Every state has made it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to drink alcoholic beverages. Yet government surveys show that the beer and distilled spirits industry earns an estimated $100 million from the underage youth market in California, and $1 billion nationwide.
Assembly Majority Leader Wilma Chan, D-Oakland, has introduced legislation that will impose a fee on producers of alcoholic beverages based on the revenue they earn from the sale of alcohol to minors. The fees would be used to fund community-based youth alcohol recovery centers throughout the state.
Does Ms. Chan honestly believe that producers of alcoholic beverages spend millions of dollars targeting their advertising at a segment of the population that is forbidden by law from purchasing their product? She might well, being a Democrat from Oakland. That place is a bastion of oddity unlike any I've ever seen before or since. But I digress.
This is typical liberal nanny-statism. Since the intentions are good, and the 'problem' is complete will all the necessary elements for a dimwitted crusade that will have consequences far worse than the origninal problem, this meets the criteria for a typical meddling liberal money-grab. The necessary elements are:
1. Victim - the poor innocent teenagers (of apparently powerless parents who do not have a place anywhere in the equation)
2. Target - the evil, undoubtedly rich, socially-irresponsible producers of alcohol (wuth the notable exception of domestic wine producers, most of whom are concentrated in a single state)
3. Solution - the usual solution - a punitive scheme involving transfer of funds from target to a "greater good" ("greater good" typically means that most of the money disappears and the rest goes to something it was never intended to fund.)
4. Hero/Savior/Caring & Compassionate Crusader - Wilma Chan, D-Oakland, and disciples
Ignoring the fact that this whole idea is a pile of steaming terrier excrement, there are some other problems as well. Tracking what teenagers are drinking is nearly impossible to do with any great accuracy, as most teenagers tend to drink secretly and lie about what they drink and how much they drink of it. So the alcohol producers' punishment amounts will be largely arbitrarily determined by the heroes. Another issue is that this is California, where I hear they make wine (albeit not the best). If teenagers decided to take up wine instead of the usual sweet drinks and fortified beers, a real conflict could emerge between CA's politically important wine producers and the feeble-minded do-gooders wishing to fund their "programs."
Some issues that Ms. Chan is apparently unaware of include the fact that this is something parents should worry about. Granted, parents in her district may be more concerned with other pursuits, but it doesn't change the fact that it is their exclusive responsibility to keep their children out of trouble as well as the fact that the data she is considering may not be even reasonably accurate. But assuming her numbers are accurate, a quick calculation reveals that Left Coast teenagers consume 10% of all alcohol consumed by teenagers nationwide, at least on a dollar basis. But CA is only one state out of 50! Granted, CA is a big state, but it seems like it Californians aren't doing the best job of keeping the kids off the sauce.
The Pile of Steaming Terrier Excrement Award has thus been awarded....
1:43 PM
Wednesday, February 12, 2003 A Little Planning, People
This is the story of some folks that thought a tiger cub would make a really good HOUSEpet. This is apparently not an isolated occurrence, either. I've heard of situations such as these in the past and not given the matter much thought. Now, the more I think about it, the less I like it.
From the story, it seems that the "man" of the house knowingly purchased a tiger cub from an internet purveyor of tiger cubs, fully intending to keep said animal as a housepet. I don't even know the proper name for a degreed, credentialed cat expert, but let's just use "tigerologist" for the time being. Now I'm no tigerologist, but even I know that an adult tiger is a very large animal. I also know that they are carnivores, with sharp claws, great strength, and very, very impressive teeth. I don't pretend to know the biting strength of a tiger, but I would guess that it is probably something to be reckoned with. They don't exactly hunt the weakest prey either. Even assuming that tigers can be domesticated as housepets, the sheer size of the tiger makes it less than ideal for sharing a traditional home with. Did these assclowns really think that if they didn't properly nourish the cub (which was apparently the case) that it would remain a cute cuddly little cub that would just sleep in the room with a child for years to come? I'm the last person to suggest that people shouldn't be allowed to have any kind of pet they choose (PROVIDED THEY TAKE CARE OF IT AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS ACTIONS), but these people never should have laid their inept hands on this tiger.
And While We're On the Subject of Irresponsible Pet Owners...
Pick up after your damn dogs! You know who you are! It is a sad, sad state of affairs when a human being has to pick up after a dog other than their own because some walking waste of carbon refuses to accept responsibility for their canine companion. If common decency and respect for one's neighbors' property isn't enough of a motivating factor, then perhaps the fact that leaving droppings in someone's yard is not exactly legal should provide the needed motivation. I've yet to catch anyone looking on like a bloated idiot while their dog sullies my fine lawn, but rest assured that when I do, there will be consequences.
2:33 PM
Monday, February 10, 2003 I Know, I Know....
Yes, I know I am WAY behind on the wine blog. I have notes scribbled on scraps of paper which I am currently using for redundant bookmarks in my wine book, but one day they'll find their way to the blog. I also know that this blog is nothing to write home about, but I find comfort in the fact that I'm not contemplating devoting my life to video games. While it does bother me that I don't know what to devote my life to, I nonetheless feel much, much better knowing that "video games" has been crossed off the list.
Joe Millionaire
I've been watching this show. Even as I watch it, I know it is dumb, and that by tuning in I am joining the ranks of the shrillest and least cognizant of humanity. Yet somehow I'm entertained by it, despite it's lack of entertainment value. I may even watch it tonight. I have crippled myself by attempting to strengthen my legs at the gym yesterday, so I'll most likely be homebound. My feelings about Monday workouts (ie, amateur night) are well-documented, so there's a good chance that I'll get to see which lucky (or unlucky?) woman will be eliminated next. I'm about as sharp as a marble and not nearly as complicated.
So, I am owed $20, as the article states. I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, it's $20 for filling out a form. But on the other hand, is this payout really justified? I'm all for companies being punished for wrongdoing, but was there any actual wrongdoing here? And, while I appreciate that a flat $20 to anyone affected is a very simple way to handle something complex, it would be really hard to make the case that it's fair. On my discovery of Napster, my CD-purchasing dropped off dramatically. By "dropped off dramatically" I mean "ceased," and even before that I only bought a few, so am I really as deserving of $20 as someone who devotes all of their disposable income to CD procurement? I think not. But since most people do not have CD receipts dating back a decade, there's really no way to sort it out. All in all, I think it's a twisted mess and a crock of shit.
And now for some seriously convoluted logic courtesy of my favorite news source:
"The system is working in just the opposite way it should be. The richest Americans, who are in the best position to pay their fair share of taxes, get high-priced advice which saves them millions of dollars. By contrast, less wealthy Americans, who need every dollar they save on their tax bill, dutifully pay whatever IRS tax tables indicate they owe.
The IRS' tentative crackdown on outrageous tax avoidance schemes represents a belated step toward narrowing these inequities. Wealth should not be the sole determinant of who gets the greatest benefits from our often inscrutable tax laws. "
How about instead of spending more taxpayer money to have IRS incompetents trying to track down tax abusers, simply SIMPLIFY the tax code? A complex maze of tangled bureaucratic silly-string that is completely devoid of logic or sense is always ripe for exploitation. A flat (really flat, not "flatter") tax with a lower rate, high personal exemptions, and no deductions would go a long way toward helping people, rich and poor alike.
"Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem!" --Ronald Reagan
