romantic dinner spot in Santa Cruz
Asya Kamsky
that I will be there on a Saturday night next month and am
looking for a romantic dinner venue (anniversary kind of
romantic, must not have any "Happy birthday" singing).
Recommendations? Any and all food types, and price isn't
an issue...
--
Asya Kamsky
I completed a marathon and raised $4000 for the SF AIDS Foundation,
Dec 9, 2001, Honolulu, Hawaii. Thanks to all my sponsors!
Read all about it: http://www.things.org/~asya/marathon.html
The Ranger
>am looking for a romantic dinner venue (anniversary kind of
>romantic, must not have any "Happy birthday" singing).
>Recommendations? Any and all food types, and price isn't
>an issue...
If being in Santa Cruz proper isn't a priority, I'd recommend:
Hollins House
20 Clubhouse Rd
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 459-9177
Ask for a window seat. Views (on a clear night) are spectacular.
The Ranger
Tim May
<as...@bayarea.net> wrote:
> It's been a while since I've lived in Santa Cruz, but I find
> that I will be there on a Saturday night next month and am
> looking for a romantic dinner venue (anniversary kind of
> romantic, must not have any "Happy birthday" singing).
>
> Recommendations? Any and all food types, and price isn't
> an issue...
The Shadowbrook, above Capitola Village. The place with the funicular
railcar down to the restaurant.
--TIm May
mag...@rahul.net
as...@bayarea.net (Asya Kamsky) created:
>It's been a while since I've lived in Santa Cruz, but I find
>that I will be there on a Saturday night next month and am
>looking for a romantic dinner venue (anniversary kind of
>romantic, must not have any "Happy birthday" singing).
>
>Recommendations? Any and all food types, and price isn't
>an issue...
Shadowbrook is, hands down, the most romantic restaurant in the
Santa Cruz area. Their food gets mixed reviews, however:
In the past, I've enjoyed my meals there.
jc
Paul Russell
I'd go along with that - the food (and service) can be somewhat
"variable". It's a great location though. Oh, and a minor nitpick, it's
in Capitola, not Santa Cruz.
//Paul
Tim May
<prus...@arc-software.com> wrote:
> I'd go along with that - the food (and service) can be somewhat
> "variable". It's a great location though. Oh, and a minor nitpick, it's
> in Capitola, not Santa Cruz.
Yep, a really minor, trivial, inconsequential nitpick.
The Shadowbrook is no more than 2 miles from Santa Cruz, the city,
proper.
If somone travels 30-50 miles to "the Santa Cruz area," do they rule
out dining in a town 2 miles from their nominal destination?
--Tim May
SymplySwt
>am looking for a romantic dinner venue (anniversary kind of
>romantic, must not have any "Happy birthday" singing). >>
Shadowbrook always comes to mind, though I agree about the food and service. I
really enjoy Casablanca, overlooking the wharf, main beach and bay. The
Library at Chaminade.
However, I have to agree with the Ranger. Hollins House would be my pick.
It is delightful in ambiance and meal.
Aren't there still some small romanitic places, with outstanding food, down
in Soquel?
Regards,
Josie
Asya Kamsky
<mag...@rahul.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:55:55 +0000 (UTC), in ba.food,
>as...@bayarea.net (Asya Kamsky) created:
>Santa Cruz area. Their food gets mixed reviews, however:
I've eaten there dozens of times when I lived in the area,
and this *is* the place I had in mind when I said "no happy
birthday songs".
I took my then-so there for his birthday and literally
every 5 minutes the waiters would sing at yet another table.
I find that to be tacky-and Chevy-worthy. If they have
stopped I would consider Shadowbrook again. Hollins House
sounds promising though.
mag...@rahul.net
as...@bayarea.net (Asya Kamsky) created:
>I took my then-so there for his birthday and literally
>every 5 minutes the waiters would sing at yet another table.
Aha. I don't remember this being the case when I ate there last,
but it's been quite a while (more than 5 years).
You might also want to consider Theos, in Soquel. Call and ask
if they sing happy birthday or if they are more dignified than
that and see what they say.
jc
Paul Russell
There are cases where it might matter. For example, if it were me, I
might want to walk to the restaurant in question so that I could imbibe
as much alcohol as I cared to without worrying about driving home. In
this case, if I were staying in a hotel in Santa Cruz I probably
wouldn't care to walk to Capitola.
//Paul
Tim May
<prus...@arc-software.com> wrote:
That's a contrived--and silly--argument.
Santa Cruz may be a relatively small town, but it is still way too
spread out for there to be any plausible chance that one would walk
from a hotel picked at random and a restaurant picked at random. Sure,
one could find pairings (sort of like wine pairings...), but the same
applies to Capitola.
Don't count on walking to a good restaurant from a good hotel. Santa
Cruz and its neighboring towns are definitely not walkable.
Not surprisingly, some of the better hotels and motels are not even in
Santa Cruz proper. Nor are the better restaurants. The Sparrow is in
Aptos, Theo's is in Soquel, the Hollins House is up on the hill above
town, Sanderling's is in Seascape/Aptos, and so on.
The Hollins House Restaurant is not within walking distance of any
motels in Santa Cruz, though I suppose one could walk to the Pasatiempo
Inn, assuming one enjoys strolls down pitch black suburban lanes.
Count on driving.
--Tim May
christopher williams
"Asya Kamsky" <as...@bayarea.net> wrote in message
news:a2a5lb$jbk$1...@localhost.localdomain...
> It's been a while since I've lived in Santa Cruz, but I find
> that I will be there on a Saturday night next month and am
> looking for a romantic dinner venue (anniversary kind of
> romantic, must not have any "Happy birthday" singing).
>
> Recommendations? Any and all food types, and price isn't
> an issue...
Best views while dining:
Chaminade ( turned a nunnery into a restaurant...)
1 Chaminade Lane
475-5600
Cafe Rio ( mainly fish, on esplanade at rio del mar )
688-8917
Palapas ( mexican with a great bar )
21 Seascape Village
662-9000
Casablanca ( ocean view every table, but by wharf )
426-9063
shadowbrook has been overrated for years now, the best part is the tram
going down to the restaurant; the food has gone downhill over the last 8
years.
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
>In article <u4h8usl...@corp.supernews.com>,
>The Ranger <cuhul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Asya Kamsky asked:
>>>am looking for a romantic dinner venue (anniversary kind of
>>>romantic, must not have any "Happy birthday" singing).
>>>Recommendations? Any and all food types, and price isn't
>>>an issue...
>>
>>If being in Santa Cruz proper isn't a priority, I'd recommend:
>>
>>Hollins House
And, if you want to make it a *really* romantic/memorable event, stay
overnight, at Sand Rock Farm B&B: http://www.sandrockfarm.com/
http://www.intuitiveparenting.org
Resources on intuitive parenting, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, and
more
I am: Mom, Attorney, Professor, Advocate for Fathers and Against
Spam
http://www.annepmitchell.com
Michael Dix
> And, if you want to make it a *really* romantic/memorable event, stay
> overnight, at Sand Rock Farm B&B: http://www.sandrockfarm.com/
Is this one of those places where you must be cheery with
strangers at breakfast-time (often having to share a table
with a chatty Cathy and her socks and Birkenstocks-wearing
mate)? I find those to be about as romantic as honeymooning at
Grandma's.
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
There is no requirement that you partake in the provided breakfast,
although the owner's daughter, who prepares the meals, is a 5-star chef,
and the food is great.
Some of the rooms (all LOVELY) have in-room tubs with jacuzzi; two of them
share a semi-private outdoor hot tub; there is a wonderful sitting room
with fireplace, a sunroom with books and magazines. I humbly suggest you
can have your fill of romance from checkin through sun-up, and still enjoy
breakfast, if you want to. :-0
Anne
Meg Worley
Anne suggested:
>> And, if you want to make it a *really* romantic/memorable event, stay
>> overnight, at Sand Rock Farm B&B: http://www.sandrockfarm.com/
MichaelD writes:
>Is this one of those places where you must be cheery with
>strangers at breakfast-time (often having to share a table
>with a chatty Cathy and her socks and Birkenstocks-wearing
>mate)? I find those to be about as romantic as honeymooning at
>Grandma's.
Sure looks like it. The RL hates the talk-with-strangers aspect
of B&Bs; me, I hate being at the mercy of someone else's enthusiasm
for decorating. Often their decormania gets in the way of my
comfort -- for example, of the rooms pictured at the website,
only some of them had bedside tables, much less reading lights
on them. That's what drives me round the bend at B&Bs.
ObB&BFood: at least the breakfasts are almost always better than
anything you can get at a hotel (unless you stay at the Ritz-
Carlton, I suppose).
Rage away,
meg
--
Meg Worley _._ m...@steam.stanford.edu _._ Comparatively Literate
Joseph Michael Bay
>In article <3C4A42ED...@arc-software.com>, Paul Russell
><prus...@arc-software.com> wrote:
>> There are cases where it might matter. For example, if it were me, I
>> might want to walk to the restaurant in question so that I could imbibe
>> as much alcohol as I cared to without worrying about driving home. In
>> this case, if I were staying in a hotel in Santa Cruz I probably
>> wouldn't care to walk to Capitola.
>That's a contrived--and silly--argument.
>Santa Cruz may be a relatively small town, but it is still way too
>spread out for there to be any plausible chance that one would walk
>from a hotel picked at random and a restaurant picked at random. Sure,
>one could find pairings (sort of like wine pairings...), but the same
>applies to Capitola.
>Don't count on walking to a good restaurant from a good hotel. Santa
>Cruz and its neighboring towns are definitely not walkable.
Gee, so I guess when my gf and I did exactly that last summer,
and again earlier this year, it was under the influence of authorial
fiat or something. Or we're just terribly lucky, or then again
perhaps the choice of a hotel was influenced by the proximity of
the restaurant (in the second case it was actually a performance
space, but it included a restaurant).
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
Putting the "harm" in molecular pharmacology since 1998
When crime is outlawed, only outlaws will commit crimes.
LEGALIZE http://www.stanford.edu/~jmbay CRIME
Karen O'Mara
> The Shadowbrook, above Capitola Village. The place with the funicular
> railcar down to the restaurant.
I think the Shadowbrook comes first to my mind, too, when describing a
romantic spot. And, the romantic ambiance makes up for some of the
failings of the food, as the food isn't out of this world, or
anything...
Karen O'
Karen O'Mara
> shadowbrook has been overrated for years now, the best part is the tram
> going down to the restaurant; the food has gone downhill over the last 8
> years.
I think a lot of people go to the Shadowbrook for a drink under their
avocado tree on a late afternoon, then continue to another place for
dinner. Of course, this works best in the summertime....
Karen
SymplySwt
From: "christopher williams" chr...@sasquatch.com
Ahhhh.... and after/before dining at Casablanca, you could do a nice 5 min.
stroll to/from your ocean front room at the Dream Inn. (WestCoast Santa Cruz
Hotel.
Regards,
Josie
Paul Russell
>
> In article <3C4A42ED...@arc-software.com>, Paul Russell
> <prus...@arc-software.com> wrote:
>
> > There are cases where it might matter. For example, if it were me, I
> > might want to walk to the restaurant in question so that I could imbibe
> > as much alcohol as I cared to without worrying about driving home. In
> > this case, if I were staying in a hotel in Santa Cruz I probably
> > wouldn't care to walk to Capitola.
>
> That's a contrived--and silly--argument.
>
> Santa Cruz may be a relatively small town, but it is still way too
> spread out for there to be any plausible chance that one would walk
> from a hotel picked at random and a restaurant picked at random. Sure,
> one could find pairings (sort of like wine pairings...), but the same
> applies to Capitola.
>
> Don't count on walking to a good restaurant from a good hotel. Santa
> Cruz and its neighboring towns are definitely not walkable.
>
Admittedly I've only lived in Santa Cruz for a couple of years, but I
can only think of one restaurant that I don't regularly walk to (Avanti,
which is way over on Mission, which makes it not a very pleasant walk).
I much prefer walking to dinner than driving because (a) I can then
drink as much as I like with a clear conscience (if not a clear head),
(b) it's great for the digestion and helps to burn of some of those
excess calories and (c) I find it makes for a better night's sleep.
I know that walking is a difficult concept for some, but it does have
its advantages.
//Paul
s...@cs.berkeley.edu
> Tim May wrote:
>> <prus...@arc-software.com> wrote:
>>> There are cases where it might matter. For example, if it
>>> were me, I might want to walk to the restaurant in question so
>>> that I could imbibe as much alcohol as I cared to without
>>> worrying about driving home. In this case, if I were staying in a
>>> hotel in Santa Cruz I probably wouldn't care to walk to Capitola.
>> That's a contrived--and silly--argument.
>> Santa Cruz may be a relatively small town, but it is still way too
>> spread out for there to be any plausible chance that one would walk
>> from a hotel picked at random and a restaurant picked at random.
Weird. Last I checked, many of the hotels and many of the restaurants
are within one mile or so of each other, in downtown Santa Cruz.
>> Don't count on walking to a good restaurant from a good hotel. Santa
>> Cruz and its neighboring towns are definitely not walkable.
That's ridiculous. The only thing I can think of is that you're
limiting what defines a "good hotel" to somewhere more expensive
than I would normally stay, and that does not exist in central
Santa Cruz. In Santa Cruz, I normally stay at a Best Western or
Holiday Inn or some such. Maybe these aren't good hotels, but
they are right downtown, and one can walk to noteworthy
restaurants such as Pearl Alley or Palomar.
Things are slightly spread out in that the boardwalk area,
and hotels nearby it, are separated from the downtown area --
but not by more than a mile or so, although some would
call this not walkable because it's a boring walk.
> Admittedly I've only lived in Santa Cruz for a couple of years,
> but I can only think of one restaurant that I don't regularly
> walk to (Avanti, which is way over on Mission, which makes it not
> a very pleasant walk). I much prefer walking to dinner than
> driving because (a) I can then drink as much as I like with a
> clear conscience (if not a clear head), (b) it's great for the
> digestion and helps to burn of some of those excess calories and
> (c) I find it makes for a better night's sleep.
> I know that walking is a difficult concept for some, but it does have
> its advantages.
Surely Santa Cruz is more walkable than San Jose. I'd say it's
about as walkable as Berkeley. It's not as walkable as parts
of San Francisco -- i.e. the Union Square / Tenderloin area
where a car is a liability.
Steve
Tim May
> Weird. Last I checked, many of the hotels and many of the restaurants
> are within one mile or so of each other, in downtown Santa Cruz.
But not the bulk of the restaurants suggested here in response to the
original question. The top names so far have been:
-- Hollins House, up on the hill in Pasatiempo
-- Shadowbrook, down the hill in Capitola Village
-- Theo's, in Soquel
-- Chaminade, up in the ravine above Santa Cruz/Soquel
-- Casablanca, near the Boardwalk
Of these, only the Casablanca is walkable from the beach motels on
Ocean. The old Dream Inn, now some other name, is the best candidate
for the Casablanca.
I wouldn't put The Palomar or Pearl Alley into the same category.
You have Ocean Avenue motel and Pacific Avenue restaurant tastes. For
this, I congratulate you. You are saving a lot of money, getting 80% of
the benefits for 40%, or less, of the cost.
However, these were not the class of restaurants (and, by extension
later in the thread, lodgings) originally asked about.
> >> Don't count on walking to a good restaurant from a good hotel. Santa
> >> Cruz and its neighboring towns are definitely not walkable.
>
> That's ridiculous. The only thing I can think of is that you're
> limiting what defines a "good hotel" to somewhere more expensive
> than I would normally stay, and that does not exist in central
> Santa Cruz. In Santa Cruz, I normally stay at a Best Western or
> Holiday Inn or some such. Maybe these aren't good hotels, but
> they are right downtown, and one can walk to noteworthy
> restaurants such as Pearl Alley or Palomar.
The Holiday Inn is now being used to house UCSC students.
> Things are slightly spread out in that the boardwalk area,
> and hotels nearby it, are separated from the downtown area --
> but not by more than a mile or so, although some would
> call this not walkable because it's a boring walk.
A man was killed recently on one of the side streets by some muggers.
And a restaurant owner in Aptos was killed over the Xmas holidays at
his restaurant. Santa Cruz is filled with transients, hoboes, winos,
addicts, drifters, and other so-called "homeless."
Be very careful if you make the walk between the Boardwalk area and the
downtown area. And whatever you do, don't walk through Beach Flats, the
Mexican neighborhood. At least not unarmed, that is. A triple murder
happened there last summer.
> Surely Santa Cruz is more walkable than San Jose. I'd say it's
> about as walkable as Berkeley. It's not as walkable as parts
> of San Francisco -- i.e. the Union Square / Tenderloin area
> where a car is a liability.
"More walkable" than many cities? Sure.
But is this good advice for the person inquiring about a romantic
dinner spot in Santa Cruz?
--Tim May
s...@cs.berkeley.edu
>> Weird. Last I checked, many of the hotels and many of the
>> restaurants are within one mile or so of each other, in downtown
>> Santa Cruz.
> But not the bulk of the restaurants suggested here in response to the
> original question. The top names so far have been:
>-- Hollins House, up on the hill in Pasatiempo
>-- Shadowbrook, down the hill in Capitola Village
>-- Theo's, in Soquel
>-- Chaminade, up in the ravine above Santa Cruz/Soquel
>-- Casablanca, near the Boardwalk
You're right; I had strayed from the original "romantic" concept,
which downtown Santa Cruz and most of its businesses is not.
I find Pacific Grove a lot more romantic, although some would
complain about the tacky lodgings there too. (Something about
beach towns spawns a high ratio of tacky hotels.) Usually, if I
stay in Santa Cruz, it is because of a specific reason, such as
seeing a concert at Kuumbwa or at one of the clubs, and in those
instances I find it convenient if one's hotel is not all that far
away.
More destination restaurants downtown would be a good thing.
>> Things are slightly spread out in that the boardwalk area,
>> and hotels nearby it, are separated from the downtown area --
>> but not by more than a mile or so, although some would
>> call this not walkable because it's a boring walk.
>A man was killed recently on one of the side streets by some muggers.
>And a restaurant owner in Aptos was killed over the Xmas holidays at
>his restaurant. Santa Cruz is filled with transients, hoboes, winos,
>addicts, drifters, and other so-called "homeless."
I'm sorry to hear about these crimes. But I don't correlate them
with the presence of drifters in Santa Cruz. In my view, it is the
attempts to clear out the street people that has led, by
selective process, to a more hardened class of criminal
frequenting the Santa Cruz streets. Homeless sweeps tend to
clear out only the harmless hippies, leaving intact the muggers
and worse.
Steve
Kent H.
Cruz"
Cheers,
Kent H.
Tim May
wrote:
> Recently, the sentient creature s...@cs.berkeley.edu presented us with:
>
> >I'm sorry to hear about these crimes. But I don't correlate them
> >with the presence of drifters in Santa Cruz. In my view, it is the
> >attempts to clear out the street people that has led, by
> >selective process, to a more hardened class of criminal
> >frequenting the Santa Cruz streets. Homeless sweeps tend to
> >clear out only the harmless hippies, leaving intact the muggers
> >and worse.
>
> I think you're correct, Steve. If the murder Tim referred to was the
> 31 y.o. fellow found by the river, he was a local guy involved with
> drugs. Sounds like they found heroin in his pocket. He had money and
> the drug on him so it was more likely personal or gang-related than a
> mugging. That is: worse.
I hadn't heard about this particular murder. There are many for a town
as small as ours...they don't call it the murder capital of the world
for nothing.
The triple killings happened near Beach Flats, near the Boardwalk. The
murder of the retaurant owner a few weeks ago happened in Aptos (he
owned and was the principal chef of the Pacific Rim Buffet, near the
entrance to the Forest of Nisene Marks. A real loss.)
My advice to those seeking a "romantic dinner spot" is to avoid the
downtown and Boardwalk areas, even if a few places on the Wharf are
nice and even if a few places downtown are nice. Better to stay far
away.
And I disagree with the earlier claim that clearing out the hippies has
made the crime worse. First, they haven't done _anything_ to clear out
the hippies. (Nor am I saying they should...)
Second, the problem is really a huge population of vagrants of various
kinds. They drift into Santa Cruz just as they drift into other coastal
California cities. Many of them stay, eking out an existence cadging
spare change, playing tuneless notes on flutes, collecting bottles and
cans, and stealing. (Hint: Don't park a nice car anywhere where the
vagrants can find it.)
Third, the vagrant problem means that a lot of older, established folks
will not visit Santa Cruz. (Verifiable by simple observation: watch the
traffic on Pacific Avenue. Note the ages and apparent levels of wealth.
Now compare to similar streets in Carmel, Pacific Grove, Sausalito,
Palo Alto.) This has the effect of pushing more restaurants toward the
expected clientele.
Personally, I like downtown Santa Cruz. I go there at least once a
week, sometimes twice. But I go for the bookstores (three good ones),
to grab a felafel or a sandwich or bowl of noodles, and to observe the
overall scene. My parents, when they lived in Rio Del Mar, avoided the
downtown like the plague.
Which is probably why the better restaurants cited here, like the
Hollins House, Theo's, Chaminade, Shadowbrook, Sparrow Cafe,
Sanderling's, etc., are all well-removed from the downtown scene of
beggars, winos, Rastafarian drummers, militant topless lesbians,
drifters, addicts, hippies, hoboes, and bald-headed persons of
piercing.
--Tim May
The Ranger
>Isn't there something oxymoronic about "romantic" and "Santa
>Cruz"
Sort of like "intelligent" and "Kent H."?
The Ranger
Tim May
wrote:
> <snip yucky Santa Cruz>
>
> How often do you go hang out in downtown Watsonville?
>
Never.
As I said, despite the unsavory nature of so many of the people in
Santa Cruz, at least it has several interesting bookstores.
Downtown Watsonville is like any small town one might find in the
Central Valley: taquerias, western wear stores, 1950s-type shoe stores
and ladies apparel stores, and lots and lots of Mexicans.
It's not really a bad town to live near (Corralitos is about 8 miles
from the downtown). Lots of vegetable stands, a few good Mexican
restaurants (I recommend Jalisco). On the outskirts of town are some
big box stores like Target.
But no bookstores worth going to.
--Tim May
mag...@rahul.net
<tc...@got.net> created:
>I hadn't heard about this particular murder. There are many for a town
>as small as ours...they don't call it the murder capital of the world
>for nothing.
They don't call it that at all.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22murder+capitol+%2Bof+the+world%22>
Only ONE link refers to Santa Cruz, and it refers to "Satanist
cult murders" in the 1970s.
Cities that are far more frequently referred to as "murder
capitol of the world" include New Orleans (which was, per capita,
the murder capitol of the US for several years), Denver,
Washington DC, New York City, Johannesburg, Soweto, etc.
ObNotFood: I stopped at KrispyKreme for donuts today, and made
the mistake of ordering a Mocha. No coffee taste, crappy
chocolate taste, crappy whipped cream that sure didn't taste like
"real whipped cream", chalky after-taste. UGH. The hot donuts
were nice, next time I'll try just plain coffee.
jc
Tim May
<mag...@rahul.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:27:52 GMT, in ba.food, Tim May
> <tc...@got.net> created:
>
> >I hadn't heard about this particular murder. There are many for a town
> >as small as ours...they don't call it the murder capital of the world
> >for nothing.
>
> They don't call it that at all.
>
> <http://www.google.com/search?q=%22murder+capitol+%2Bof+the+world%22>
>
> Only ONE link refers to Santa Cruz, and it refers to "Satanist
> cult murders" in the 1970s.
Try the correct spelling and you'll get 44 hits.
Including such items as:
"During his tenure, Chang was known nationally for obtaining the
convictions of three serial killers, John Frazier, Herbert Mullin and
Edmund Kemper, who between them murdered 26 people. Chang was famously
quoted at the height of the killings for saying Santa Cruz County was
the "murder capital of the world.''"
and
"It was picked up by a reporter and went to wire service as "Murder
Capital of the World". Santa Cruz was stuck with the nickname for many
years because of local serial killers, Herbert Mullin, Edmund Emil
Kemper III and John Linley Frazier."
And, of course, the locally filmed "Lost Boys," with the "Murder
Capital of the World" slogan scrawled on the back of a "Welcome to
Santa Carla" billboard. (Santa Cruz didn't want further associations
with this image and Joel Schumacher agreed to change the name to Santa
Carla. After the film became a cult hit, the politicians apparently
regretted asking for the change.)
> Cities that are far more frequently referred to as "murder
> capitol of the world" include New Orleans (which was, per capita,
> the murder capitol of the US for several years), Denver,
> Washington DC, New York City, Johannesburg, Soweto, etc.
You're way too literal, J.C.
Did you think I was claiming Santa Cruz has more murders than
Washington has, where at least one inner city mutant is murdered each
and every day on average?
--Tim May
hpjeannie
>
> If somone travels 30-50 miles to "the Santa Cruz area," do they rule
> out dining in a town 2 miles from their nominal destination?
I know a couple who lives in Mountain View who has boycotted doing any
business in Capitola. Seems their (parked in a metered spot) car got
ticketed for no front plate by the Capitola revenooers. Now that's
double-dipping!
Jeannie
Kent H.
feeding tube and couple yourself to an ensure pump. You
could even put in a rectal tube and a urethral catheter to
handle the effluence.
David desJardins
> I know a couple who lives in Mountain View who has boycotted doing any
> business in Capitola. Seems their (parked in a metered spot) car got
> ticketed for no front plate by the Capitola revenooers. Now that's
> double-dipping!
I don't get it. They think that putting a coin in the meter exempts
them from the rest of the vehicle code?
David desJardins
The Ranger
[snip of truly forgettable spew]
Thanks loads for proving my point. You should stop while your behind,
though.
ObFood: Pesto pasta with roasted pine nuts. Didn't require a whisk and was
truly delicious.
The Ranger
Jeffrey Mogul
|> Sure looks like it. The RL hates the talk-with-strangers aspect
|> of B&Bs; me, I hate being at the mercy of someone else's enthusiasm
|> for decorating. Often their decormania gets in the way of my
|> comfort -- for example, of the rooms pictured at the website,
|> only some of them had bedside tables, much less reading lights
|> on them. That's what drives me round the bend at B&Bs.
My wife reacts badly to B&B using sock monkeys as decorative items.
ObFoodHotel: breakfast at the First Hotel Linne' in Uppsala, Sweden.
As with every hotel we stayed at in Sweden, the breakfast buffet
offered a huge variety of food, most of it good, but at this hotel,
you can eat breakfast while looking out at the Linnéträdgården,
a reconstruction of the Botanical Garden of Carl Linnaeus.
Also, the bartender is (was?) enthusiastic about introducing
visitors to the wonders of aquavit (not at breakfast, though).
-Jeff
s...@cs.berkeley.edu
> Madame Mango wrote:
>> How often do you go hang out in downtown Watsonville?
> Never.
> As I said, despite the unsavory nature of so many of the people in
> Santa Cruz, at least it has several interesting bookstores.
Being a Berkeley type, I don't find Santa Cruz street people
unsavory. I'm more likely to find, say, investment bankers and
venture capitalists unsavory.
>Downtown Watsonville is like any small town one might find in the
>Central Valley: taquerias, western wear stores, 1950s-type shoe stores
>and ladies apparel stores, and lots and lots of Mexicans.
>It's not really a bad town to live near (Corralitos is about 8 miles
>from the downtown). Lots of vegetable stands, a few good Mexican
>restaurants (I recommend Jalisco).
Yes, Jalisco is pretty good, if it's the one I'm thinking of.
Steve
s...@cs.berkeley.edu
>Only ONE link refers to Santa Cruz, and it refers to "Satanist
>cult murders" in the 1970s.
Was this the case of a U.S. military guy who tried to
cover up murdering his family by making it appear that a
Manson-style cult had done it?
Or were there more widespread, actual cult murders in
Santa Cruz at the time?
Steve
Michael Dix
> Which is probably why the better restaurants cited here, like the
> Hollins House, Theo's, Chaminade, Shadowbrook, Sparrow Cafe,
> Sanderling's, etc., are all well-removed from the downtown scene of
> beggars, winos, Rastafarian drummers, militant topless lesbians,
> drifters, addicts, hippies, hoboes, and bald-headed persons of
> piercing.
So why are dogs banned from the land of tolerance and
diversity that is downtown SC?
Geoff Miller
Hitching up his bell-bottoms and flashing a peace sign,
<s...@cs.berkeley.edu> wites:
> Being a Berkeley type, I don't find Santa Cruz street people
> unsavory. I'm more likely to find, say, investment bankers and
> venture capitalists unsavory.
And why would that be, pray tell? It's because of people like them
that you have a job and a computer, and that cities like Berkeley have
a tax base to help fund shelters for "the homeless" and battered
"womyn." Your attitude reminds me of seeing cars in SannaCrooz a
few years back with "No Offshore Drilling" bumper stickers on them.
> Yes, Jalisco is pretty good, if it's the one I'm thinking of.
Yabbut, the Mexicans have pretty conservative, traditional morals.
They might get a tad upset to see you sitting at a table in the
corner, jerking off to _I, Rigoberta_.
Geoff "Foo, Menchu" Miller
--
"Cherry blossoms fall
Ken finds a woman with a
Nice perestroikas."
-- Mark Schnitzius
s...@cs.berkeley.edu
> <s...@cs.berkeley.edu> wites:
>> Being a Berkeley type, I don't find Santa Cruz street people
>> unsavory. I'm more likely to find, say, investment bankers and
>> venture capitalists unsavory.
> And why would that be, pray tell?
Because they're living off the fat of the land, skimming the
taxpayers, and partying on our tab. Kinda like Tim May's
drifters and winos, just on a larger, socially-sanctioned scale.
>> Yes, Jalisco is pretty good, if it's the one I'm thinking of.
> Yabbut, the Mexicans have pretty conservative, traditional morals.
> They might get a tad upset to see you sitting at a table in the
> corner, jerking off to _I, Rigoberta_.
Don't worry, I'm not one of these "in your face" liberals.
Just because Commandante Zero is actually a gringo from
Berkeley (that's why he always wears a mask), doesn't mean
we're all like that.
S.
Bill Woodcock
> am looking for a romantic dinner venue (anniversary kind of
> romantic, must not have any "Happy birthday" singing).
> Recommendations? Any and all food types, and price isn't
> an issue...
Oswald or Ristorante Avanti.
-Bill
Tim May
Woodcock <wo...@pch.net> wrote:
A woman friend of mine wanted to "grab a bite to eat" one evening when
we were in Santa Cruz. She had read a glowing review of Oswald in one
of the SJ weekly rags.
ObCookingTerm: I looked at the prices and I blanched. We went elsewhere.
The food may be great, but the tiny size and the location in Wino
Alley, next to the garbage-strewn hole in the ground left over from the
1989 earthquake, makes it not what I would think of as "romantic."
--Tim May
Bill Woodcock
> A woman friend of mine wanted to "grab a bite to eat" one evening when
> we were in Santa Cruz. She had read a glowing review of Oswald in one
> of the SJ weekly rags.
I'd say the food is good, no better or worse than you'd get for the same
price in San Francisco. That makes it a bit more upscale than most of
the other restaurants in Santa Cruz, but not a particularly better or
worse value.
I don't eat there frequently, maybe once every nine months or so. I was
disappointed that their dessert menu had gone back to the usual fare,
last time I was there... I'd really been enjoying the experiments
they'd been trying.
-Bill
Geoff Miller
JC Dill <mag...@rahul.net> writes:
> Cities that are far more frequently referred to as "murder
> capitol of the world" include New Orleans (which was, per capita,
> the murder capitol of the US for several years), Denver,
> Washington DC, New York City, Johannesburg, Soweto, etc.
I'm doubtful that anybody ever meant it literally when they referred
to Santa Cruz, of all places, as the Murder Capital Of the World.
Of California or the U.S., maybe, but that's about it. Besides, I
thought East Palo Alto was the Murder Capital Of the U.S.
(By the way, the word is "capitAl." A "capitOl" is a building.
Geoff
--
"Why are they called 'people of color?' Because when they're driving,
they cause you to use 'language of color.'" -- Larry
Joseph Michael Bay
>I'm doubtful that anybody ever meant it literally when they referred
>to Santa Cruz, of all places, as the Murder Capital Of the World.
>Of California or the U.S., maybe, but that's about it. Besides, I
>thought East Palo Alto was the Murder Capital Of the U.S.
Ten years ago, sure. In recent times (like the past few years) it's
had about as many murders as Palo Alto, as far as I've heard.
Besides, Santa Carla is the MCotUS. All the damn vampires.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
Putting the "harm" in molecular pharmacology since 1998
When crime is outlawed, only outlaws will commit crimes.
LEGALIZE http://www.stanford.edu/~jmbay CRIME
Mark Mellin
geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) writes:
>
> I'm doubtful that anybody ever meant it literally when they referred
> to Santa Cruz, of all places, as the Murder Capital Of the World.
> Of California or the U.S., maybe, but that's about it. Besides, I
> thought East Palo Alto was the Murder Capital Of the U.S.
Speaking of East Palo Alto, Ikea will be begging for community
support tommorow (Saturday) by hosting a barbecue from noon to 2 at the
EPA Senior Center, 560 Bell Street, according to today's Daily News.
"Voter registration and absentee ballots will be available."
- Mark
"Look at you, drinking out of a shaker. That's just pathetic." -J.M.
Bay
--
Mark Mellin Precita Valley, CA 94110-5206
USA
Tim May
<jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) writes:
>
>
> >I'm doubtful that anybody ever meant it literally when they referred
> >to Santa Cruz, of all places, as the Murder Capital Of the World.
> >Of California or the U.S., maybe, but that's about it. Besides, I
> >thought East Palo Alto was the Murder Capital Of the U.S.
>
> Ten years ago, sure. In recent times (like the past few years) it's
> had about as many murders as Palo Alto, as far as I've heard.
What are you smoking?
--Tim May
Tim May
<jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) writes:
>
>
> >I'm doubtful that anybody ever meant it literally when they referred
> >to Santa Cruz, of all places, as the Murder Capital Of the World.
> >Of California or the U.S., maybe, but that's about it. Besides, I
> >thought East Palo Alto was the Murder Capital Of the U.S.
>
> Ten years ago, sure. In recent times (like the past few years) it's
> had about as many murders as Palo Alto, as far as I've heard.
What are you smoking?
--Tim May
christopher williams
"Michael Dix" <mj...@best.vwh.net> wrote in message
news:3C4E4E66...@best.vwh.net...
Because they pull people on skateboards and hump old men's legs...
Joseph Michael Bay
>> geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) writes:
>What are you smoking?
Pot.
But in 1992 EPA had like 42 murders, and was called the "murder
capital of the nation" (in terms of murders per capita), and 7
in 1999, while in 2000 there were what, three? four? Last year
I think there was a hit-and-run and a shooting death in EPA as
far as I could find in the Peninsula's archive. Meanwhile in
2001 in Palo Alto there was the Fithugh murder and that one
woman who got shot in the head outside Q.
Of course EPA has 30,000 people and Palo Alto has 60,000 so
they're still ahead of us per capita, but the absolute numbers
are pretty similar.
Geoff Miller
Earlier I asked:
[ spp is more likely to find investment bankers and venture
capitalists unsavory than street people ]
: And why would that be, pray tell?
<s...@cs.berkeley.edu> replied:
> Because they're living off the fat of the land,
ObSteinbeck: And raising rabbits, and carrying a dead mouse in their
collective pocket? "Tell me about the rabbits, George! An' how we're
gonna live off the fatta the land!"
> skimming the taxpayers, and partying on our tab.
What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be mouthing vaguely
understood snippets of other people's half-baked, quasi-Marxist
slogans that you overheard while wandering Telegraph Avenue after
a bong session.
> Kinda like Tim May's drifters and winos, just on a larger, socially-
> sanctioned scale.
That's hippie-dippy handwaving BS. It's socially sanctioned because
it's socially beneficial. Those people make it possible for companies
to get started, companies that employ people like you and me. And
those companies, in turn, provide a tax base for their communities.
Tim's drifters and winos provide precious little in the way of
benefits to anyone.
Is what these people do somehow evil because they happen to make money
at it? Don't you think they *should* be rewarded for allowing their
money to be used by others? If they weren't, there'd be precious little
incentive for anyone to fund start-ups, don't you think?
> Don't worry, I'm not one of these "in your face" liberals.
Thank Glub for small miracles...
Jeremy Bond Shepherd
Worley) wrote:
>
>
> ObB&BFood: at least the breakfasts are almost always better than anything
you can get at a hotel (unless you stay at the Ritz- Carlton, I suppose).
>
But how do they compare with the breakfasts served in the pokey. :-)
- Jeremy
Nabeel Ibrahim
>And those companies, in turn, provide a tax base for their communities.
You mean like Enron?
Nabeel
Geoff Miller
Earlier I wrote:
: And those companies, in turn, provide a tax base for their communities.
Nabeel Ibrahim <ibr...@Stanford.EDU> responds:
> You mean like Enron?
Do you really believe that the Enron affair is at all representative
of big business?
Nabeel Ibrahim
Geoff Miller <geo...@netgate.net> wrote:
>
>Earlier I wrote:
>
>: And those companies, in turn, provide a tax base for their communities.
>
>Nabeel Ibrahim <ibr...@Stanford.EDU> responds:
>
>> You mean like Enron?
>
>Do you really believe that the Enron affair is at all representative
>of big business?
I believe that Enron's abuse of the tax system so that they didn't have to
pay any taxes is representative of big business' tendency to use tax
loopholes, questionable accounting principles and favorable laws (thanks to
the purchase of both the Democratic and Republican parties) to avoid
paying their fair share of taxes.
So, I guess that's a yes, Geoff. Care to disagree?
Nabeel
ObSustenance: I finally hit Trials Pub on North First in San Jose last
night. As you might remember, it's now Chester's hangout since Fuel closed.
It was a neat little place with a great variety of beer on tap. To add
to the charm, the owners were totally and completely lit.
Bubbadude
running around oppressing the virtuous, despoiling the earth, and
fouling the air. It's our rapacious nature and we can't help it.
ObFood: and then eating doughnuts.
David Arnstein
Nabeel Ibrahim <ibr...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>I believe that Enron's abuse of the tax system so that they didn't have to
>pay any taxes is representative of big business' tendency to use tax
>loopholes, questionable accounting principles and favorable laws (thanks to
>the purchase of both the Democratic and Republican parties) to avoid
>paying their fair share of taxes.
I think that progressives are wasting time with the issue of corporate
taxation (and its avoidance). What makes you think taxing corporations
is so great? You tax a corporation, and it processes the added expense
by a combination of
- raising prices to customers, and
- reducing benefits to shareholders (owners).
Presumbably, you are most enthusiastic about the second alternative.
However, you progressives have no control over this decision. Besides,
most corporations make a profit that is a small percentage of the prices
that they charge to customers. Therefore, it stands to reason that when
you raise its taxes, most of the increased expense transforms itself
into higher prices to customers. Just like any other marginal added
expense.
It is generally agreed that sales taxes are NOT progressive. This is
because people of modest means are obliged to spend a higher proportion
of their income immediately, rather than investing it. I just argued
that corporate taxes function largely as sales taxes.
So go ahead and make yourself feel like a saint by calling for higher
corporate taxes. In the mean time, enjoy the tax advantages that you
get from your mortgage, 401-K, IRA, etc. All those things that people
of modest means have trouble taking advantage of. Right on, far out,
power to the people, etc.
ObFood: The peaches at Albertsons are pretty good for off-season fruit.
You may have to let them sit around for a week to simulate ripeness,
though.
--
David Arnstein
arnstei...@pobox.com
Todd Michel McComb
David Arnstein <arnstei...@pobox.com> wrote:
>I think that progressives are wasting time with the issue of
>corporate taxation (and its avoidance). What makes you think
>taxing corporations is so great?
You left out the only part which interests me: Taxing corporations
cuts one of the competitive advantages they have over non-corporations.
Of course, I'm no progressive, and no I don't take advantage of any
of the possible tax savings you mentioned. Although not a Christian,
I'm with Jesus on this one... it's the government's money anyway,
it says so right on it.
ObFood: Tried some Omaha steaks last night; OK, but not real
special, as the consensus seems to be. Buying them at the Barbecue
place in McCarthy Ranch means no shipping, though, and the prices
aren't especially obscene ($28 for 2 8oz filets).
s...@cs.berkeley.edu
> I think that progressives are wasting time with the issue of
> corporate taxation (and its avoidance). What makes you think
> taxing corporations is so great?
Well, for one thing, the WTO just ruled the U.S. is in breach
of international trade treaties because corporations are not
sufficiently taxed. Massive punitive duties might be levied.
Just think: in just one year in office, Bush has violated the
Kyoto Greenhouse Gas treaty, the ABM treaty, the Geneva Convention,
and the tax provisions of trade treaties. Plus he's the nation's
leading executioner when other civilized countries have
banned capital punishment.
At this rate, he's going to have trouble putting together
a "coalition" next time he winds up in a military mess.
Steve
John S. Watson
>
> However, you progressives have no control over this decision.
I always think people that call themselves "progressives"
are kind of strange.
Don't all political parties consider themselves "progressive"?
But only one group seems to be so massively arrogant enough to call
themselves such.
It kind of reminds me of the tribal cultures ...
they all seemed to call themselves "the people",
or "the humans" in their language, which kind of implied
that everyone else wasn't.
JW
Aahz Maruch
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>
>ObFood: Tried some Omaha steaks last night; OK, but not real
>special, as the consensus seems to be. Buying them at the Barbecue
>place in McCarthy Ranch means no shipping, though, and the prices
>aren't especially obscene ($28 for 2 8oz filets).
I'd call that an obscene price given that I can have a bigger, better
steak with all the trimmings cooked for me by my local steakhouse -- and
cheaper, to boot.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2002 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
"The more you drive, the less intelligent you are." --_Repo Man_
Margarita Lacabe
> arns...@panix.com (David Arnstein) wrote in message news:<a3er1i$18o$1...@news.panix.com>...
>>
>> However, you progressives have no control over this decision.
> I always think people that call themselves "progressives"
> are kind of strange.
No, some people call themselves "conservatives".
--
Margarita Lacabe - ma...@lacabe.com - http://www.lacabe.com/marga/
____________________________________________________________________________
"Those who would give up essential freedoms for security,
deserve neither freedom nor security" - Benjamin Franklin
Todd Michel McComb
>I'd call that an obscene price given that I can have a bigger,
>better steak with all the trimmings cooked for me by my local
>steakhouse -- and cheaper, to boot.
Do tell. The sides probably cost us $2 (probably a lot less,
actually, but hey). Where are you getting better steaks for under
$15/head?
The usual steaks we buy are Angus market steaks (ribeye) from
Piazza's. They are definitely bigger, although I tend to find filet
meat a little more filling. That typically costs us about $24 for
two. I could probably get a better deal if I went farther afield....
Aahz Maruch
>>
>>I'd call that an obscene price given that I can have a bigger,
>>better steak with all the trimmings cooked for me by my local
>>steakhouse -- and cheaper, to boot.
>
>Do tell. The sides probably cost us $2 (probably a lot less,
>actually, but hey). Where are you getting better steaks for under
>$15/head?
Royale Cafe in San Carlos. Of course, you may not agree about the
quality, but that's my opinion after having Omaha steaks a few times at
my parents-out-law. I'll admit that Royale Cafe's quality can vary a
fair bit, but I'll put up with a lot for an $11 steak that's usually at
least "good" (and is bigger than 1/2 a pound raw). What I particularly
like about Royale Cafe, though, is the soup. They do good soup.
Today at lunch we learned what they do with their substandard steaks:
sell them as steak sandwiches. Still quite decent and a bargain for
what we got at $7. (They were out of hamburger.)
Ken
Makes me wanna puke when someone calls that a "Romantic Restaurant".
Yech!
--
To reply by email remove "my pants"! (;oD
"A child of five could understand this.
Fetch me a child of five." - Groucho Marx (1890-1977)
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
I can't speak to the price or quality, but have to mention this place as
one of the most poorly named steak houses - anyone tried "The Back Burner"
in Santa Clara?
Anne
http://www.intuitiveparenting.org
Resources on intuitive parenting, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, and
more
I am: Mom, Attorney, Professor, Advocate for Fathers and Against
Spam
http://www.annepmitchell.com
Michael Dix
>
> David Arnstein <arnstei...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that progressives are wasting time with the issue of
> > corporate taxation (and its avoidance). What makes you think
> > taxing corporations is so great?
>
> Well, for one thing, the WTO just ruled the U.S. is in breach
> of international trade treaties because corporations are not
> sufficiently taxed. Massive punitive duties might be levied.
>
> Just think: in just one year in office, Bush has violated the
> Kyoto Greenhouse Gas treaty, the ABM treaty, the Geneva Convention,
> and the tax provisions of trade treaties. Plus he's the nation's
> leading executioner when other civilized countries have
> banned capital punishment.
He also hasn't signed up for the "Zionism is racism" resolution.
Sometimes the majority is wrong.
> At this rate, he's going to have trouble putting together
> a "coalition" next time he winds up in a military mess.
No.
David Arnstein
>Well, for one thing, the WTO just ruled the U.S. is in breach
>of international trade treaties because corporations are not
>sufficiently taxed. Massive punitive duties might be levied.
Noted. I don't wish to see the U.S. pay these duties. But I think it's
worth considering that the rest of the WTO countries might be taxing
their own corporations more than is sensible. I'm thinking about Europe
here. The governments there like to tax the hell out of corporations
because this is less visible to the public than directly taxing the
citizenry. For example, via income tax or sales tax. I've already
argued that the citizens (being customers of the corporations) effectively
pay most of these taxes anyway. Crooked and cynical, and it works too.
Come to think of it, the same dishonest mechanics apply right here in
the U.S.A.
--
David Arnstein
arnstei...@pobox.com
Nabeel Ibrahim
>s...@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
>> Just think: in just one year in office, Bush has violated the
>> Kyoto Greenhouse Gas treaty, the ABM treaty, the Geneva Convention,
>> and the tax provisions of trade treaties. Plus he's the nation's
>> leading executioner when other civilized countries have
>> banned capital punishment.
>
>He also hasn't signed up for the "Zionism is racism" resolution.
>Sometimes the majority is wrong.
Why was that resolution wrong? All forms of nationalism are, to some
extent, racist. Zionism just happens to be more racist than most forms
of nationalism. And if you don't believe me, go live among the Palestinians
for a while. Feel free to respond by email as I have no desire to
fill this newsgroup with more political discussions. I plan to respond
to those posts about progressive politics by email to spare others the pain
of reading our discussions.
Nabeel
ObFood: Lunch at El Balazito in the City. It was weird. It's located
right behind a car wash, so I wasn't sure where in the hell to park to
ensure that no one would start washing my car and charge me for it. I
won't go into any details except to say that I wasn't impressed with my
seafood burrito, which was supposed to be their specialty. In fact, I
won't be going back, especially when there are plenty of other fantastic
taqueries in that area (like El Farolito).
David desJardins
>> Well, for one thing, the WTO just ruled the U.S. is in breach
>> of international trade treaties because corporations are not
>> sufficiently taxed. Massive punitive duties might be levied.
>
> Noted. I don't wish to see the U.S. pay these duties. But I think it's
> worth considering that the rest of the WTO countries might be taxing
> their own corporations more than is sensible.
That's not actually true. Other countries generally tax their
corporations less than the US does. The WTO issue is not that US
corporate tax rates are too low. The WTO issue is that US tax policy is
anti-free trade because the US allows companies to shelter their
overseas income from tax, but not their domestic income, thus distorting
their cost structure and helping them to undercut competitors overseas
(essentially "subsidizing exports", aka "dumping").
David desJardins
Bob R. Kenyon
kwb...@mypants.earthlink.net (Ken) wrote:
> Thank God no one has suggested _Shadowbrook_!!!!!!!!!
>
> Makes me wanna puke when someone calls that a "Romantic Restaurant".
You're too late. I think 5 to 7 people recommended it.
--
Bob R. Kenyon
Beautiful Downtown San Jose, CA
<http://www.bobrk.com/>
Bubbadude
>Michael Dix <mj...@best.vwh.net> wrote:
>>s...@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>> Just think: in just one year in office, Bush has violated the
>>> Kyoto Greenhouse Gas treaty, the ABM treaty, the Geneva Convention,
>>> and the tax provisions of trade treaties. Plus he's the nation's
>>> leading executioner when other civilized countries have
>>> banned capital punishment.
>>
>>He also hasn't signed up for the "Zionism is racism" resolution.
>>Sometimes the majority is wrong.
>
>Why was that resolution wrong? All forms of nationalism are, to some
>extent, racist. Zionism just happens to be more racist than most forms
>of nationalism. And if you don't believe me, go live among the Palestinians
>for a while.
Hilarious. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and a
bunch of Islamo-Fascist thugs, autocrats, dictators, mushy European
appeasers, and cannibals denounce it as a racist state.
BTW, does anyone have Idi Amin's recipe for Opposition's Head on a
Plate? It was his specialty.
Bubbadude
Angus steaks are crap. You should try some of the Dry-Aged prime beef
from Andronico's or Whole Foods if you want serious beef.
And BTW, taxing the people who work for the corporations is fine, but
taxing the corporation's R&D budget is stupid in the extreme.
Michael Dix
> >The usual steaks we buy are Angus market steaks (ribeye) from
> >Piazza's. They are definitely bigger, although I tend to find filet
> >meat a little more filling. That typically costs us about $24 for
> >two. I could probably get a better deal if I went farther afield....
>
> Angus steaks are crap. You should try some of the Dry-Aged prime beef
> from Andronico's or Whole Foods if you want serious beef.
Angus steaks could hardly be described as "crap". That would
leave no descriptors for Safeway/Albertson steaks:
Angus > Harris > Saf/Albert
I always "barbecue" them with some soaked hickory chips for
flavor.
However, now I will certainly have to try the aged beef from
Andronico's and Whole Foods.
Ken
<%{rrk}@xx.usenet.us.com> wrote:
>In article <kwbear-0102...@192.168.1.106>,
> kwb...@mypants.earthlink.net (Ken) wrote:
>
>> Thank God no one has suggested _Shadowbrook_!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Makes me wanna puke when someone calls that a "Romantic Restaurant".
>
>You're too late. I think 5 to 7 people recommended it.
Just as I've suspected. There is no hope for the hooman race!
But, hey, that's why America is so great. One person's "tacky" is another
person's "romantic" and they can all exist on the same planet - of course
I mean Planet Santa Cruz(tm). (;oD
s...@cs.berkeley.edu
> Hilarious. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East
I thought democracies didn't determine citizenship on
the basis of religion...
S.
Todd Michel McComb
Bubbadude <bubb...@bennett.nospam.com> wrote:
>Angus steaks are crap. You should try some of the Dry-Aged prime
>beef from Andronico's or Whole Foods if you want serious beef.
Angus choice steaks are the best we can find in our neighborhood.
They're hardly the be-all and end-all of steak, but they make for
a good quick meal. Anyway, yeah, we like them better than some of
the other premium brands available from similar sources, but if I
start traveling around, I'm sure there are various options which
are at least as good.
Tim May
Nor do they seize the farms and orchards of the long-term residents
based on a claim that a desert prophet was told in a vision by Baal or
YHWH or whomever that the land belong to his chosen people...even if
they came from Krakow or Paris or Minsk or Milwaukee.
--Tim May
Bubbadude
Safeway Angus steaks are "choice" grade at best. Try the dry-aged
"prime" before you opine again. You'll be glad you did.
Bub
Bubbadude
>"Bubbadude" (invalid address) writes:
>> Hilarious. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and a
>> bunch of Islamo-Fascist thugs, autocrats, dictators, mushy European
>> appeasers, and cannibals denounce it as a racist state.
>
>Why can't a democracy be racist? Suppose that democracy A votes by an
>overwhelming margin to invade country B and kill all the people of race
>X that they find there. This isn't racism, because there was a vote??
Tell me when and where that's happened, except at the UN Conference on
Racism where the Anti-Jewish Resolution was passed. None of these
MidEast Islamo-Fascist regimes is any more democratic than Nazi
Germany.
>
>I think it's slightly hopeful to see an organized group within the
>Israeli military refusing to follow the unlawful orders of their
>democracy.
>
> David desJardins
ObFood: Kosher is good.
Bub
Bubbadude
Bubbadude
That's a pretty silly straw man characterization of the post-WWII
dynamics that lead to the formation of the state of Israel. Yeah, a
few goat herders had to be pushed aside, and yeah, they weren't
compensated properly, and yeah, they deserve their own state now, but
to compare Israel's level of civilization to that of any of their
neighboring medieval Arab states is obscene.
ObFood: Goat makes good curry.
Bub
Todd Michel McComb
Bubbadude <bubb...@bennett.nospam.com> wrote:
>Safeway Angus steaks are "choice" grade at best. Try the dry-aged
>"prime" before you opine again.
We don't buy the Safeway steaks, as I originally detailed. Actually,
although I've certainly tried dry-aged prime steaks, I'll opine
whenever I want, thank you.
Bubbadude
Margarita Lacabe
> That's a pretty silly straw man characterization of the post-WWII
> dynamics that lead to the formation of the state of Israel. Yeah, a
> few goat herders had to be pushed aside, and yeah, they weren't
> compensated properly, and yeah, they deserve their own state now, but
> to compare Israel's level of civilization to that of any of their
> neighboring medieval Arab states is obscene.
You are right. If you define a high level of civilization as having
/official/ policies that support torture, assasinations, arbitrary
detentions, wanton destruction of private property, etc. - it's really
obsene to compare Israel with its neighbors.
This is not to say that some of these things don't also happen in Arab
countries, they do, but at least the states don't have the chutzpa of
calling themselves democracies or justifying their crimes.
OBFood. We're having ostrich burgers for dinner tonight - I hope they're
good.
Bubbadude
>Bubbadude <bubba...@bubbadude.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> That's a pretty silly straw man characterization of the post-WWII
>> dynamics that lead to the formation of the state of Israel. Yeah, a
>> few goat herders had to be pushed aside, and yeah, they weren't
>> compensated properly, and yeah, they deserve their own state now, but
>> to compare Israel's level of civilization to that of any of their
>> neighboring medieval Arab states is obscene.
>
>You are right. If you define a high level of civilization as having
>/official/ policies that support torture, assasinations, arbitrary
>detentions, wanton destruction of private property, etc. - it's really
>obsene to compare Israel with its neighbors.
Israel has adopted the necessary policies to ensure its survival in a
part of the world where modern notions of education, democratic rule,
literacy, and civilized behavior are unknown. While it certainly
discriminates against Muslims, this isn't rightly speaking "racism",
as the Israelis and the Arabs are members of the same racial group,
Semites. It certainly is religious discrimination, but you won't see
any Arab country complaining about *that*, will you?
And while it's a certain fact that the Arab civilization doesn't rise
to the level of European, Indian, or Chinese civilization, it
certainly is more advanced than the cannibalistic barbarism
commonplace in Sub-Saharan Africa or in the pre-Columbian New World.
But nonetheless, non-Arab muslim countries like Pakistan, Malaysia,
and Indonesia don't seem nearly as nervous about elected government as
the Arabs.
>This is not to say that some of these things don't also happen in Arab
>countries, they do, but at least the states don't have the chutzpa of
>calling themselves democracies or justifying their crimes.
If you need to compare Israeli practices with those of its neighbors,
let's begin the discussion on the topic of suicide bombers.
>OBFood. We're having ostrich burgers for dinner tonight - I hope they're
>good.
Perhaps the only reason Arabs don't practice cannibalism - it would be
consistent with slavery, one of their supreme passions - is that they
inherited Kosher law from the Israelites who were their ultimate
ancestors. The Arabs call it "Halal", but it amounts to the same
thing.
Bub
Bubbadude
>"Bubbadude" (invalid address) writes:
>>> Why can't a democracy be racist? ....
>>
>> .... None of these MidEast Islamo-Fascist regimes is any more
>> democratic than Nazi Germany.
>
>Behaving in a racist manner has nothing to do with being a democracy.
>Democracies can have racist practices. Dictatorships can avoid racist
>practices. The observation that Israel has a functioning democracy has
>nothing to do with whether or not its actions or principles are racist.
>
> David desJardins
Keeping mouthing the word "racist" as if it applied to Israel and
eventually you'll believe it. The Middle-Eastern Jews and the Arabs
are members of the same race. It's religion that's the difference,
dude, not race.
Bub
David desJardins
> Keeping mouthing the word "racist" as if it applied to Israel and
> eventually you'll believe it. The Middle-Eastern Jews and the Arabs
> are members of the same race. It's religion that's the difference,
> dude, not race.
Does this mean you've withdrawn your argument based on "democracy"?
I'll retire, then, rather than take up your new argument.
David desJardins
s...@cs.berkeley.edu
> The observation that Israel has a functioning democracy has
> nothing to do with whether or not its actions or principles are
> racist.
This is nonsense.
Israel is not a functioning democracy because of its policy
of assigning citizenship, and therefore voting rights, on the
basis of religion. Any nation that does this is, by definition,
undemocratic. Israel is a theocracy, not a democracy.
Your "observation that Israel is a functioning democracy"
must be some sort of hallucination on your part.
Steve
Bubbadude
I don't know of a single democracy that gives citizenship to anyone
who asks for it. Even in the United States, dear idealist, it's
necessary to swear an oath of loyalty to obtain citizenship.
The Israelis elect a Parliament, the Knesset, which in turn elects a
Prime Minister. The country is governed according to a body of law
that has to conform to a constitution. Compare this system to that of
any Arab country and tell me which is democratic and which isn't.
Bub
ObFood: nothing's as tasty as a camel's hump.
Bubbadude
>David desJardins <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> The observation that Israel has a functioning democracy has
>> nothing to do with whether or not its actions or principles are
>> racist.
>
>This is nonsense.
>
>Israel is not a functioning democracy because of its policy
>of assigning citizenship, and therefore voting rights, on the
>basis of religion. Any nation that does this is, by definition,
>undemocratic. Israel is a theocracy, not a democracy.
Actually, Israel is both a theocracy and a democracy. As I said above,
citizenship in any particular country is not a universal right. Try
living like a Christian in Saudi Arabia, for example.
>Your "observation that Israel is a functioning democracy"
>must be some sort of hallucination on your part.
>
>Steve
Silly boy.
David desJardins
> The Israelis elect a Parliament, the Knesset, which in turn elects a
> Prime Minister. The country is governed according to a body of law
> that has to conform to a constitution. Compare this system to that of
> any Arab country and tell me which is democratic and which isn't.
I think that Israel is a democratic nation. I also think this has
nothing to do with the question of whether its policies or practices are
racist (or "religion-ist", as you would apparently prefer). You keep
saying that Israel is democratic, and its Arab neighbors are not, as if
this has some connection to the subject of racism. But it does not.
David desJardins
David desJardins
> Israel is not a functioning democracy because of its policy
> of assigning citizenship, and therefore voting rights, on the
> basis of religion. Any nation that does this is, by definition,
> undemocratic. Israel is a theocracy, not a democracy.
One's ability to obtain US citizenship is strongly dependent on one's
national origin and religion. Does that make the US non-democratic,
too? Would any country that has any immigration policy other than a
pure lottery, be "non-democratic"?
David desJardins
ll
> I think that Israel is a democratic nation. I also think this has
Nor does it have anything to do with the ba.food newsgroup.
Please take this offline.
Dennis Suchta
even if you want to call them "democracy" why persist in an argument that
can be settled (since the US is considered the gold standard of democracy)
by noting that the United States did have racist practices, laws and
actions?
Haven't noticed any outrage from the "off topic" faction. But then they
are as consistent as the GOP.
Dennis
David desJardins wrote:
> "Bubbadude" (invalid address) writes:
> >> Why can't a democracy be racist? ....
> >
> > .... None of these MidEast Islamo-Fascist regimes is any more
> > democratic than Nazi Germany.
>
> Behaving in a racist manner has nothing to do with being a democracy.
> Democracies can have racist practices. Dictatorships can avoid racist
> practices. The observation that Israel has a functioning democracy has
> nothing to do with whether or not its actions or principles are racist.
>
> David desJardins
Dennis Suchta
an exam and five years.
Dennis
Bubbadude
The charge of racism was made against Israel by a bunch of
Islamo-Fascist thug nations, with the support of Western Europe. I am
merely showing that the charge has no teeth, and that it's
incidentally made against the only democracy in the Middle East. Like
a McDonald's hamburger, the entire affair is unsavory.
Those who made the charge are unable to charge Israel with religious
discrimination since they practice a much more intense form of that
heinous sin than Israel does.
I'm waiting for the UN to condemn the slavery practiced today in
Pakistan and the Sudan, and the cannibalism that's still quite common
in Central Africa, but I'm not holding my breath.
For quite some time, it's been the practice for European nations to
rid themselves of their starry-eyed but annoying idealists by sending
them to the UN - Mary Robinson of Ireland is a good example. While
this protects the local political dialog from their stupidity, it's
made the UN a larger joke than it needs to be.
Many of these people are vegans, which explains their lack of
intellectual clarity.
Margarita Lacabe
> Israel has adopted the necessary policies to ensure its survival in a
> part of the world where modern notions of education, democratic rule,
> literacy, and civilized behavior are unknown.
In other words, in order to fight its neighbors, Israel had to
become more uncivilized than them.
While it certainly
> discriminates against Muslims, this isn't rightly speaking "racism",
> as the Israelis and the Arabs are members of the same racial group,
> Semites. It certainly is religious discrimination, but you won't see
> any Arab country complaining about *that*, will you?
You are, not suprisingly, wrong. There are many ways you can define
"races" - you can define them at the macro level only and be content
with 4 large groups (black, white, asian, australoid), in which case
according to your logic no one could be racist unless it was against
one of the groups that belonged to one of the other 3 races (and Hitler
would not have been racist against the Jews, as they were all, after all,
white), or you can define them at lower levels of genetic similarity.
But what you can't do is to be arbitrary about it. "I'll say that semites
are a race" but not "palestinians within the semite group" are a race.
That may serve your political message, but it has neither biological
(there are people considered semites that are biologically closer to
non-semites than to other semites) nor historical validity (historically,
only the 4 major groups were thought of as races).
While Israel /does/ clearly engage in religious discrimination, it's
discrimination against Arabs cannot be thought of only as such:
1)Christian & Muslim Arabs are both equally discriminated again
2)Jewish Arabs are discrimianted against (albeit in a different way than
the other two groups).
3)Non-Jewish Christians are treated much better than Arab Christians.
> And while it's a certain fact that the Arab civilization doesn't rise
> to the level of European, Indian, or Chinese civilization, it
> certainly is more advanced than the cannibalistic barbarism
> commonplace in Sub-Saharan Africa or in the pre-Columbian New World.
What is a fact is that you don't know anything about the Arab civilization,
and indeed, nothing at all about Sub-Saharan African or pre-Columbian
civilizations.
> But nonetheless, non-Arab muslim countries like Pakistan, Malaysia,
> and Indonesia don't seem nearly as nervous about elected government as
> the Arabs.
And obviously you don't know anything about the history of Pakistan,
Malaysia and specially Indonesia either. It's rather surprising,
as these have all been in the news lately. Here is a clue: Pakistan
is under a military dictatorship, Indonesia lived under the most
brutal dictatorship (much more barbaric, over 1 million people were killed,
and no more disguised as a democracy than those
of the middle east) for several decades and Malaysia has such a free
democracy that the government openly represses the leaders of the
opposition.
> If you need to compare Israeli practices with those of its neighbors,
> let's begin the discussion on the topic of suicide bombers.
OK, is your argument that killing people without killing yourself is
somewhat more moral than killing people and dying in the process?
>>OBFood. We're having ostrich burgers for dinner tonight - I hope they're
>>good.
> Perhaps the only reason Arabs don't practice cannibalism - it would be
> consistent with slavery, one of their supreme passions - is that they
> inherited Kosher law from the Israelites who were their ultimate
> ancestors. The Arabs call it "Halal", but it amounts to the same
> thing.
:) Lord, you ARE ignorant
s...@cs.berkeley.edu
>"Steve" <s...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> Israel is not a functioning democracy because of its policy
>> of assigning citizenship, and therefore voting rights, on the
>> basis of religion. Any nation that does this is, by definition,
>> undemocratic. Israel is a theocracy, not a democracy.
> One's ability to obtain US citizenship is strongly dependent on one's
> national origin and religion. Does that make the US non-democratic,
> too?
To some extent, yes. However, Israel's religion based citizenship
policy causes a greater degree of damage to democracy than does
the U.S.'s immigration policies, to the point that Israel isn't
really a democracy.
Steve
Bubbadude
>Bubbadude <bubba...@bubbadude.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Israel has adopted the necessary policies to ensure its survival in a
>> part of the world where modern notions of education, democratic rule,
>> literacy, and civilized behavior are unknown.
>
>In other words, in order to fight its neighbors, Israel had to
>become more uncivilized than them.
Not at all - Israel is considerably more civilized than its barbaric
Arab neighbors. Israelis don't routinely practice suicide bombing in
the expectation of going to paradise and being serviced by virgins,
and they don't routinely bugger young boys as the Arabs do. They have
free elections, and they have a legal system. Most Israelis are also
able to read, while only a small minority of Arabs are literate, in
any country that they control.
>While it certainly
>> discriminates against Muslims, this isn't rightly speaking "racism",
>> as the Israelis and the Arabs are members of the same racial group,
>> Semites. It certainly is religious discrimination, but you won't see
>> any Arab country complaining about *that*, will you?
>
>You are, not suprisingly, wrong.
Perhaps the Semites aren't a coherent racial group, but you present no
contrary evidence.
> There are many ways you can define
>"races" - you can define them at the macro level only and be content
>with 4 large groups (black, white, asian, australoid), in which case
>according to your logic no one could be racist unless it was against
>one of the groups that belonged to one of the other 3 races (and Hitler
>would not have been racist against the Jews, as they were all, after all,
>white), or you can define them at lower levels of genetic similarity.
>But what you can't do is to be arbitrary about it. "I'll say that semites
>are a race" but not "palestinians within the semite group" are a race.
>That may serve your political message, but it has neither biological
>(there are people considered semites that are biologically closer to
>non-semites than to other semites) nor historical validity (historically,
>only the 4 major groups were thought of as races).
>
>While Israel /does/ clearly engage in religious discrimination, it's
>discrimination against Arabs cannot be thought of only as such:
>
>1)Christian & Muslim Arabs are both equally discriminated again
>2)Jewish Arabs are discrimianted against (albeit in a different way than
>the other two groups).
Oh really? I assume you have some sort of an argument from voting
rights or other legal rights, or is this the argument on aesthetics?
>3)Non-Jewish Christians are treated much better than Arab Christians.
As opposed to Jewish Christians?
>> And while it's a certain fact that the Arab civilization doesn't rise
>> to the level of European, Indian, or Chinese civilization, it
>> certainly is more advanced than the cannibalistic barbarism
>> commonplace in Sub-Saharan Africa or in the pre-Columbian New World.
>
>What is a fact is that you don't know anything about the Arab civilization,
>and indeed, nothing at all about Sub-Saharan African or pre-Columbian
>civilizations.
If you wish to demonstrate this ignorance that you're so sure about,
kindly assert some sort of an argument that anything like the
cannibalism and human sacrifice that was common in the SS Africa and
the pre-Columbian new world was ever practiced by Arabs. It was easy
for the Spaniards to wipe out the tribal peoples of Latin America when
they found their bone-piles and mass graves for victims of sacrifice.
>> But nonetheless, non-Arab muslim countries like Pakistan, Malaysia,
>> and Indonesia don't seem nearly as nervous about elected government as
>> the Arabs.
>
>And obviously you don't know anything about the history of Pakistan,
>Malaysia and specially Indonesia either. It's rather surprising,
>as these have all been in the news lately. Here is a clue: Pakistan
>is under a military dictatorship, Indonesia lived under the most
>brutal dictatorship (much more barbaric, over 1 million people were killed,
>and no more disguised as a democracy than those
>of the middle east) for several decades and Malaysia has such a free
>democracy that the government openly represses the leaders of the
>opposition.
Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia are certainly not models of the
practice of democracy, but at least they have the forms in place and
revert to them when times are good. There is not even the show of an
election in the barbarous Arab states.
>> If you need to compare Israeli practices with those of its neighbors,
>> let's begin the discussion on the topic of suicide bombers.
>
>OK, is your argument that killing people without killing yourself is
>somewhat more moral than killing people and dying in the process?
My argument is that someone who doesn't value his own life can hardly
value the human rights of others. Perhaps you should study-up on the
concept of human rights.
>>>OBFood. We're having ostrich burgers for dinner tonight - I hope they're
>>>good.
>
>> Perhaps the only reason Arabs don't practice cannibalism - it would be
>> consistent with slavery, one of their supreme passions - is that they
>> inherited Kosher law from the Israelites who were their ultimate
>> ancestors. The Arabs call it "Halal", but it amounts to the same
>> thing.
>
>:) Lord, you ARE ignorant
Halal beef is slaughtered in an interesting way: the beef is held up
by it's hind feet, and its throat is slit. The animal then bleeds to
death. PETA and that crowd consider this a barbaric practice, but it
certainly has some sanitary benefits.