

Page 36 of the ruling:

Insofar as the majority opinion in that case holds that limiting the designation of "marriage" to the relationship entered into by opposite-sex couples constitutes an impermissible impingement upon the state constitutional rights of privacy and due process, the language of article I, section 7.5, on its face, does not purport to alter or affect the more general holding in in re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples, as well as opposite-sex couples, enjoy the constitutional right, under the privacy and due process clauses of the California Constitution, to establish an officially recognized family relationship. Proposition 8 reasonably must be interpreted in a limited fashion as eliminating only the right of same-sex couples to equal access to the designation of marriage, and as not otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship.

[Final emphasis mine]

Is everyone clear on what happened here? The California Supreme Court is basically saying that their 4-3 ruling granting same sex couples the exact same rights as married couples, without any of the exceptions carved out in Assembly Bill 205, stands as a matter of law. Homosexual couples are entitled to absolutely all of the benefits and rights as heterosexual couples, without fail.

They just can't use the word "marriage" on the license creating "officially recognized family relationships." They can say "husband." They can say "wife." They can say "family." They get absolutely every right granted a married couple under California law. No exceptions.

It's kinda weird, too, the court enshrining proscriptive dictionary meaning. I thought only the UK did stuff like that.

This time the court, clearly irked to have to deal with this issue a second time, issued their ruling 7-0. This is a rebuke to the proposition 8 supporters, and a warning. Even the three justices who disagreed with in re Marriage Cases don't like having their constitution messed with and their court's judgement overturned.

I've seen this analysis several times on the 'net today, and it seems to come back to Seneca Dione's website at KOS. It looks like a solid analysis of the ruling of law as handed down by the Supreme Court. Straight people have marriages called "marriage"; gay people have marriages called "ORFRs" (until otherwise revised). There is no legal distinction between the two in a court of law, and the supporters of proposition 8 will just have to live with that.