Last week, after I spoke out against NJ Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Cryan publicly dissing his own wine-buying constituents, I received quite a bit of feedback (comments and e-mail) about something I wasn’t talking about.  Namely, not reporting from the battlefield of the wine shipping fracas taking place among the rolling hills of my home state, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (one of – if not the – worst control states in our fair Union).

In response, I can offer two tidbits as potential justification:

1) Blogger Lew Bryson is doing a fine job of detailing all of the latest PLCB debacles and on-again/off-again satutus of PA’s move towards Privitization, and I’ve little to offer above-and-beyond Lew’s excellent and opinionated coverage. For a pertinent example, check out Lew’s tirade about the state’s failed automated wine kiosks – turns out the PLCB knew that the kiosks had little chance of succeeding before they deployed them (I had a similar view of their potential success published around the same time).

2) I’m anticipating the potential for a lot more insider coverage coming soon on the PLCB and the drama of the changing state of alcohol distribution in PA, since I’ve agreed to be on a focus group for a PLCB Wine Advisory Council member.

Yes, you read that correctly. I’ve been hand-picked by a member of the PLCB’s Eastern PA Regional Advisory Panel to join a cabinet/focus group, which has as one of its priorities advancing the pace of change to improve the currently (very) sad state of wine distribution affairs in the Commonwealth…

My first meeting with the Wine Advisory Council will be in downtown Philly in a few days time, the agenda of which is “To discuss matters of concern for both consumer and licensee stakeholders regarding the PLCB system.”

Don’t think that I’m on the slippery-slope to the spiked (pronounced “spike-ED!”) pit of the sold-out, though.

Since I’ve been very, very clear about my feelings towards the PLCB, I don’t expect the session to go all that well for me. In fact, I won’t be surprised if it takes less than one hour before I’m thrown out. But there’s no question in my mind that the Council will know exactly how I feel: PA needs to privatize the sale and distribution of alcohol, disband the PLCB, and open up to the free market system to encourage the increases in service/convenience and price-reduction that can only result from real competition.

When it comes to the PLCB and any other state-controlled monopolies of commerce that is otherwise free and open in other states, my going-in thinking is To Hell With The Devil, baby (anyone out there remember Stryper?).

For all of my passionate rhetoric, I’m a bit of a pragmatist at heart, and I’m not going to do anything stupid that would purposefully get me thrown out of the upcoming meeting or the focus group. But I’m not prepared to back down in voicing my honest views, either. Here’s an opportunity to at least try to make a difference for PA wine consumers in a direct way, with a more-or-less straight line through to the PLCB itself; I’m not gonna screw that up, folks.

At least, not intentionally!

So… more to come… hopefully much more, if the Council and PLCB keep enough of an open mind to keep me on board for a while; if not, then there will be more to come, just not a lot more to come…

Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, ‘cause I think we might be in for a bumpy – but fascinating – ride!

Cheers!

Copyright © 2011. Originally at This Just In: I Join A PLCB Advisory Group. Also, Hell Freezes Over. Sort Of. from 1WineDude.com - for personal, non-commercial use only. Cheers!

Apparently, some of them do – including Joseph Cryan, Assembly majority leader and representative of NJ’s 20th Legislative District. Whoops!

Tom Wark alerted me to this little ditty, an Opinion piece published in the Times of Trenton (that’s in NJ, for all you West Coast people) and written by Cryan, in which he attempts to justify a bill that he sponsored – one that basically doesn’t allow direct wine shipping in NJ. Cryan also goes on to lambast a separate bill that I’m assuming he opposed – one that does allow for direct shipment of wine to NJ consumers.  Here’s an excerpt of Cryan’s OpEd:

“…in New Jersey, we have a three-tier distribution system in place to protect our great state’s citizens, children, safety and revenue. The system has worked since 1933, and we should not be bullied by out-of-state wineries that seek to destroy it. The three-tier system has led to 60,000 retail jobs in our state; if we were to allow direct shipping, those New Jersey jobs could all but disappear.”

Wow.  So, let’s get this straight: according to Cryan, if they allow direct shipping in NJ, then they not only succumb to the “bullying” of out-of-state wineries, but will lose upwards of 60K jobs, will put the state’s children into rehab (supposedly they’re getting smashed on La Tache at, like, $3K/bottle?) and will miss out on an ungodly amount of revenue?

Save the children! Board the windows!! Annie, GET YER GUN!!!…

The trouble I have with all this nonsense is not so much that it’s nonsense, or that Cryan got it all wrong – which he did: direct shipping experience in other states has shown that none of those things are likely to happen (for more on why Cryan’s take is off the mark, see my friend David White’s rebuttal).

No, what irks me is that Cryan apparently thinks that his own constituents are dumber than bag of hammers.  Part of the fun of jokes about NJ is that we now the people who live there are actually smart, and nice, and that the state isn’t a toxic waste dump, etc. (nothing personal, NJ people… it’s just that making fun of NJ is kind of what we do sometimes in NY and PA when we’ve had too many beers… I know, it’s terrible…).

Anyway…

Why do that?  Why even go there? Why treat your own constituents like dim watt bulbs? I mean, if they’re savvy enough to want to order wine from their favorite producers, wines they couldn’t otherwise get in NJ, then aren’t the smart enough to search on the Internet and find information and study results that refute Cryan’s scare-tactic defense?

There is certainly something stupid going on in NJ, but it’s not on the part of their wine consumers – it’s on the part of some of their legislators.  You deserve better, Jersey, and you know what to do if you’re a wine lover: vote ‘em out!

Cheers!

Copyright © 2011. Originally at NJ Assembly Majority Leader Disses His Own Wine-Buying Constituents from 1WineDude.com - for personal, non-commercial use only. Cheers!

Their latest ploy has been the introduction of HR 1161 – called, strangely enough, the “CARE” act (for Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act of 2011″) but what I’d more accurately describe as the “SYFBWETBORA” act (for “Screwing You From Behind Without Even The Benefit Of a Reach-Around act of 2011″) – is, simply put, a colossal waste of legislative and taxpayer time and energy that could be spent on things slightly more important, such as reducing our national debt, helping to end starvation, fixing healthcare, or…

It’s tough to put into words how asinine this legislation really is, but I will try… for the impatient, I would describe HR 1161 as being the kind of legislation I would expect to be written by severely retarded monkeys, in so much as it promises to deliver a similar amount of potential “benefit” for U.S. consumers and taxpayers.

HR 1161 would basically amount to “exempting state alcohol laws from review under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.”  Which would mean that state laws governing alcohol distribution – no matter how potentially unconstitutional, anti-consumer, pro-monopoly they are currently – couldn’t be challenged in court.

How bad is that?  It’s bad enough that the National Association of Attorneys General have sent letters indicating that they do not support the bill.  Basically, the case for HR 1161 being unconstitutional seems to be quite strong – which strongly suggests that a lot of time is being wasted in drafting, promoting, fighting, and discussing it, because it’s (probably… hopefully!) unlikely to pass.

As a commercial body, the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America asking to be protected from Constitutional commerce law is sort of like the U.S. Military asking to be exempted from ever having any of its members be tried for war crimes under any circumstances – we don’t expect that kind of behavior, but the threat of legislation and subsequent legal action at least is a deterrent.

If you want to learn (much) more about how bad HR 1161 really is, check out the on-going coverage of the details over at Tom Wark’s Fermentation blog.  What I will leave you with is this: the only logical conclusion I’ve been able to come to when thinking about why on our wine-lovin’-Earth any member of the U.S. legislative system would be in support of HR 1161 is that they are firmly entrenched in the pockets of the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America.

And we know what we should do with politicians who are too firmly entrenched in the pockets of any big business group:

VOTE THEM OUT.

You can get started by joining up the movement against HR 1161 on Facebook, and by writing your legislative reps to let them know that you’ll be voting for their resignations if they support the bill.

Cheers!

Copyright © 2011. Originally at Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America to American Wine Consumers: “HEY, F*CK YOU GUYS!” (The Case Against HR 1161) from 1WineDude.com - for personal, non-commercial use only. Cheers!

Personally, I was flabbergasted by some of the statements that came out of Stapleton’s mouth during this interview, because they demonstrate what feels like a rather serious lack of respect that the PLCB seems to have for its own customers; customers who, it seems, the PLCB would prefer don’t (or, perhaps, they assume aren’t intelligent enough to) refer to things that might give them a different view on PA wine sales than that being painted by the PLCB.  You know, pesky and irrelevant things, like facts.

My take on some of Stapleton’s statements from the interview are below after the jump, along with the podcast stream of the full NPR episode. I feel a rant coming on… you’ve ben warned…

In terms of deconstructing some of the madness in this NPR interview, let’s start with the case of why PLCB store employees have a perception of being unhelpful and lacking even basic knowledge of the products that they sell.  According to Stapleton, the PLCB is legally hog-tied and has to hire an incompetent workforce; Stapleton actually blames the hiring system for the sad state of customer service within the current state-run alcohol sales system (you know, those people who claim that Cabernet Franc doesn’t exist) – all quotes are transcribed directly from the interview, by the way:

"Relief from civil service would be a huge step up for us."

Let me get this straight: somehow, it’s easier to change state legislation than train the PLCB workforce?  That is such a sad conclusion that words fail to convey how ridiculous the situation truly is.

Lew (as well as some of the show’s callers) asked he obvious question: why not just privatize, Patrick?  Two reasons, apparently:

1. "We produce a good revenue base for the Commonwealth" – This totally ignores the fact that the PLCB is run so inefficiently that it’s profit is an abysmally low percentage of its income. I won’t even start on Stapleton’s take on how damaging privatization would be to the PA state coffers – there’s already quite a bit written to counter that argument.
2. "The peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject… indicate clearly that there are fewer problems related to the sale of wine and spirits in a control state environment… these are facts that are born out not only in Pennsylvania but all over the world."  This is, simply put, a lie – or at least, that’s the view that any reasonable person should come to when they consider the actual facts: Pennsylvania’s underage drinking rate remains above average for the 50 U.S. states ( http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k6/stateUnderageDrinki… ) and the Commonwealth remains above average in DUI fatalities per mile driven ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-12-07-dr… ). Sadly, Stapleton comes back to the abuse/protection angle time and again in this interview, which I think demonstrates how feeble the pro-PLCB argument is quickly becoming.
   

It’s tough to blame PA residents I think, if they conclude that the PLCB is not only lying to them but also isn’t delivering on all of its promises or potential value for money. Or, as one of the NPR show’s callers put it, the PLCB has had 75 years to sort this out, why should PA state residents assume that they will suddenly get their act together?  Simple: they shouldn’t.

Cheers!

Copyright © 2011. Originally at Blogger Lew Bryson Brings The Smack-Down on PLCB Chair Patrick Stapleton In NPR Interview from 1WineDude.com - for personal, non-commercial use only. Cheers!

Bitchslapping your state legislator is not a simple matter.  In fact, it’s fraught with potential pitfalls.

What  if your legislator is bigger than you are?  What if s/he tries to bitchslap you back? What would my mother think of this? etc.

A proper bitchslap needs to be delivered decisively and confidently.  Therefore, it’s vitally important not to let minor concerns, like personal safety and the threat of incarceration, get into the way of a good bitchslapping.  So, buck and let’s continue, shall we?

A proper bitchslap also need to be delivered firmly.  Which is why it’s often less effective to deliver the bitchslap by hand, and more effective to deliver the bitchslap via proxy.  Which is not to say that it is delivered by someone else, but is to say that use of a prop is always in good form, especially when the prop delivers enough noise and bodily pain upon striking the other person’s face to be embarrassing , but not enough to permanently injure the bitchslappee (apart from the bitchslappee’s pride, that is).  The prop therefore should be heavy enough to inflict the above damage but flexible and light enough for the bitchslapper to wield effectively and adroitly.

You may have already guessed that a printed book or stack of paper of proper thickness and quality material would be an ideal prop for the bitchslapper to wield, and you’d be correct in that assessment.

Which is why I recommend the following simple steps for properly bitchslapping your wine-monopolizing state legislator…

1. Print out a copy of the U.S. Constitution (double-sided).
   
2. Print out a copy of Tom Wark’s fabulous and well-written “Manifesto for Change in the Wine Industry” (PDF format available here – single sided).
3. Staple the printed materials together (note: this may require an industrial stapler).
4. Wield the combined print out so that you are gripping the stapled corner of the documents, allowing for flexibility in the movement of the pages but providing enough rigidity that the document retains its overall shape rectangular shape.
5. Lean over your legislator’s desk, while simultaneously lifting your striking arm in a high arc backward over your shoulder.  The documents should be above and behind your head and the shoulder of your striking arm.  Note: you may need to kneel or stand on your legislator’s desk, depending on the whether or not the bitchslappee is seated, or is a person of above-average height, etc.).
6. Bring your striking arm down forcefully so that your arm crosses back your the front of your body but your shoulder remains relatively stable; your shoulder blade should NOT also cross over the front of your body or you might lose your balance!  The thrust of your striking arm should be timed so that, at the apex of the downward trajectory of your arm, the documents retain their rectangular shape and administer a loud slapping sound across the maximum surface area of the bitchslappee’s face.  Remember to aim as if you are striking “through” your target’s head.
7. Gloat.

Cheers!

(images: motivatedphotos.com, thehostages.files.wordpress.com)

Copyright © 2011. Originally at How to Bitchslap Your Wine-Monopolizing Legislators from 1WineDude.com - for personal, non-commercial use only. Cheers!