Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Overheard at the Grocery Store:

Clerk: "I'm sorry, ma'am, I can't ring up this beer 'til 6:00."

Me: "Have you gone mad? It's Tuesday!"

Clerk: "Yes, but it's Election Tuesday. Don't forget that old dumb law."

Me: "What this country needs is more drunks voting."

Clerk: "We sure couldn't do any worse."

38 comments:

Linoge said...

Wow. Now that is a stupid law.

'Cause, you know, people being unable to buy alcohol on Election Day obviously means they will not drink alcohol on Election Day.

Michael W. said...

What a shame. With the crop we are voting for, you need something to get the bad taste out of your mouth......

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

You see, that's actually a good idea. Now candidates can wait outside a polling place with bottles of hooch saying, "vote for me and i'll gice you some hooch. you're not gonna get it any other way til dinner time..."

bedlamite said...

It could be worse. here in WI, we have a history of electing drunks.

WV nocors: It's misspelled. supposed to be "no coors"

Mark Alger said...

I think they ought to put the polls in bars. And you have a two-drink minimum to vote. Like your clerk said: we could do worse.

M

Gewehr98 said...

Tam neglects to mention it was her own beer purchase that was denied. :-)

wv = zedshner

Where the 6-pack of Shiner Bock rides on the trip home, on the passenger side of the Zed 3...

og said...

We could do better by dropping a brick out of an airplane over a crowd, and swearing in the next-of-kin of the deceased.

Drinking would be a bonus.

Sarcastic Bastard said...

Well, nice to know Alabama isn't the only place with some stupid laws.

DirtCrashr said...

Og for the win - the next of kin HAVE to throw a wake and then we all get to drink.

Jack said...

Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. MacDonald, was a famous drunk, and Canada's had a hangover ever since.

Anonymous said...

Nothing wrong with electing drunks, we all know of all the sins that politicians get up to being plotzed would actually be an improvement for most them.

Just look a P.M. Churchill, drunk most of his adult life.

Joanna said...

I vote for Og's method. It's either that or a series of winner-take-all bracket-style knife fights between the primary candidates. Maybe we'd finally get a leader with a pair that way.

rickn8or said...

Given a choice among a drunk, a womanizer or a poser, I'll go for the drunk every time. Better they drink than drive me to.

And on a similar note, anyone have a clue-pinion as to why us peons are generally barred from carrying our sidearms in a polling place? I mean, why supress one right while exercising another?

Roberta X said...

...They rarely check. Just sayin'.

Jeff said...

Og and Roberta both nailed it.

The liquor laws used to drive me fricken nuts when I lived in IN. I'm not a big drinker so I don't go liquor shopping much, but it always seemed to end up being on a Sunday or election day when I was trying to buy a sixpack or bottle of wine with my groceries.

Anonymous said...

"And on a similar note, anyone have a clue-pinion as to why us peons are generally barred from carrying our sidearms in a polling place? I mean, why supress one right while exercising another?"

Generally barred? Umm, no, we are not. Which state is this? You mean down South?

If you are inquiring as to legislative motives, then it would be to combat the voter intimidation of African-Americans in the South. That's the why.

"I don't go liquor shopping much, but it always seemed to end up being on a Sunday or election day "

When I worked at a grocery store years ago I would hear exactly this. "Oh, I didn't know [it was a prohibited day]." Got in trouble once when I asked a boozehound where the case he bought on Saturday was.

Shootin' Buddy

staghounds said...

1. Re. Churchill- "most"?

2. We have the technology now. Ignition interlock devices that require an alcohol free blow before letting a car start could be placed in voting booths, then tuned to require whatever level of intoxication our circumstances require.

I'd suggest a 2.0 minimum for the Congressional mid terms, and see how it works out.

Hey- we could put them on the legislatures' voting machines, too!

"No booze, no bill!"

Tam said...

"Which state is this? You mean down South?"

You mean southern Illinois or Wisconsin?

"When I worked at a grocery store years ago I would hear exactly this. "Oh, I didn't know [it was a prohibited day]." Got in trouble once when I asked a boozehound where the case he bought on Saturday was."

Y'know, maybe the alleged "boozehound" just didn't realize what fucking day it was because he didn't watch pro football or go to Sunday School and so he had run across a stupid archaic rule that violates the holy hell out of the 1st Amendment, since it is respecting establishments of religion that have their magic blue mud rubbing ceremonies on Sunday at the expense of all those who do so on Friday or Saturday.

Anonymous said...

Ummm, 2.0? You mean .20?

2.0? That's like dead times 8!

Letting the dead vote? Turn the entire nation in Texas and Chicago?

:-(

Shootin' Buddy

Anonymous said...

"You mean southern Illinois or Wisconsin?"

No, I mean like the states of the CSA.

"Y'know, maybe the alleged "boozehound" just didn't realize what fucking day it was"

Could be. Alkies do lose track of time and the calendar.

The alkies would always try doing this to me as I was very young and they thought they would get me in trouble and get their booze.

My manager told me just to tell them no and have the booze returned to the aisle. We had to block off the booze aisle so they couldn't sneak in and try to buy or shoplift it. Nothing like seeing an old rummie being chased by baggers in aprons across a parking lot! Ahhh, good times.

Shootin' Buddy

OA said...

"Generally barred? Umm, no, we are not. Which state is this? You mean down South?

If you are inquiring as to legislative motives, then it would be to combat the voter intimidation of African-Americans in the South. That's the why."

You might want to read up on the personages that passed such laws or worked to have such laws passed. Here's a hint: many weren't born in the South, but came down to take advantage of easy pickin's. They set themselves up in power through dirty dealings and ruled as potentates, aided by the US government and their troops. That (and "reconstruction" in general), not the war itself, is the real reason why southerners still bristle at preachy, obnoxious yankees with selective memories. Well, that and having their noses rubbed in the civil rights movement to this day by said yankees, yankees which conveniently forget things like Boston schools not being integrated until the 1970's (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Morgan v. Hennigan), with no small amount of violence and 'white flight' occurring (Hell, many mostly white areas of the North aren't exactly tolerant to this day when actually dealing with minorities instead of talking about how others elsewhere should treat them). The whites there weren't above going after black elementary school students, either. The National Guard eventually had to be called out and even that didn't calm things down much. Latinos caught hell, as well.

Oh, and do be a dear and name which Southern states still have the 'no carrying at the polls' laws and compare with the Northern states that have the laws presently.


In other words, the North's shit stinks every bit as much.

Tam said...

"That (and "reconstruction" in general), not the war itself, is the real reason why southerners still bristle at preachy, obnoxious yankees with selective memories. Well, that and having their noses rubbed in the civil rights movement to this day by said yankees, yankees which conveniently forget things like Boston schools not being integrated until the 1970's (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Morgan v. Hennigan), with no small amount of violence and 'white flight' occurring (Hell, many mostly white areas of the North aren't exactly tolerant to this day when actually dealing with minorities instead of talking about how others elsewhere should treat them). The whites there weren't above going after black elementary school students, either. The National Guard eventually had to be called out and even that didn't calm things down much. Latinos caught hell, as well.

Oh, and do be a dear and name which Southern states still have the 'no carrying at the polls' laws and compare with the Northern states that have the laws presently.


In other words, the North's shit stinks every bit as much.
"


Preach it, my brother.

The irony of being accused of being a provincial bigot is endlessly amusing.

Anonymous said...

"many weren't born in the South, but came down to take advantage of easy pickin's."

So, entire Southern legislatures were imported from the North?

The Jim Crow/Son of Ham laws were passed by Southerners to deprive African-Americans of their civil rights inlcuding the carrying of firearms as this had a negative impact on the community organizing work of the Klan or the local Sheriff. Vile Yankees passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 13th and 14th Amendment to stop this privation. Oh, yeah, Yankees also bled to free African Americans washing away their stink with their own blood.

The motivation and origin for prohibiting the carrying of firearms to polling stations can be found in the voter intimidation of African Americans in the South.

There is nothing improper or insulting about this historical fact. A is A.

There is a huge distinction between the state action de jure discrimination of the Jim Crow/Son of Ham laws of the South and "some people in the North were mean too" de facto racism of the North. This does not make racism proper, but it was not law as it was in the South.

Swann was a case from North Carolina, not Massachusetts. The issue in Swann was the positive or negative interpretation of Brown: is Brown an order not to segregate, but not an order to integrate?

No one is preaching but merely teaching history in response to a question. Tender sensibilities aside, polling stations are a no go zone because of the history of voter intimidation in the South.

Whether this should still be a law as the South has learned its leasson and the North needs to be retaught is another matter entirely.

Shootin' Buddy

John Stephens said...

Ass a pollworker of some years experience, I can assure you that there are sound reasons for the 'no guns' policy. Given the choice of candidates in the last several Presidential elections, anyone with a gun and a sense of civic responsibility would be tempted to end it all right there in the booth. And since I'm the one who'd have to clean up the mess...

Tam said...

Back on topic...

What is it about Hoosiers and their bizarre hang-ups about alcohol?

Roy in Calif said...

In re booze on election days

I can remember in the '60s, the prohibition of alcohol sales in California while the poll were open.
Cali's polls close at 2000 hrs.

I think they changed the law about the same time they started allowing 18 yr olds to vote.

Anonymous said...

Comes from several sources:

1. Influence of the Methodist Church.

2. Fear of the other--German and Polish Catholic immigrants.

3. Yankee Calvinistic industriousness--alcohol consumption is viewed as idleness which takes time from the farm, business and family. Only the lazy are drinkers.

There are no bizarre hang ups; at least not of the Pennsylvania variety. Early Prohibition was patriotism. Whip the Hun, used the grain for our boys and not to poison our livers.

No booze sold in stores was derived from small businesses lobbying for economic rent and the influence of the Methodist Church.

The repealed Beer Baron law was just old fashion economic rent via legislature. Nothing bizarre like it being a misdemeanor to dye a rabbit or chicken (B Misdemeanor, 0 to 180 days in county jug, up to 1K fine).

Now THAT'S bizarre!

Shootin' Buddy

Tam said...

Really?

If I had a rabbit, I'd be dyeing that sucker right now. Stupid laws aren't the boss of me!

OA said...

"So, entire Southern legislatures were imported from the North?"

I didn't say that, but thanks for resorting to the same debate tactics as a democrat.

Many Northern "businessmen" that came South worked behind the scenes as well as those that were indeed in the legislature to get laws passed. You know, similar to Indiana in the 1920's when the whole freaking state was run entirely by the KKK either from office or behind the scenes.

Odd you would cite the 13th amendment and also say "Oh, yeah, Yankees also bled to free African Americans washing away their stink with their own blood." The 13th amendment was passed to deal with the main hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation; it not ending slavery and involuntary servitude in the Northern states. So what exactly were the "Vile Yankees" fighting for?

I hate to break it to you, but the war was fought for the usual reasons: money and power.

You might want to read a book entitled 'Team of Rivals' by Doris Kearns-Goodwin (she's pro-Lincoln, by the way) for some education and how Lincoln not only supported slavery (which is well known to all but the most delusional), but wanted slavery enshrined forever**...and how popular the idea was in the Northern states (hint: very). After all, there's a damn good reason why OG libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner hated Lincoln so much. Hell, even after the war and before he was shot he was working on shipping the blacks back to Africa. Ever heard of Liberia? That was his first choice for "deportation". Frederick Douglass loathed him for what Lincoln called "colonization" and abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison's descriptor for Lincoln was "the slave hound from Illinois". Hell, Lincoln himself even quoted his hero, slave owner Henry Clay, when he said in a speech in Peoria in 1854 that, "there is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children". Then of course there was his black Panamanian coal miners idea...

OA said...

As for the 14th amendment, it was fraudulently passed due to its lack of support even from the yankees. US News and World Report ran a two page editorial by David Lawrence (editor) in the September 27th, 1957 issue (republished Jan. 26, 1970) that admitted that "No such amendment was ever legally ratified". Lawrenced further stated that to achieve its purpose the yankee congress:

--Expelled the Southerners from congress (unconstitutional. violation of section V)

--Disfranchised a large portion of the South (unconstitutional. no ex post facto law)

--Declared no Southern state could have its seats back unless said state ratified the 14th amendment. (unconstitutional. forced ratification)

--Illegally used military forces to occupy peaceful states. (the war was over, state governments had been established and congressional representatives sent to Washington...of course, they were kicked out...)

--Counted New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon as ratifying the 14th amendment even though they rescinded their ratifications. Oregon did so due to the "illegal and revolutionary" methods the supporters used to strong-arm support.

Lawrence went on to say that the 14th amendment "is a disgrace to free government" and that "it is never too late to correct injustice".

OA said...

"Swann was a case from North Carolina, not Massachusetts. The issue in Swann was the positive or negative interpretation of Brown: is Brown an order not to segregate, but not an order to integrate?"

The Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg ruling was used by the courts to force busing in Boston in an effort to end de facto segregation in areas like Boston where blacks and whites weren't already side by side. Hence why segregation held on so long in some Northern areas; it was only de jure segregation that was outlawed in the South as de facto wasn't needed given that they had been living in the same locations for so long.



**"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

Lincoln's words on the above: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution...has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service." Then, while "holding such a provision to be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

OA said...

"What is it about Hoosiers and their bizarre hang-ups about alcohol?"

It's not just Hoosiers, and it's the government forcing people to "keep it behind closed doors", so to speak. "You can drink, but do it at home, and we'd really like for you to not do it on these certain days...oh, and thanks for the obscene amount of tax dollars your booze generates!"

Anonymous said...

Poor trusting Southerners, they didn't mean to oppress the Freedmen. They were driven, I say, I say, to violating civil rights of African Americans by wiley Yankees, suhr. The Devil Yankee made me do it!

Who cares what Lincoln thought or did as to the motivations of the Reconstruction South? Nothing Lincoln did was relevant to Southern motives in oppressing African Americans. "The North was a bunch of meanies too" does not work.

You may want to read "Look Away!" by William Davis. He demonstrates how the South fought to preserve slavery. I just finished the "Free State of Jones" (soon to be a movie) and "Redemption: the Last Battle of the Civil War" by Nicholas Lemann. How anyone can read those and say the Civil War was not about the South's struggle to preserve White Supremacy in beyond me.

Heck, you can just go to a Southern state museum and look at their petitions to leave and you'll see slavery front and center. The state museum in Texas isn't ashamed about it as they put it in the middle of the exhibit.

People are upset about the South being slapped around after the Civil War to make the South behave? Too bad. The South was treated far more tenderly than, 1) it deserved, 2) how traitors are usually treated. It was only because of the wisdom and forgiveness of the leaders of the United States, inlcuding Grant and Lincoln, that the South was not subject to much harsher treatment.

Shootin' Buddy

OA said...

:sigh:

Are you intentionally missing the point, or are you just that dense?

"Oh, and do be a dear and name which Southern states still have the 'no carrying at the polls' laws and compare with the Northern states that have the laws presently.


In other words, the North's shit stinks every bit as much."


As for your benevolent Grant and Lincoln, they were both racists and had no regard for the Constitution, the latter making them guilty of treason. States had the right to secession, so sorry, no treason there.

Lincoln was nothing short of a dictator. No less than Marx himself praised Lincoln in a letter upon his reelection with the words "From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class". Frank Meyer, editor of the National Review, wrote in the August 24, 1965 issue that "Lincoln’s "pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country." He so said because of the "harshness of his repressive policies and his responsibility for methods of waging war approaching the horror of total war". He went on to say "Were it not for the wounds that Lincoln inflicted upon the Constitution, it would have been infinitely more difficult for Franklin Roosevelt to carry through his revolution and for the coercive welfare state to come into being...Lincoln, I would maintain, undermined the constitutional safeguards of freedom as he opened the way to centralized government with all its attendant political evils."

Venerate him if you want to, but I choose not to celebrate Lincoln any more than I celebrate Lenin.

Timmeehh said...

OK you two, just stop arguing, I have the solution... just












BLAME CANADA!

Tam said...

OA,

To really understand, you have to hum the fifth verse of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" while remembering that the sins of Depression-era Indiana lynch mobs were washed away by the blood of 1860s Hoosier draft rioters and Copperhead legislators.

Tam said...

PS: More good stuff on the legal enshrinement of Hoosier prejudice can be found here.

"Sure, we love us some colored folks! Youse guys can even move here if you put up a $1,000(!) bond for good behavior."

OA said...

Incidentally, one of the few books I recommend (not just on the War, but one of the few books I truly recommend in general) that everyone procure is a work by Charles Adams entitled 'Slavery, Secession, and Civil War: Views from the UK and Europe, 1856-1865'. The Northern press was heavily censored by Lincoln and no one wants to be made uncomfortable by believing the Southern press, but this book eliminates those issues.