Friday, October 27, 2006

Question One Fear Ads Have Gotten Out of Hand

People who know me know that I have to have a very, very long fuse. But between Kerry Healey's "Hail Mary" smear campaign and the Massachusetts Ballot Question One fear ads I am actually genuinely getting ticked off at this upcoming voting session.
Forget Healey-I've already expressed my thoughts on her reckless, last-ditch efforts to bring down Deval Patrick. Let's talk about the Question One issue. Let's talk about how, disbarring the fact that police chiefs and public officials across the state are taking sides, it's simply down to a matter of control and monopoly... like Iraq has always been about oil. Care to deny?
A. It's a fact that "convenience stores" and supermarkets can already carry liquor, including wine, if they wish--a "yes" vote doesn't grant them this right, it simply lifts the three-franchise-statewide limit.
B. Who are these "teenagers" hanging around "convenience stores" (or, God forbid, supermarkets). What is this, some random suburb in New Jersey, because, seriously, the first time I heard that, it conjured up the opening scene of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back where that's all the do all day? I've been a city boy through and through--trust me, city kids have better things to do than hang out outside their local "convenience store" every hour of the day they're not in school, especially since nearly all the local mom and pop shops where you might actually know the owner and his/her children have been driven out by rising rents and stiff competition from the 7-Elevens and Store-24's, hence why I'm quoting every instance of "convenience store" in this rant.
C. Even if there were 100 kids hanging out outside of a "convenience store,"
a. What normal kid under 25 buys wine as a "quick fix," i.e. consuming it the minute they buy it, and then go hop in their car, over the legal limit.
b. Why are these ads assuming that nobody gets carded?
D. Seriously, why are these ads assumming that nobody gets carded? Or that carding will get "harder" because of what--an increase in customers? This coming from a latest ad I'm hearing on the airwaves: that it will be "harder" for the "mostly young" cashiers to check ID. What?! Ok, first of all you're assuming that
a. most "convenience store" cashiers are teenagers (I'd say about half)
b. most "convenience store" customers are underage teenagers (not even a third)
c. "convenience store" and supermarkets cashiers, in general, are idiots, as opposed to liquor store cashiers who must clearly be the next best thing to Jesus H. Christ Himself because only they can be trusted to properly check ID's. *Please, local law enforcement and State Police, please save us all from underage people drunk driving because they're buying wine from non-liquor-store cashiers who aren't checking ID's*
E. But forget underage: are all Massachusetts residents over 21 with a (valid) driver's license idiots?! *Sure, let's all buy wine at our local "convenience store" or supermarket, get liquored up over the limit and go out and drive right away.* I swear to God, if this ballot question passes and we have one, just one, more occurence of drunk driving fatalities next year, "no" people are going to blame it all on this ballot question, as opposed to simple fluctuation. "We have some of the nation's lowest drunk driving fatalities and we'd like to keep it that way," they say. Right back out you: so that's why we have some of the nation's highest insurance rates.?! Quite frankly I think that seatbelt use and other safe driving practices in this state are low because it doesn't matter--wear your seatbelt, use your directionals and 4-way flashers (and not after you're already in a turn or lane change), drive with your headlights on, don't tailgate, drive within 15 over the speed limit even on the expressways... and still pay out the *** in insurance!! A step 9 "perfect" driver in Mass. pays the same as a step 15 "neutral" driver in most places elsewhere (unofficial stat). And you wonder why people don't care here about what they do on the road. And you wonder why people snub their nose at road cops.
But I've digressed. Let's sum it all up: all you "no" people are against fair competition. You're insulting everyone's intelligence. You give just a little too much credit to law enforcement for controlling the drunk driving issue in the Commonwealth, and too little on the average Commonwealth resident's ability to police him/herself. To quote blogs that I've read recently on the issue, "I'd vote yes just out of spite." But I think I'll do it more because there hasn't been a single rational reason not to.


Post a Comment

<< Home