I’ve always had a thing for potty-mouthed Irish women, so I gotta confess to a kinda schoolboy crush on the BIAW’s profanatory, trash-talking PR maven, Erin Shannon. (Really. So give me a call, Erin, and lets hook up sometime for a drink or five. Don’t worry; I’ll drive.)
But when it comes to her politics, Shannon is just plain awful. You know, in that batshit-crazy Hitler-was-the-first-environmentalist/DOE’s-storm-water-regulations-are-worse-than-the-Holocaust sorta way that defines the ideological crack house that is the BIAW.
That said, in her unexpected guest-post today on Slog, Shannon does in fact make a cogent point. The SECB’s “it’s ‘mindfuckingly stupid… for the state to hold a monopoly over one industry'” argument in favor of privatizing the sale of liquor in Washington State is strikingly similar to the BIAW’s own self-serving, anti-public interest arguments in favor of privatizing workers’ compensation and handing the profits and control over to the insurance industry.
See, Erin… you and I have something in common, more than just a predilection for using the word “fuck.” So how about that drink?
Anyway, the point is, if you’re gonna vote against I-1082, the BIAW’s anti-worker, small-business-killing, AIG-backed political money-grab—and you should, because it is a vicious manifestation of the BIAW’s coal-black soul—then you should also ignore the SECB, and vote No on I-1100 for many of the same reasons. Because the fact is, there are some things we’re just better off leaving in the hands of government.
So thanks, Erin, for helping to make that point.
I am voting Yes on I-1100 and no on I-1082 because I trust grocery outlets 1000000% more than I trust insurance companies.
Some things are better left to the government, some things aren’t, and I couldn’t think of a more perfect example. It’s not inconsistent to vote yes on I-1100 and vote no on I-1082.
Now I feel bad about my post on her thread…
I find EriN’s post persuasive and am now totally voting against I-1100.
Already voted no on both. Only takes one stamp this year.
Already voted no on both, too (and made roughly this same comment on the I-1082 post: that she’s right, and the answer is to vote no on both).
I miss the days when The Stranger was a liberal newsweekly and didn’t fall for the Wal-Mart agenda. But that makes for another thing in common with I-1100 & I-1082: While BIAW is trying to sell workplace safety to Wall St., the Walton Family Foundation would use the proceeds from deregulating liquor sales through I-1100 — and giving them and their ilk a purchasing monopoly to crush WA wineries & craft breweries alike — to promote their agenda of . . . drumroll . . . privatizing K-12 education! That’s right, Wal-Mart also believes education should be for-profit. Why stop with liquor sales?
But Goldy… one is about cheap booze!
I voted yes on I-1100 because I want the Puritans out of the liquor business (the state can still collect taxes on booze.) and no I don’t buy that privatizing Workman Comp is the same thing–its not. The Insurance companies just want another way to screw people out of their money.
Bean @7,
Cheap booze? Huh. Maybe that would increase my chances with Erin?
Hey Goldy, you’re not going to come up with any sources for your claim that alcohol abuse is lower with state liquor sales, are you?
It’s kind of the crux of the matter and you seem to be making stuff up.
Fuck insurance companies, but what’s the problem with private booze sellers, if they only sell to adults and they pay their taxes?