Since we’ve told many other businesses they aren’t welcome in Hartselle, I’m guessing I’ll keep this site open so people can get have a virtual drink at least. And they can pay for it with virtual dollars, since there are more of those in Hartselle than real dollars these days.

To the moral busybodies who run Hartselle, don’t rest on your laurels too long, as we’ll be back.

Cognitive Dissonance

Atypical for me, I had a lot of trouble titling this post. Part of me wanted to write “Cognitive Dissonance” in the “Enter title here” space. The other part of me wanted to run with “Let the free market decide” regarding our vote about whether Hartselle will will finally repeal local alcohol prohibition tomorrow. In the end, I gave the photo (click twice to see it full sized) the former and settled for the latter.

There are (at least) two different yards in town which display the same contradictory messages: “Vote No Liquor” and “Vote like your Freedoms depend on it!”

The former message refers to tomorrow’s wet/dry vote in Hartselle while the latter leads back to a Tea Party group.

Before I continue, perhaps it’s best for me to explain what cognitive dissonance means, because apparently half of Hartselle’s population has no clue regarding the concept. Wikipedia defines it well: “Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.” In other words, it’s holding two opposing thoughts or beliefs at the same time. Like simultaneously being an atheist and a Christian. Or being both an Alabama fan and an Auburn fan on Iron Bowl day.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not critical of the Tea Party movement. To be sure, I put a lot of work into setting up the first mega Tea Party event in Birmingham, was one of two people who called for a large Tea Party rally in Montgomery which forced the legislature to act on combating ObamaCare, have been interviewed on national television numerous times regarding my Tea Party activities, etc. If anyone qualifies to be considered a member of the movement, it’s me — although I’m clearly more from the libertarian than the extremely socially conservative side of it.

Despite having worked within the movement from its beginnings, I still don’t get how someone can pull the lever for freedom with one hand and pull the lever to restrict our freedoms with the other. It’s sort of like calling oneself an animal lover while abandoning a box of puppies in the gutter on a cold winter day. Or like saying I support the Second Amendment at the federal level, but we should outlaw guns in Hartselle.

The Tea Party group indicated on the pictured sign has an “About” section on their site which outlines their three core principles:

1. Fiscal responsibility. Stop wasting taxpayer dollars and discontinue deficit spending.
2. Constitutionally Limited Government. The Federal Government must abide by the limits established by the US Constitution and the states must comply with their respective state constitutions.
3. Free-market Economy. Americas (sic) greatness is due to private sector ingenuity, ambition and dedication. It is not due to government.

I could make arguments that voting Yes is the fiscally responsible thing to do, but there’s an entire organization and website dedicated to just that purpose. I’d be remiss if I didn’t bring up individual responsibility, though. With rights come the requisite responsibilities. In other words, if your gonna drink, don’t drive. And don’t beat up on your spouse. Or kick the dog.

When it comes to constitutionally limited government, I recently made the point that our founding fathers clearly would have voted Yes on this issue. Pretty much all of the founders consumed enough alcohol to put most modern day alcoholics to shame. However, one of our founders didn’t drink and he generally looked down on those who did: Benedict Arnold. Surely Hartselle’s Tea Party members aren’t suggesting that we should follow the example of Benedict Arnold.

Finally, we get to the free market. Not a day goes by in north Alabama where I don’t hear someone say something about the free market. It doesn’t matter if folks are discussing ObamaCare, the presidential election or Democrats in general, pretty much everyone around here CLAIMS to support the free market.

So what is meant by the free market? Again, Wikipedia has a decent definition: “A free market is a market where the price of a good or service is, in theory, determined by supply and demand, rather than by governmental regulation.”

In other words, if there is no demand for alcohol in Hartselle, as some might claim with their Hartselle branding and hometown image hogwash, then stores won’t sell it because there’d be no profit. In other words, the overwhelming majority of Hartselle’s residents will be voting against President Obama (and Democrats in general) because of their support of the free market. It takes a pretty good sized dose of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously vote for the free market at the national level while opposing the free market at the local level.

If Hartselle’s brand is as dry as opponents of legalized alcohol sales claim, then the free market will show it by not supplying alcohol to our residents. People who don’t drink have nothing to lose by voting Yes, and there are plenty of non-drinkers who will be doing so.  To vote No is to cast a vote in favor of government regulation and in opposition to the principles upon which our country was founded.

To vote No tomorrow is to cast a vote against freedom, our founding fathers and the free market.

Note: This campaign has been full of crazy signs, pictures and graphics. To see more of them, click here.

People move to Hartselle for many reasons. Our founding fathers set up our government to be a representative government. They left England’s rule because they were making the laws and we had no say so. Now we have a say so in what the laws are. If we don’t like the laws we can elect others that may change it. The laws regarding the wet/dry status of a county or city or state were made by our friends and neighbors–not by a goverment where we had no say so. The government of our state chose to give the choice of the wet/dry status of their county/city to the people. They could have said the entire state is wet or dry and no choice given.

“There can’t be good living where there is not good drinking,” said Benjamin Franklin, defeating the branding and hometown argument frequently used by the moral busybodies about town.

Attacking some of the religious arguments which abound, he also said: “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

OK, so you pointed out one founding father who drank, the opposition might say. But there were a lot of founding fathers and some of them might have had a different attitude towards alcohol. Let’s begin by taking a look at the at the general attitude towards alcohol in the colonies at the time:

Many started the day with a pick-me-up and ended it with a put-me-down. Between those liquid milestones, they also might enjoy a midmorning whistle wetter, a luncheon libation, an afternoon accompaniment, and a supper snort. If circumstances allowed, they could ease the day with several rounds at a tavern.

Alcohol lubricated such social events as christenings, weddings, funerals, trials, and election-day gatherings, where aspiring candidates tempted voters with free drinks. Craftsmen drank at work, as did hired hands in the fields, shoppers in stores, sailors at sea, and soldiers in camp. Then, as now, college students enjoyed malted beverages, which explains why Harvard had its own brewery. In 1639, when the school did not supply sufficient beer, President Nathaniel Eaton lost his job.

It should also be noted that the Puritans drank, too.

The ingredients for beer did not grow well in New England. As a substitute, the Puritans made do with hard cider. The many apple orchards of the area were planted for its production. Men usually began the day with a quart or more at breakfast.

Now let’s move more specifically to the founding fathers. Here’s a glimpse of George Washington’s farewell party:

There were several results of this change in thinking. One was to whitewash the founders of any references to drinking. One example is Alonzo Chappel’s famous painting of Washington taking a sad farewell from his officers, which took place at a tavern in which a bottle of alcohol is clearly visible on a table. The bottle was retroactively painted out of the picture during Temperance.

That the farewell party was held at a tavern (Fraunces Tavern is still open in New York) is significant — but not unusual. Most public meetings were held in taverns, which were the center of the community, more so than churches. And, while we’re at it, sacramental wine was served at Colonial Protestant services. Indeed, alcohol was served in meetings of state legislatures and at the Constitutional Convention itself. And, yes, the famously buttoned-down Washington was quite a drinker in the day. In other words, he was definitely a partier (no, that wasn’t tea) whether or not he was a prayer.

Here’s more from that classic example of our Constitutional Convention. My friend the Wine Commonsewer reports:

It is said that our revolution was born and raised in taverns.

“…..in 1787, two days before their work was done, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention adjourned to a tavern for some rest, and according to the bill they drank 54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, 8 of whiskey, 22 of port, 8 of hard cider and 7 bowls of punch so large that, it was said, ducks could swim around in them.”

Then they went back to work and finished founding the new Republic.

Note: 55 delegates and 54 bottles of Madeira.  Coincidence? I think not and I wonder which founder was the slacker? Certainly not Jefferson, he was in Paris.

I’ll suggest that the slacker must have been Benjamin Rush, who didn’t drink much and went on to become a thought leader for his day in the treatment of alcoholism:

For your best chance of a “Founding Father” who didn’t drink you’d have to stretch who you accept as a Founding Father. Dr. Benjamin Rush signed the Declaration of Independence and attended the Continental Congress and is therefore regarded as a Founding Father. He warned against the addictive nature of alcohol and cautioned extreme moderation. This idea put him well ahead of the times since most people thought alcohol abuse was a choice and an indication of evil inclinations. But it seems even he likely drank (in moderation), having said “Beer is a wholesome liquor…it abounds with nourishment.”

By the way, one site did the math on the liquor count from the Constitutional Convention:

That works out to roughly three bottles of wine (broadly defined) per founder, with everyone knocking back a celebratory shot of whiskey because, apparently, the tavern had no Jägermeister.

A lot has been written about the tastes of several of our founders. Here’s a bit about Thomas Jefferson from Food and Wine’s executive wine editor:

So what did Jefferson drink? A lot of things: Madeira, Port, Sauternes, Bordeaux (he was particularly fond of Château Haut-Brion), Champagne, Hermitage, Rhine and Mosel Riesling, Sherry, Tuscan reds, Volnay and Montrachets from Burgundy, you name it.

A New York Times article adds quite a bit more:

But when he chose to begin his three-month journey in the vine-covered slopes of Burgundy, Jefferson’s daughter, Martha, became suspicious.

“I am inclined to think that your voyage is rather for your pleasure than for your health,” she teased him in a letter.

In fact, Jefferson’s five-day visit to the Côte d’Or — a region famous even in the 18th century for its extraordinary terroir — was not accidental. After spending more than two years in Paris establishing diplomatic relations with the court of Louis XVI, Jefferson, a lifelong oenophile, had tasted his share of remarkable vintages. Now he was keen to discover the vineyards and cellars of Burgundy, and to study firsthand a winemaking tradition that stretched back to the 11th century.

I’ll clip a few quotes from this article to illustrate the drinking habits of a few more of our founding fathers. The gem about George Washington seems a fitting starter since Hartselle’s election is tomorrow:

When he was a young lieutenant in the Continental Army, Washington took leave to run for the Virginia State Legislature. He lost spectacularly, but learned a valuable lesson from the experience. When he ran again two years later, he met voters squarely on their terms by arranging for 144 gallons of rum, punch, cider, wine and beer to be divvied out among as many polling places as possible. If you were voting, George was buying. He won by 68 votes.

John Hancock:

The owner of the world’s most famous signature may have nodded at King George’s failing eyesight as a justification for its size, but it could well be that John Hancock signed the Declaration in so large a hand because he was more than a wee bit sozzled at the time.

Hancock was known throughout New England for his massive intake of alcohol, especially beer.

As a student at Harvard College, he was a regular at its brewery, and was known to sit in his college bed chamber drinking through to the light of dawn. After graduating, Hancock pursued a successful business career, so successful that at one point he was the wealthiest man in all the Colonies. When England tried to tax various types of alcohol, Hancock used his business connections to smuggle booze into the country and sell it at discount prices.

Benjamin Franklin:

The biblical flood, Franklin insisted, went down because men became wicked from drinking too much water, something God corrected once Noah hit dry land: “God, to relieve his dryness, created the vine and revealed to him the art of making le vin. By the aid of this liquid he unveiled more and more truth.”

A man with a sense of humor, Franklin composed a list of over 200 synonyms for being smashed. A few highlights: “he’s eaten a toad-and-a-half for breakfast”; “he makes Indentures with his Leggs”; “he’s had a Thump over the Head with Sampson’s jawbone.”

Franklin also suggested that we drinkers should thank the heavens that the human elbow is located where it is because we “are enabled to drink at our ease, the glass going directly to the mouth.”

And here’s more:

Before embarking on his famous ride, Paul Revere visited the home of distiller Isaac Hall and tossed back two drafts of rum to steel himself for the coming jaunt.

Revolutionary gadfly Ethan Allen was obscenely fond of a drink called a Stonewall, a mixture of rum and hard cider (try it, it’s quite tasty). Friends often had to carry him home after the wall fell on him.

John Quincy Adams loved his wine and once correctly named eleven out of fourteen Madeiras in a blind taste test.

Patrick Henry owned his own tavern and tended bar there. Not averse to joining his customers in a tipple, many evenings found Henry stomping up and down the trestle tables, playing his fiddle and exhorting people to join him in song.

Martin Van Buren was born on the floor of his father’s tavern and spent much of his later life on the same floor after a dozen tankards of ale.

Of course, there was one key person of the time who didn’t drink and looked down on others who did. This should seem pretty familiar to you, as it’s what happens in Hartselle on a daily basis.

It needs to be noted that the notorious traitor and all-around weasel Benedict Arnold didn’t care for drink and looked askance at drunkards. Which should be surprising to no one.

The election is tomorrow and the opposition raised the founding fathers argument. I’ll leave you with one thought before you vote: Would you prefer to follow in the spirit of our founding fathers or will you choose to be a Benedict Arnold by voting No?

There are two different ways I can think of to make the point. To begin, survey after survey after survey after survey after survey after survey after survey shows that dry counties and towns have higher DUI rates or alcohol-related accident rates than their corresponding wet towns and counties. But, one might say, most of those data came from Kentucky and Arkansas; not very much came from Alabama. True, but I’ll make the point that Arkansas and Kentucky are pretty demographically similar to northern Alabama. They go to church the same as we do, have the same general sorts of industries and cultures, and even have a lot of geographical similarities.  To be sure, they can’t play football as well as we can, but we aren’t talking about California or Massachusetts or New York here, folks.

Well, most of those studies were about counties and not cities, one might say. We’ll true, but let’s take a look at Arab:

The city of Arab, Alabama, recently got an unexpected surprise: research by the city’s police chief, Mike Blackwood, found that alcohol related offenses have not risen since 2008, when the town decided to begin allowing sale of spirits. But that’s not all, according to a recent statement from Blackwood that appeared in the Cullman Times online. “We’ve seen about a 6 percent decrease in alcohol-related crimes,” he adds, and though he warns that it’s still fairly early in the game to draw conclusions, “so far the alcohol-related crime is down.”

Additionally, Blackwood says that statistics he collected from other towns in the region who decided to lift bans on the sale of alcohol reported similar drops in violent crime related to alcohol consumption. But perhaps the most interesting facet of Blackwood’s findings has to do with how the number of people drinking and driving through the area has dropped as well.

An al.com article explains this phenonom a bit:

Peggy Batey, executive director of the Alabama chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said the odd amalgam of wet, dry and damp counties in Alabama forces some people to drive significant distances to buy liquor or beer. If you drive a long distance, you tend to buy in bulk. And if you buy in bulk, Batey said, you’re more likely to drink the same way.

Cullman, which recently went wet, has similar data and they provided a lot of it. To quote their document, the “City of Cullman has not seen an increase in crime since the legalized sale of alcohol” and they’ve “not seen an increase in DUI’s [sic] compared to a five year average since the legalized sale of alcohol.” Not only is Cullman right down the road from us, their population is only a few hundred more than ours. Talk about demographic similarities.

But Cullman is a county seat and Decatur is a big city and Athens and Arab both start with an “A” and so on…

Well, let’s take a look at HCED’s survey of local police chiefs of seven local towns after they went wet. These cities aren’t Birmingham and Atlanta and New York City and London and Paris and Sodom and Gomorrah, by the way. They do include Arab, Athens, Cullman, Fort Payne, Guntersville, Moulton and Russellville.  They are all north Alabama towns and most of us have friends and family in most of them. Hartselle has a approximate median population compared to the cities on this list. Of these recently wet cities, Cullman reported their DUI rate was stable and Guntersville reported no increase in DUIs. All of the other cities on the list reported a DECREASE in DUIs.

It wouldn’t be necessary for me to report these data, but for some reason, the Hartselle Enquirer failed to run a feature article on the dangers of voting No preceding an election such as this.

The second way to make the point is to apply a bit of conventional common sense to the subject. Right or wrong, some people go to the liquor store, pick up a six-pack of beer, and start drinking it on the way home. To be clear, I’m not condoning this, but unfortunately it is a fact of life. Those who have pickups tend to throw the empties in back, but the rest seem to end up along the side of the road. It simply makes common sense that the longer, or more miles, that a drinking driver is on the road the greater the chance of an accident or DUI. In other words, Decatur and Cullman get the tax revenue while Hartselle gets the empty cans and bottles on the side of the road. And we get more DUIs and alcohol-related accidents than necessary, too.

Let’s take a look at the hypothetical situation of Hartselle going wet. After drinking too much at a local restaurant, which drinker is more likely to get a DUI or cause an accident, the one who drove two minutes to five minutes to get home or the one who drove twenty minutes to thirty minutes to get home? Let’s say someone has consumed far too much and is stumbling and slurring his speech. Who is more likely to ensure that this intoxicated person gets a safe ride home, the stranger running some bar in Decatur or the neighbor, friend or family member running the restaurant in Hartselle?

I’m not sure if the Vote No crowd isn’t capable of processing thoughts in a logical manner, they are so convinced they are right that they close their minds to any challenging ideas, or they have some nefarious intent. But I’m hoping the majority of Hartselle’s citizens have enough common sense to vote Yes in order to help make our streets safer.

H/T to another Hartselle resident who prefers to remain anonymous.

From the tales I’ve been hearing, strong armed is a better description of the process being used by certain churches in town.

I’m writing this post to assure people like the voter above that they are not alone, even though it may seem like it at times.

First of all, based on election results from two years ago, pretty much half of the people in town are on your side in the first place. It’s just that many people (especially small business owners) are afraid (some have been directly threatened with everything from boycotts to blackballing to being fired) to vocalize their support or display Yes signs. Also, the last election was not held on presidential election day, as this one will be. The No side was a lot more organized last time; the Yes team is a lot more organized this time.

While no one has polled the issue, it’s most likely that a slim majority of people in town support alcohol sales. Unfortunately, some of them don’t vote and some aren’t as likely to get involved in community activities. On Election Day, we’ll be able to better quantify the Yes voters, but it’s likely to be a close vote no matter which way it goes.

A lot of people with whom I’ve talked are conflicted about their vote on this issue. On one hand, they know the stats and numbers regarding economic development, jobs, taxes, etc. make perfect sense. But they also feel that drunkenness (or in some cases, mere consumption of alcoholic beverages) is a sin. If you are one of these people, you aren’t alone. While he may be afraid to say it publicly, the guy sitting on the pew right in front of you may feel exactly the same way.

I’d like to set your mid at ease about something. This is America and we have the ability to vote in private. No one but God will know whether you voted Yes or voted No — not even your preacher or the elders or your Sunday School teacher.

Contrary to some arguments out there,  this vote is not about whether it is right or wrong to drink. It is merely about which municipality will receive the tax revenues from such sales. It’s not about encouraging DUIs, but quite the opposite. Whether or not Hartselle goes wet, unfortunately there will still be drunk drivers on the road. A Yes vote will mean that they spend less time behind the wheel and therefore our streets will be slightly safer. Every study I’ve ever seen on the topic indicates this and five out of seven local wet cities reported a decrease in DUIs after going wet.

If you are a member of Hartselle’s silent majority, I’ll urge you to vote Yes a week from Tuesday because people in Hartselle already drink. It’s simply a matter of keeping the revenue local, increasing jobs, promoting business development and increasing safety.  And no one need ever know how you voted.

Back when I was a child (if I remember the story correctly), my mother was told by the elders (or perhaps deacons) she couldn’t continue to teach her Church of Christ Sunday School class if she was going to maintain that the wine mentioned in the Bible contains alcohol. It seems the intimidation is much stronger today than when I was a kid.

Like many others in Hartselle, the writer of the attached letter is also fearful of retaliation and has requested anonymity. The file reached me (though a rather circuitous route) after being converted to a graphics file with all of the writer’s personally identifiable information redacted. I trust the person who sent it to me, so I’m publishing it so this Hartselle citizen has a forum for his/her views.

“There’s no such thing as wet or dry,” said Alabama Senator Richard Shelby. “There’s only legal and illegal.”

That’s right, folks. Believe it or not, people living  in Hartselle already purchase alcohol – and quite easily, too, I’ll add. It’s merely a matter of which municipality receives the sales tax.

There’s another issue at stake, too. Simply because the two people quoted in their flyer can’t handle their liquor, the prohibitionists wish to punish those of us who act responsibly when we drink.

To be sure, there are many health problems related to alcohol abuse. However, more people die from heart disease (followed by cancer) than any other cause. Significantly more people die from poor eating habits than from alcohol related issues. This brings back my old argument: If they are truly sincere in their beliefs, it is imperative that they begin a drive to prohibit pork chop sales.

The last time I checked, the Bible ranked gluttony pretty much the same as drunkenness.

“Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags,” reads one verse in Proverbs.

If we are going to be consistent about this, it’s imperative that we revoke the licenses for every fast food joint in town. We’ll have to strip our grocery stores of their pork and beef rows, along with many other items (especially the deserts) that they stock. We need to punish those who eat responsibly because some in town can’t resist the temptation of local pork chop sales.

In their flyer, they cite the Golden Rule as a reason to ban alcohol sales. “How would I want others to treat me if I were an alcoholic?” they ask. “Would I want alcohol to be more convenient?”

My interpretation of the Golden Rule is to treat others as I would wish to be treated myself, but apparently they’ve interpreted it to mean punish everyone because a few might do something wrong. This is the same philosophy they use to ban firearms in New York City.

The flyer states that alcohol brings pain and suffering to so many people. Personally, I believe it is the alcoholics who bring the pain and suffering. Guns don’t go around shooting innocent people and booze doesn’t force itself down the gullets of alcoholics.

If they wish to be fair, if they wish to be consistent, if they wish to be biblical, they’ll join me in calling for a ban on the sale of pork chops, hamburgers, fried chicken, hot dogs, pizza, french fries, potato chips, cheesecake, ice cream, large cokes, ad infinitum.

Marie Antoinette may have said “let them eat cake” but if we’re going to be thoughtful of Hartselle’s gluttons, we will have to go to Decatur or Cullman to buy our cake.

*For some reason, I didn’t receive the bulk rate flyer in the mail, but a friend let me borrow his. Sorry for originally misreporting  the organization printing this one. It seems that the Vote No groups have broken in two, perhaps (my best guess at the time) so one can operate as a 501C3 and the other as a 501C4. Or perhaps for some other reason.

Of course, if I owned a restaurant in town I’d be more than happy to serve wine with dinner, so I guess I’m guilty as accused on that count. However, insinuating that folks voting yes have performed the moral equivalent of selling booze to minors is yet another example of prohibitionist extremism.

Then there’s the guy who has two political signs adorning his yard: “Vote No Liquor” and a Tea Party sign which reads “Vote like your freedoms depend on it.” Talk about a classic example of cognitive dissonance.

There are the churches with their “Praying and Caring” signs who have absolutely no clue how many people in Hartselle feel like they been seriously insulted by them.

As crazy as these and other stories covered by this blog may seem, I think the following tract being currently passed out by alcohol prohibitionists in Hartselle wins the One-Small-Fry-Short-Of-A-Happy-Meal Prize.

Check out these quotes directed at those who would end the prohibition of alcohol sales:

• “You are voting for innocent people to be killed on our highways.”
• “You are voting for suicide and underage drinking.”
• “You are voting for the abuse of children.”
• “You are voting for more crime, murder, etc.”
• “You are voting for divorce and the breakup of the home, sexual promiscuity, unwanted pregnancy, pauperism.”

I’m not making this up. Here’s a scan (click twice to enlarge) of the tract I saw for the first time today.

The front side:

The back side:

I’d like to thank Hartselle’s moral busybodies for declining this media appearance, though. Initially, it was to include Bob Francis of the Hartselle Citizens for Economic Development and Jerry Johnson and/or one of the preachers leading the folks who think moving back to the horse and buggy days is “progress.” While the Vote No folks won’t be involved (as of the latest I’ve heard from the event promoter), they’ve asked yours truly to sit in on the panel.

Personally, I’d prefer the opportunity to confront the moral busybodies about their direct lies, offensive campaign and disconnect with reality. I’d really love to ask them why they assume greater political power than our founding fathers and ask more of us than Jesus did.

With Bob and me tag teaming on the panel, this forum should be fun and informative. Hope to see you Sunday at 2:00PM at the Vote Yes headquarters on Highway 31.

Other neat pictures from Hartselle’s wet/dry vote to end alcohol prohibition here.

They are a bit expensive (base price of $3.95 each) but I already had a business account at Zazzle and it was best I could do with very limited time. If you’d like to order one (I don’t make any money off of this, it all goes to Zazzle), simply click here and hopefully the link they sent will work.

UPDATE: I left a stack of these at the Vote Yes office. Feel free to pick one up.

UPDATE II: They are now all gone. The only way to get one now is to order online with the link above.

I have been invited to represent HCED on the subject program, as has Jeff Johnson of Families for a Safe Hartselle.

The program airs at 6:00 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday October 23, on Decatur TV station WYAM, Charter Channel 20.

Mr. Johnson and I will appear in sequence beginning at 6:00 p.m., with order of appearance determined by coin toss. He and I will remain isolated from the other’s air time.

The studio does not accommodate live audiences. Audience participation is by TV viewing and call-ins only.

Here’s to hoping Mr. Johnson shows up, as I’d like to ask that moral busybody what right he has in determining what beverages I can purchase (or consume in a restaurant) in town. Or who died and named him Christ? Or why he adamantly opposes the will of our Founding Fathers? Or why he isn’t pushing for a citywide ban on pork chops? Or why he seems to support key elements of Sharia Law? Or…

And since the abolitionists have been ducking radio debates already, I thought I’d cut and paste the chicken graphic they used to poke fun at us in their recent mailer and throw it back in their faces.

I’ve scanned the top claims from the list they mailed out, which you can double click to see full sized. The first quote about “Sales taxes ahead of schedule” falls within the realm of normal political spin. Perhaps they truly feel that we collect more sales taxes because people go to Decatur or Cullman to buy their booze. While I may disagree, within the realm of politics, this is fair game.

They also claim “Ten new cars for the Police Dept. since 2011.” While I’ve not been as engaged in city politics as I should have been, it’s a reasonable guess that some of that funding came from county, state or federal sources, with a high likelihood of some sort of Homeland Security or stimulus funding being directly or indirectly involved. And of course, there is also normal wear and tear on vehicles and some need for them to be replaced from time to time. Again, I’ve not researched this, but it seems reasonable to speculate that the ten new police cars aren’t directly related to Hartselle being dry. I’d place this sort of argument in the fuzzy area, unless Familes for a Safe Hartselle can demonstrate some sort of causality to prove their point.

Two of their claims come so far across the scrimmage line we don’t have to break out the chains to see if the preachers behind keeping Hartselle dry earned a first down for political whoppers. While I’m sure the folks at Hartselle Citizens for Economic Development will use some politically correct term like ‘unsubstantiated claim’ or the like, I’m going to call this what it is: an outright lie.

Towards the top of their list, you will see two of their claims:

• …along Highway 31, over 120 new jobs
• …industry expansion, creating 78 jobs…

I suppose one could make an argument that Lowe’s opened their store in Hartselle because we don’t allow folks to order a glass of wine with their dinner, but that’s not the point. While their claim that 198 jobs have been created may be correct, they failed to mention that many, many more in the same area have been lost. Copeland had 500 employees who presumably earned a pretty decent salary. 150 relatively high-paying jobs were lost when Hartselle Hospital shut down. Abercrombie Chevrolet had around 27 employees, and they are right across from Lowes. And these are just the bigger businesses in the general Hwy-31-Sparkman-north part of town. How about all of the other jobs lost in the area, too — many as a result of these three shutdowns?

To state that Hartselle has benefitted from 198 new jobs “since our ‘no’ vote in 2002″ without accounting for the 677 plus jobs lost scores a big fat F on my Truth-O-Meter. It’s one thing to mildly exaggerate a claim, but when people stretch the truth this far, it has a tendency to snap and fling back in their faces.

The economy has been in the tank for several years now and pretty much every political poll has shown that jobs and the economy are foremost on everyone’s minds. For certain holier-than-thou types in Hartselle to disregard what you, me and virtually everyone else knows once again indicates they are way out of touch with the voters.

• …and I pray every day.
• I can’t believe these folks are insinuating that I don’t care or pray.
• I’m insulted by them saying that I don’t care or pray.
• I was undecided [until these signs were erected], but now I’m voting wet.
• Neither presidential candidate appeals to me so I wasn’t going to vote, but now I’m going to be sure to show up to vote Yes.
• I’ll certainly be praying as I head to the polling place to vote Yes.

These are rough samples of what I hear almost every day first or second hand from folks angered by the insinuation that they neither pray nor care because they are going to Vote Yes.

I was going to blog something about this shortly after they put the signs up, but I decided to keep my powder dry for a while. The people behind this “praying and caring” campaign are so out of touch with the average voter in Hartselle I thought I’d give them enough rope to hang themselves before bringing it to their attention that they are losing voters on a daily basis because of these signs.

If we win by a small margin, I’ll certainly propose a toast at our victory celebration in honor of this campaign. And I’ll offer a small prayer of thanks, too.

As everyone in town knows, the folks who wish to keep Hartselle dry are running on a theme of Heritage, Compassion and Progress. Photographs do a very good job of displaying the sort of progress they envision, too. The good folks at HCED have been kind enough to let me use their photos of “Progress” signs erected around Hartselle’s closed-down businesses. I’m not sure, but I think I like the one in front of the “Hartselle Medical Center is now closed…” sign the best.

To view them, just click once to enlarge the photo a bit or click twice to blow up the whole picture. Enjoy!

• Some cute animal is abused every day. Someone drinks alcohol every day. Because this recurs all the time, it can’t be some random coincidence.
• Many autoworkers drink beer (and sometimes even wine or whiskey) and people die in car wrecks. Passing a law which keeps automobile manufacturers from hiring drinkers is an obvious need.
• Hurricanes and tornadoes almost always hit towns which have alcoholic beverages somewhere in them.
• Every mass-murderer in US history had an alcohol drinker in his community when growing up.
• Every genocidal dictator had alcohol drinkers in his country, and the major ones led countries known for their alcoholic beverages.
• Germans are well known for their quality beer and their white wines.
• Russia produces some of the world’s best vodkas.
• Italy* is known for awesome red wines, and some pretty good white ones, as well.

*Because the King James Version may not make it clear enough, Rome (those guys who persecuted Christians) is in Italy. Benito Mussolini was also Italian.

Here is another fact for the preachers in town: Alcohol sales are legal in Israel. Most of Israel’s enemies outlaw alcohol under Sharia Law.

Guys, I know I’ll be accused of rendering aid to the enemy, but I felt so sorry for them, I just couldn’t help it.

This mentality about dancing led to the  popular 1984 movie Footloose, which was released 51 years after alcohol prohibition was repealed in America. Another 28 years have passed since Kevin Bacon, Lori Singer and John Lithgow graced the big screen and now folks in Hartselle will get to vote whether we have the right to purchase alcoholic beverages in town. Entire generations have passed and the Vote No people in Hartselle somehow still call this “progress.”

The closed-minded thought processes behind the dancing prohibitionists in the movie are virtually identical to the thought processes of those wishing to impose their ideas of “progress” on the rest of us. Here’s an example from the movie:

Reverend Shaw Moore: Were you drinking?
Ariel: No.
Reverend Shaw Moore: Smoking something?
Ariel: No! I wasn’t stealing, I wasn’t gambling, I wasn’t dancing, I wasn’t reading books I’m not supposed to! I am late!
Reverend Shaw Moore: Who were you with?
Ariel: Ren McCormick.
Reverend Shaw Moore: I don’t want you to see him anymore.
Ariel: Why not?
Reverend Shaw Moore: Because I’ve heard he’s a troublemaker.
Ariel: Just because he hasn’t lived in this town for 20 years doesn’t make him a troublemaker!
Reverend Shaw Moore: Ariel, I don’t know what I’m going to do with you.
Ariel: There ain’t nothing to *do* with me, Daddy. You like it or not, this is it. It doesn’t get much better.

This sounds like a conversation which could take place on pretty much any Friday night in Hartselle, to me.

It might be worth skipping through the ad to refresh our memory about the speech Kevin Bacon gave to the City Council in the movie. Even Howard Stern gave it kudus when they used it to

It might also be worth reminding Hartselle’s “progressive” prohibitionists that when the rest of the world looks at Hartselle as an incredibly backwards community, they won’t wish to locate their businesses to our mostly wonderful community.

“Which maybe they did,” he continued (you can listen to this on an audio clip near the bottom of this post). “Maybe I took the bait.”

“Well, apparently this caught the attention of folks in the pro-liquor movement in the Hartselle communitybecause they are paying attention to me,” said Jackson yesterday morning in the audio clip you can play immediately below. “They want me to lay out something to you guys.”

And lay it out he did.

“Holy crap! Did Barack Obama put this website up?” asked Jackson about the anti-alcohol website he was discussing on the air. “Barack Obama said a similar thing recently.”

Dale Jackson explains his Obama logic further on his website here.

The normally outspoken Jackson was at a such a loss for words that he committed one of those deadly sins for radio broadcasting: dead air.

After the Obama similarity explanation, Jackson took a dramatically long pause.

“Wow! Wow!” he finally exclaimed before reading a Bible verse the prohibitionists were taking out of context on their website.

“Wow… [another long pause] …Wow!” he said as he closed out this hour of his program. “Just think about that for a minute and we’ll come back.”

Here is the entire Hartselle vote portion of Jackson’s opening teaser segment:

Going into the next hour of his program, Jackson continued comparing President Obama’s attack on free speech with the Vote No crowd’s similar tactics.

“It’s not for the president of the United States to condemn political speech,” he explained. “It is not up to the churchy folks in Hartselle to tell me and others that we can’t have freedom because those with a weaker conscience might stumble because of it.”

Here’s that short clip:

Jackson went on to attack the specious arguments of the prohibition crowd, calling them “disingenuous.”

“It’s never done anything other than destroy,” said a caller identified as Mike in Hartselle regarding alcoholic beverages. “Name one positive thing that it’s done.”

Jackson was able to immediately come back that he’s socialized with a few friends with beer. I should probably throw in a quick disclaimer at this point: I’ve been one of those people (on several occasions) with whom Jackson has had a couple of beers.

Jonny Letson of Hartselle (I’ve known Jonny for years and we fought the Riley tax increase plan together in 2003) was the next caller. He covered the “don’t be mislead by wrecked car ahead” signs on Highway 36.

“Our vote is for legalized alcohol sales,” Letson explained. “We are not voting on whether or not we like people drinking and driving and killing folks.”

Rex in Athens brought up a great Barry Goldwater quote: “But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly.”

“The issue should be about this: Does the city of Hartselle want some extra tax revenue in exchange for allowing alcohol in their town?” said Jackson. “Boom. That’s your debate.”

Jackson’s angle is more-or-less the same as Hartselle Citizens for Economic Development. Be sure to visit their site at GrowHartselle.com to find out more. Of course, this blog will cover other aspects of the issue. They can discuss the dollars and we’ll discuss the (common) sense.

Jackson even jokingly referred to one caller identified as Eric from Madison as a drunkard, saying that he “just crucified Jesus again” – referring once again to the blog post which brought this discussion up on the air.

“If I was a business owner and I was looking to relocate my business and I turned down 36 in Hartselle and I was heading into the Hartselle city limits and I saw a crashed car on the side of the road and it said ‘what if this was your child’ – you know what I would do?” asked Jackson in what was perhaps the most compelling reason he provided to vote yes on the issue. “A donut and turn the other way.”

Here’s that short clip:

The entire 8 o’clock hour program segment can be heard here.

Because the opposition frequently twists words to try to prove their flawed arguments, I’m going to make it very clear that Jackson supports a YES vote in Hartselle.

“I’m a yes vote on this,” stated Jackson. “If I lived there, I’d vote yes.”

And here’s the audio to prove it… 

Here’s the sign from this morning:

When I went to check the mail this evening, there was another Vote No sign erected in the very same spot. Additionally, a Crimson Tide/National Champions parking sign I have in the side yard was broken today. It could be a random coincidence, as the sign had previously been damaged by a garbage truck. But considering that I have another Vote Yes sign (as you can see in the third picture) in my side yard right next  to the Alabama sign, perhaps it isn’t a coincidence. Occam’s razor and all that, you know.

Here is a picture of the new sign someone erected in my yard this afternoon:

Finally, here is the broken sign in my side yard right  next to my Vote Yes sign:

So much for the Christian principles the moral busybodies who would outlaw alcohol claim. Also, so much for their respect of my property rights. And believe me, I strongly consider a Vote No to liquor sign in my yard defacement. Finally, let this blog posting serve as public notice that I will strongly defend my property rights.