Silliness ...
To really prove I'm not focusing on baby photos all the time, I have to respond to the silliness of Michelle Cram who argues increasing, rather than removing, the restrictions on businesses to sell alcohol near schools and churches.
No one's advocating that these business owners sell alcohol to minors, but rather that they be afforded the same perogative as other businesses in the area to sell the goods of their choosing. Do we really think that simply because the Kangaroo on Lumpkin Street is forbidden from selling a 12-pack of PBR due to its closeness to Barrow Elementary School that this will somehow curb underage drinking?
Or that because someone favors removing the restrictions they believe 'alcohol first, schools and churches second' (a line so absolutely preposterous, that I had to read it a couple of times to make sure she actually said that)?
No one's advocating that these business owners sell alcohol to minors, but rather that they be afforded the same perogative as other businesses in the area to sell the goods of their choosing. Do we really think that simply because the Kangaroo on Lumpkin Street is forbidden from selling a 12-pack of PBR due to its closeness to Barrow Elementary School that this will somehow curb underage drinking?
Or that because someone favors removing the restrictions they believe 'alcohol first, schools and churches second' (a line so absolutely preposterous, that I had to read it a couple of times to make sure she actually said that)?
posted by Jmac at 9:22 AM
15 Comments:
Well, you've passed your first test as far as the "you'll feel differently when YOU are a parent . . ." line of thinking goes. Glad to see the ol' head is still on straight - even with your very own child who may someday ...GASP!... attend school within 5 miles of a liquor store.
All the best! The baby is really cute - we can both thank god for good looking wives!
David Hamilton
"Are we really ready to have no limits on where alcohol is sold?," she asks. Why yes, you overbearing sow, we are.
(I'm a little passionate about our state's legislators and their religion-infused corruption over alcohol laws, if you couldn't tell.)
Welcome back, very pretty baby, congratulations.
Do we really think that simply because the Kangaroo on Lumpkin Street is forbidden from selling a 12-pack of PBR due to its closeness to Barrow Elementary School that this will somehow curb underage drinking?
I'm following you on the reasoning here. However, there are more than Ms. Cram who adopt this line of reasoning. Many of the "reforms" being considered by the ACC commish spring from the same mindset.
In particular I'm addressing the price fixing which ACC seems in which ACC seems intent to engage. Let me make this perfectly clear, I have no personal interest in this issue; the last time I purchased a drink after 11:00 p.m. was probably a decade (or more) ago.
The bottom line is that ACC is being asked to fix prices because at least some of the affected persons perceive themselves to be at an economic disadvantage, and are looking to the government to "level the playing" field.
I have yet to hear anyone plainly articulate the evil to be addressed through this exercise in governmental price control. I thought the one offered by Mr. Dodson was just precious; that some of the bar owners were concerned about the evil of date rape. How precious.
Do these bar owners (and Mr. Dodson) truly believe that a cad intent on having his way with our virtuous but tipsy coeds will be dissuaded from his nefarious course because the tab has been artificially increased by our local government. I probably am a pig, but I'm quiet confident that as long as there are women and alcohol in close vicinity, some men will find a way to ply the objects of their desires with it, regardless of cost.
I find it curious that while the price of drinking is going up, there's no move to limit the amount of drinking. So while we are artificially inflating the price of drinking, I can keep drink until Daddy's credit card maxes out.
If our patriarchal, benevolent bar owners (and commissioners) are so concerned about the prospect about date rape, why not take positive measures to address the problem, such as limiting operating hours, or the number of drinks that can be served to one person.
I have no scientific evidence to support this statement, other than observations made during personal dissipation in earlier years, but the level of inebriation and prospects of unwelcomed advances is more a function of time than economics.
Much of this alcohol "reform" is a feel good bandage, and the price fixing in particular really has no rational purpose other than attempt to balance a market that some of the players feel is skewed. The ordinance is also just one more symptom of the need of some of the ACC commish to micromanage various aspects of our community.
I'd like to see liquor banned from proximity to the projects, personally. But no doubt shot houses will spring up to address the vacuum, as they already have to address the lack of sunday sales.
I would like to see liquor shots as mandatory for all those attending church - just kidding
I think you're onto something there, anonymous. Let's substitute Jager for "the blood of Christ." Loosen those people up.
screw politics, we want to see more baby pics! she's too beautiful for words.
I'd like to see liquor banned from proximity to the projects, personally.
That's pretty paternalistic and condescending.
Off-topic: word verification is "pimpg." No lie.
Indeed it is, Amber. But if we can be paternalistic and condescending to the entire population, then why not to the population that is statistically most likely to have issues with alcohol?
It's also a matter of quality of housing.
[b]JMac[/b] - your post is yet more proof that you are not even on the same page, probably not even in the same chapter, as the discussion that is actually ongoing.
[b]Josh[/b] - ahh another religion-hater, this should be fun! *puts some popcorn in the microwave*
Amber - banning alcohol from the proximity of the projects is an excellent idea. If the people are living in the PROJECTS, they do not need to be wasting their money on LIQUOR.
Really. I used to live in the Woodlands, next to the projects on Carriage Lane. It always amazed me that people who lived there would have these thousand dollar sound systems and exotic rims on their cars and other crap like that, which they probably paid for with WELFARE.
Reminds me of that very old song, "When You're Hot You're Hot" by Jerry Reed. In the song, the singer is put into prison, and he turns and yells at the judge, "You hillibilly! Who gonna collect my welfare? Pay for my Cadillac?"
[b]More observations[/b] - Finally someone other than me recognizes that David Lynn is corrupt! I met up with Davey recently, who informed me that while he is not a good speaker - particularly when he is hot - he thinks that the author of this editorial owes him a public apology.
In sum, I don't see how the Athens Clarke County Corruption - particularly Corruptioner Lynn - can possibly have such preposterous nonsense as "Convenience stores have to stop selling beer at 11:30" and "Bars have to close at 2," and then whine and moan like the pains of the damned about other restrictions on alcohol.
OK Chuck, you realize you don't have to disagree with everything David Lynn does just because you don't like him. In fact, your opposition to this change is so devoid of any rational reasoning - particularly in light of your previous discussions involving legislation governing alcohol - that I can't reconcile it.
While I freely admit I'm not wild about 2 a.m. closing times, I also admit that I'm not wild about this proximity issue. Yet you criticize Lynn for having it both ways, then proceed to do the exact same thing.
So am I correct to assume that you oppose removing the restrictions on proximity to schools? And, if so, what is your rationale for doing so?
Did I say that I opposed the change? I don't recall expressing a view on it one way or the other.
I simply expressed the fact that everyone here knows that when it comes right down to it, Corruptioner David Lynn will be one of the ones most loudly (even though he's not a good speaker especially when he's hot) championing tough new alcohol restrictions to 'keep them rowdy young'us firmly in line, maw,' but when it comes to his favorite little restaurant, suddenly he is the one wanting to loosen the restrictions.
Maybe it's because this little restaurant - a very dowdy little joint - is the favorite hangout of the CCC? (Classless Cobbham Community) You read about that fact in the Ragpole all the time. To insist on coming down hard on everyone else while exempting the people who are in good with the politically powerful, that is CORRUPTION.
I expect to get an email from David about me calling him corrupt - although I realize he's not a good e-mailer, especially when he's hot.
Hands up, all who think David Lynn is one of the commissioners most in favor of alcohol restrictions in the Athens community, even those that target underage college drinkers?
To insist on coming down hard on everyone else while exempting the people who are in good with the politically powerful, that is CORRUPTION.
While, you know, that isn't the case at all ... I wouldn't even say that's corruption. And, as Hillary pointed out, if there is anyone on the current commission who has typically sided with the business community on issues like this one compared to the others, it's David Lynn (remember the smoking ban debate?).
See here or here or here.
Besides, you're doing exactly what I said you were doing ... I'm assuming now that you think removing this restriction is a decent idea. If you can concede this is something where common sense dictates a change should be made, then why wouldn't Lynn be acting in the same spirit?
Regarding the projects and alcohol, my perspective is a bit different than chuck's. I don't think it's my business to tell people what to spend their money on. I do think it's our job to provide only money which is necessary, though, so I support efforts to determine stringently who is needy and what the nature of that need is.
I've had plenty of experience with the projects and its residents. I think it is highly offensive and uncool that being poor means that you are at the mercy of criminals far more than are people of other socioeconomic classes. I also don't believe that the projects are meant to warehouse our poor with little chance of eventually transitioning to private-market housing, and that's what occurs when they are located in an atmosphere of grey-market finance, illegality, and easy access to substances. So I support limiting businesses which are of a deleterious nature as far from the projects as legally possible.
And as for paternalistic, et. el, a) that wasn't the most constructive response and b)the projects are already paternalistic in that they presume decisions for a class of people who presumably cannot make those decisions for themselves. As I see it, the question is: what kind of atmosphere are we creating on our tax dollars?
On another note, David Lynn has next to nothing to do with the 2 a.m. rule. Or am I forgetting something?
Post a Comment
<< Home