"Pensées d'un bélier" comes to an end, but ...

I decided to start a new blog, fresh with a new name. Pensées d'un bélier is a great name, but seems to be a difficult name to digest as a verbally easy to share blog name to the coworkers at the water cooler. So I introduce to you - the new blog, which has the posts from this blog imported into it - Blogging my junk. Please come visit me over there, I enjoy that people read my blog...heh...few, but still, it makes me want to write more :) So come by, share the blog to your friends, coworkers, family members etc etc.

Drunkenly Barfing On Gifford Pinchot's Grave: A call for Alcohol Policy Reform in the state of Pennsylvania

        “Mmm”, I said to myself, “perhaps I’ll relax tonight with a six pack of beer”, my plans for the night was made after a long week of rain, lots of homework, and dealing with an unusual high amount of traffic throughout the week. With the plan set in motion, I made my way to the beer store, well, the beer distributor. As I pulled into the parking lot, I soon remembered “oh..you can only by a 24 case of beer in this state, ok I’ll go to the bar.” So I turned around and left the parking lot to make my way down the next street to go to a bar that I know sells six packs. Silly of me to think that they would sell anything good, “Miller lite is the only beer you can get to go here” I was told. “Sigh”, in reply, I made my way over to the next bar, which had a carry out area with “more” selections, however, in the year 2010, in a Toll Brother’s built suburbia..the carry out area did not accept credit or debit. Really? Considering the fact that I do not use cash all that often, this alienated me as a possible customer. I went onto another bar that over charged for their beers, by this point of the night I figured the hell with it, maybe I’ll have a bottle of wine instead of a six pack of decent quality beer that apparently does not exist in suburban bars. I swung by the Wine & Spirits to only be reminded that everything that is sold under the Wine & Spirits monopoly is $10-20 extra in cost versus the price that they are sold across state lines (but wait, transporting alcohol across state lines is illegal!) By this point I gave up, I was not willing to purchase a case of beer as I don’t drink that often, and by purchasing a case I would feel compelled to finish it over the weekend. The first bar would only sell Miller lite, a joke for a beer snob like myself, the second bar only accepted cash, a joke for a 2010 customer, and the third bar sold a Gulden Draak at $15 a bottle, a joke because across the river I could buy the beer (and drink at a friends over there) for $4 a bottle. The same with wine, the wine was over priced for what I could get in New Jersey. The mission of Governor Gifford Pinchot to “discourage the purchase of alcoholic beverages by making it as inconvenient and expensive as possible” (A) was successful this evening. A point won by Pinchot’s ghost, yet a point lost not just on myself, but a point lost on Pennsylvania’s economy. In an age when states across the United States of America are facing budget shortfalls, thus having to roll back spending and find new forms of revenue. The “full privatization of Pennsylvania's wholesale and retail liquor structure could return $1.7 billion to state coffers in one-time sell-off payments.” (B) If this is true, it would be a wise choice by Pennsylvania to privatize the state’s monopoly on alcohol sales.

         “Pennsylvania has been criticized as having one of the most outdated and arcane state run alcohol sales regimes” (C), read a veto that Governor Ed Rendell gave for Bill 81 that would essentially make the states alcohol laws even more restrictive . It is shocking that a bill that is met to make an archaic regime even more strict made its way to the Governor’s desk. At least for the sake of Pennsylvanians, the Governor had the common sense to reject this bill. Despite the horror of this bill, another bill introduced by State Senator Rafferty, SB 1300, is met to liberalize the sale of beer, allowing convenient and grocery stores to sell six packs of beer. There is much fan fare behind this bill, however, with any bill in either the State or the Federal government, there is always a special interest group that may be effected by the outcome of the bill’s possible passage. In Pennsylvania this special interest group is the MDMAPA (Malt Beverage Distributors Association of Pennsylvania).

        The MDMAPA (we will call them MDMA from now on in this blog) much rather see the liberalization of six packs to only be sold by the distributor. However this is a “step” forward, it’s still not exactly where Pennsylvania needs to go with it’s alcohol policies. While MDMA is worried about competition, through competition the price of alcohol would go down which is good for the consumers pocket. MDMA likes to point out however that the competition may kill smaller breweries, thus costing Pennsylvanian more in the long run. This claim is just an effort to take a stance of any unfavorable liberalization of the alcohol policy in order for the MDMA to keep their monopoly over beer. If one was to look at states such as Oregon, and Vermont, one can easily walk into a grocery store or convenient store and find a number of locally brewed beers that one has never heard of. Also, if the distributors are worried about the sales of microbrews going flat, one needs to look at who is buying this microbrews in the first place. It’s not the Miller lite guy, its the guy that actually enjoys a real beer. So if the guy who enjoys real beer can’t find any good selections else where, he will go some place else that has such a selection. From this, distributors can become appealing to the beer snobs by carrying a number of specialized imports from around the world and microbrews from across the states. Ideally with the ability to sell in six packs as well.

        “Among states with retail operations, Pennsylvania probably has a lower return to the general fund because it loses business to neighboring states…State liquor taxes drive prices to the point that customers living near the borders buy their booze in those states” (D) By going across the border, people are taking their money else where. Granted, Pennsylvania is trying to make it more convenient for shoppers to purchase alcohol in the state. With beer distributors and bars in the same shopping plazas as grocery stores, Wine & Spirits shops that connect to grocery stores such as McCafferties in Yardley, Pennsylvania, and with the introduction to a Kiosk system that has been described by some as the Red Box for wines. The kiosk system has been getting much fanfare and hype to those who are non-snobbish about what they drink. However like a Red Box DVD rental vending machine, the selections are at best, laughable. They are the populists choice, “Avatar” for a DVD, “Yellowtail” for a wine. Both of which in my personal opinion are equivalent to nothing more then a toad’s vomit. The selections are sanctioned by the room in which this machines can hold. Perhaps a good choice for someone who doesn’t care what kind of wine they drink, or movie they watch. The Kiosk system however is a radical move, and while it brings convenience to the general shopper, it does not answer the demands from some one who looks for Quality - over Quantity. It’s just another attempt by the PCBL to fend off demands to sell off it’s monopoly and privatize the industry.

        In states such as Oregon, you can have wine shipped to your house. Just as Red Box DVDs are soon to probably go out of style as Itunes, Netflix, Verizon/Comcast On Demand makes it easier to watch straight from home, the Kiosks will last for a bit but not for long. They are okay for the shopper who is not too picky about their brand, or are looking for a cheap cooking wine. However the hassle of having to be breathalyzed and the possibilities that the breathalyzer picks up mouthwash, or Listerine mouth strips as a part of alcoholic readings, could prove to be disastrous. It’s too unbearable to deal with a Red Box, or a wine kiosk, ideally in the near future we can allow wines to be purchased and shipped through Fedex or UPS with the requirement of matching name and person receiving the package with an ID, that proves the person is over 21.

        If the Tea Party activist are for less government interference in one’s personal life, and are anti-socialist tendencies, an issue such as liberalizing and privatizing the sale of alcohol should become a primary campaign issue in the near future. Despite the understanding that certain special interest (who are well mobilized) are against such changes in the law, we must over come the opposition of the well mobilized, which represents the interest of only themselves and their associates and not the populous in the state. We must look at the need to sell off this monopoly, bring in the revenue from the sale back into the state to help the general budget and it’s current short falls. Mean while, even after the sale of such a socialistic monopoly, we maintain the taxes that are paid on the product thus keeping revenue from the product flowing into the state’s budget. Just as the F-22 provided jobs throughout the country, and the districts involved were staunchly against axing such a program, the program itself was inefficient, and eventually had bipartisan support to ax it despite the amount of special interest opposition. A line can be drawn from the F-22 project to the monopoly that the state of Pennsylvania holds over its alcohol sales. The monopoly is costly and burdensome to the tax payers of Pennsylvania. If we really want to talk seriously about cutting costs and raising revenue in the state of Pennsylvania, axing the monopoly should be the first place that we look to - not pensions, - closing down state parks, and not cutting the states funding to universities and community colleges.

       This blog entry may seem like a declaration of sorts, but it’s not. I am merely adding to the growing voices in the blogosphere, online media world voicing their support to end the state of Pennsylvania’s monopoly. One of the leading efforts of this call is Lew Bryson’s blog, his facebook group can be found here. I too have a facebook page, but not nearly with the following that “Abolish the PLCB -- Rewrite the Code!” has, feel free to join via here, and also join Bryson’s group as well. In the process please invite all your friends, and your friends - friends, etc etc to both these groups in effort to raise awareness on the issue, need and challenges of changing the way alcohol is sold in Pennsylvania. Keep up the good work Lew Bryson, and lets try to get more and more people to write blog entries in support for alcohol policy reform/privatization.

Some useful links

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/governor-rendell-vetoes-senate-bill-81-93799649.html (C)

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/PA-disgraceful-liquor-loaws.html

http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/07/pa-state-wine-commissars-tech-fail.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-08-02-winekiosks02_ST_N.htm

http://www.storefrontbacktalk.com/securityfraud/pennsylvania-toys-with-self-service-winekiosks-withintegrated-facial-recognition-and-breathalyzers/

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/wine-vending-machines-in-pennsylvania/19626049/

http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2010/10/04/story6.html?b=1286164800^4026451

http://www.pennlive.com/specialprojects/index.ssf/2009/06/big_ideas_for_pennsylvania_lcb.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html

(A)  http://books.google.com/books?id=KfZ3k6iz3NQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Yuengling+A+History+of+America's+Oldest+Brewery+by+Mark+A.+Noon&source=bl&ots=_8wn8eGiMn&sig=UcmU5RY39Eor24ZC3bZLwEFWQlc&hl=en&ei=vJimTMS_EcP6lwfowqgX&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

(B/D) http://reason.org/files/7f7554148c4ea620727a4243e7d49020.pdf

http://reason.org/blog/show/liquor-pa-rube-goldberg

http://isc.temple.edu/economics/wkpapers/alcohol/COMMON.html

http://www.effwa.org/inbriefs/v12_n2.php

http://www.mbdapa.org/news/a-six-pack-of-controversy-to-go/

http://www.mbdapa.org/Rafferty%20BeerTalkingPoints.021610.pdf

http://www.mbdapa.org/news/sen-rafferty-sponsors-sb-1300/

http://www.mbdapa.org/news/hearings-planned-on-privatizing-liquor-stores/

http://noplcb.blogspot.com/2009/01/reason-13-their-hand-is-in-your-pocket.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08030/853225-85.stm

E. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/bill_history.cfm?syear=2009&sind=0&body=S&type=B&bn=100

Amusing video I made using Google video search program on youtube:

Open Letter to the American media:

Looking at info on the decline of newspaper sales, the rise in privacy of ebooks, and continued growth in privacy amongst other media formats. The interest groups have it all wrong, you don't charge for the media created, but instead you charge for the creators. Let's go into it for a bit. As a creator of content, you work your way up from small jobs such obituary writer and intern work to staff writer, to perhaps columnist or editor. One works there way up the latter from job to job. So the content that is created should be free to the public, but how does say...a newspaper make money off of the content this person creates? One way could and should is through contracts, and allowing the sale of contracts to other papers, typically larger in size.

For example a writer working at Portland Mercury, writing X amount of articles forms a set of skills that makes him or her desirable for a bigger paper such as the Oregonian. An Oregonian writer does the same and is now desired for a bigger paper such as the San Francisco Chronicle, who is looking to replace a writer who recently went with the Los Angeles Times, who replaced a writer who went to work for the New York Times, replacing a writer who was hired by the Daily Show. The system interconnects to the bigger media outlets. The writers and other media workers are contracted and a bigger company buys a contract out for X amount of dollars, which goes to replace the profit from the product created to the profit gain by selling the creators contract to a company bigger in size that can afford the purchase of the the contract. Companies would also be able to decide to rent the creator out to the bigger company, instead of selling thus receiving the profits from renting and still maintaining that talent in the company. This can flow with models, actors, musicians etc.

The creator is simply the person who creates a product for the media. A contract could exist for a certain level of a creators. The contracts as stated are sold like a product to a bigger company that can afford them, and the profits from the sale are used to run and grow the smaller company. While the creator who goes onto a new company works to make a name for him or herself there, eventually either being attracted, or attracting another company. There is a moral issue here, what about the creator? The creator simply can not be seen just as an object to be sold or even traded. But we already live in a world of contracts, a person could have a say in whether they prefer not to go with the bigger company, but at the cost of the smaller company. So in a rosey world, the smaller company then is stuck with this creator, until they decide to apply at another company in order to make more money, new responsibilities, etc etc, all the reasons why one applies for a new job. But the smaller company could essentially hold the creator back in vengeance for not going with another company, thus costing the company a sale. However it wouldn’t be in the company’s interest to hold the creator down because that would be a loss in revenue as well. They would continue to polish the creator, making him more appealing for bigger companies to buy, or offer rent. Eventually the smaller company can no longer provide a higher pay to the creator, or better benefits, because of company size. So the creator then may feel the need to move on to pursue a better position else where at a larger company. This wouldn’t be the case with every creator, and each creator, being that of a person, will have a different story, which is too much to theorize in this blog post.

As the creator moves on to bigger companies, they rise through the ranks. A number of them reach the level of popularity that makes them celebrities, and are in demand for groups such as non profits and big lobbies to be a spokesperson. Even rising to prominence to be in demand for political campaigns. Their contracts are rented or sold to companies that have a demand for such people. Others may not become such celebrities, but are content with holding a staff writing job at a newspaper like New York Times, New York Post, they are happy being where they are at. Nothing changes, just contracts become the commodity that is bought and sold that works to cover the cost of providing media content to the public. People rise to prestigious roles, others prefer to take the back seat. Larger companies have more money than smaller companies, so in theory they can pay more for contracts from smaller companies. The larger companies such as Fox create ad revenue that can be used for such purchases of contracts. The creators they get, some can eventually be sold to groups that have more money, and are willing to pay for the contract at a higher price than Fox paid for. Such companies would be various corporations such as Exxon, or Haliburton,whom have the money to spend to get a well groomed reporter, or anchor for a public relations, or spokesperson, or adviser etc. The creator’s contract than can be bought by the next level, that of political campaigns, or even back into the publishing industry for a higher position, or whatever reason would exist that companies, organizations would want to buy the contract.

Renting as said before can be an option too, and companies that own the contract can make extra profits by having the creators, visit on competing networks, or appear in movies by other companies, or write for such projects for other companies. The renting of the contract provides extra funds to the parent company holding the contract, and allows them to maintain their talent while grooming it in other media jobs.

The profits from these contracts would cover the consumer cost, and would benefit companies from small to large. I’m writing this, not as a manifesto, but as an idea to share to groups such as the Newspaper Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, Motion Picture Association of America, etc. The idea can certainly be analyzed deeper, and I hope a few professionals in business practice, economics, sociology, political science and other fields consider studying this idea of “contracts” and “creators”. As for now, as for every product that is digitalized, there is an illegal copy out there. Even for products that are not legitimately digitalized, they can still make there way to the illegal file sharing world (not just online but offline too.) Something needs to change, we are a capitalist society, and what is “cheaper” wins over the consumer. How to make money off this industry is no longer about selling it as a product to consumers, or giving it for free to a consumer with ads (that the consumer ignores.) The industry of media needs to look beyond charging singular fees and membership fees for digitalized media, as this is easily accessible for free (yes illegally but the fact that it’s illegal doesn't seem to be deterring the download/sharing numbers). So contracts on “creators”, that can be rented out, or sold to companies wishing to use the person they’ve found at a small company, can then off set the costs that companies bear in order to provide the media. As a “creator” gets more known, and becomes more in demand, a larger company that can afford to purchase the contract of this person would follow suit in order to get such talent under their roofs.

The way profit is made by the providers in the media needs to change in order to make the media that is created to be legally free to the consumers. If ignored, illegal file sharing will probably continue, online and off. It’s the era we live in, not just the information age, but a hyper-information age that consists of a wide range of knowledge which is so widely available, and so easily accessible ,both legal and illegally. This change needs to happen for it to be legal, and for companies to still be able to make profits thus being able to provide products to the consumers. The way in which media, information is so widely available with such ease, is really a beautiful thing.