Hi y'all - so I've still got something to look forward to in my old age. I'm not sure you should publish the information though as some unscrupulous men may start going around punching women in the teeth for their own satisfaction.
On Oct 16, 4:59 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While working in California, a mental health patient (and prostitute) > told me that a blowjob was $5 with her dentures in and $10 without her > dentures. So all blowjobs are not equal and gums on your penis feel > better than teeth--I suppose. > > "Sexpenses" :-) ... that's good! > > On Oct 16, 2:39 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - as I'm always in the market for a bargain, I wonder if your > > proposed tax on prostitution would be a flat tax, or one based on > > service provided eg. 3% for a handjob, 5% for a blowjob, 25% for a > > tickle - I'd better not go any further. Of course it would be > > applicable to both sexes but would trannies have to pay double? What > > about overheads - would they be deductible? I suppose there would have > > to be sexpenses. It seems as though a whole new bureaucracy would > > spring up. > > > On Oct 16, 1:41 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > Very good article. I think we should get rid of the government middle > > > men and let Costco/Wal-Mart buy it directly from the distributers. > > > Then the government should directly tax alcohol more heavily. :-) I > > > think that prostitution, alcohol, gambling and other services/goods > > > that do enhance the health or productivity of citizens and may > > > potentially be damaging (addiction, etc.) should be taxed heavily (but > > > legal except for hardcore drugs such as cocaine, heroine, etc.). > > > > On Oct 16, 11:05 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > How Your Beer Bought John McCain's $500 Loafers > > > > Uncovering the government subsidies behind Cindy McCain's family > > > > fortune > > > > Radley Balko | October 15, 2008 > > > > > Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has made no bones about his disgust for > > > > greed. In the primaries, he contrasted his own record of public > > > > service with the private sector career of opponent Mitt Romney, whom > > > > McCain derided as a "profit manager." More recently, as the world’s > > > > capital markets fell into a full-blown crisis, McCain has struck a > > > > populist chord, lambasting the "unbridled greed" that he says drives > > > > Wall Street. > > > > > Though ostensibly more free market than his opponent Sen. Barack Obama > > > > (D-Ill.), McCain (he of the eight houses, 13 cars, and $500 loafers) > > > > has never been shy about laying into what he feels are the excesses of > > > > capitalism, including the way lobbyists can bribe lawmakers to jigger > > > > the system to their liking. The problem for McCain is that the fortune > > > > he married into came by way of alcohol wholesaling, an industry that > > > > isn’t remotely free market, is awash in excess, and that wouldn’t > > > > exist were it not for rigorous system-jiggering from high-powered > > > > lobbyists. > > > > > When McCain married his second wife Cindy Lou Hensley in 1980, he > > > > became one half of a very wealthy household. By some estimates, Cindy > > > > McCain’s stake in her family’s Hensley & Co. beer distributorship puts > > > > her net worth around $100 million. The Hensley company gave McCain an > > > > executive position shortly after he married the heiress, helped > > > > catapult him into public office, has thrown heaps of money at his > > > > campaigns over the years, and in addition to providing him with a > > > > charmed life, has played a significant role in putting him an election > > > > away from the White House. > > > > > Over the course of his career, media outlets covering McCain have > > > > delved pretty extensively into the history of Cindy McCain’s father > > > > and his company, as well as the ethical issues McCain will have to > > > > face if he’s elected and his wife still serves as the company’s > > > > president (McCain generally recuses himself from federal legislation > > > > pertaining to alcohol regulation—he won’t have that option as > > > > president). But thus far, there’s been little examination of the beer > > > > wholesaling industry as a whole. To be blunt, the entire industry is a > > > > farce. It’s an artificial, anachronistic, government-created entity > > > > that’s anti-competitive and full of lobbyists and special interests. > > > > It raises the cost of each bottle of beer you drink, though “Joe Six > > > > Pack,” as McCain’s running mate might put it, receives no value for > > > > the added cost. > > > > > Alcohol wholesalers (in this context, wholesalers and distributors > > > > essentially have the same meaning) thrive thanks to what’s known as > > > > the "three-tier system" of alcohol distribution, a series of laws that > > > > date back to just after the end of prohibition in 1933. The 21st > > > > Amendment gives states the power to regulate the sale of alcohol > > > > within their borders. Some states decided to assume control of all > > > > alcohol sales (they’re known today as control states). Most of those > > > > that didn’t adopted laws mandating a state-based middleman between > > > > alcohol producers (brewers, distillers, wineries) and retailers > > > > (restaurants, grocery stores, liquor stores). There are some > > > > exceptions, but generally in three-tier states no one is allowed to > > > > buy directly from a producer. Everything must go through a > > > > distributor. And while it’s possible to envision a role for a beer or > > > > wine distributor in a freer market for alcohol, it’s clear that the > > > > industry wouldn’t be nearly as lucrative or prominent as it is today > > > > were it not for these protectionist laws. > > > > > In the book Strange Brew: Alcohol and Government Monopoly, California > > > > State Northridge Professor Glen Whitman explains the origins of the > > > > antiquated system. It was put in place largely to appease temperance > > > > activists, who still held sway in some parts of the country. Angsty > > > > prohibitionists feared what they called "tied houses," bars that were > > > > owned by liquor producers. Before prohibition, tied houses, they said, > > > > had lured blue-collar workers in with free salted pork sandwiches on > > > > their lunch breaks. The salty meal would make the laborers thirsty, at > > > > which point they’d purchase alcohol from the bar—leading, the > > > > temperance activists said, to decreased production, drunkardness, and > > > > all-around moral decay. (According to Whitman, this is also the origin > > > > of the phrase, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”) A state- > > > > mandated middleman, the thinking went, would prevent these devious > > > > marketing practices. > > > > > The wholesaling industry has thrived ever since. For decades > > > > wholesalers have quietly added 18-25 percent to every bottle of beer, > > > > glass of wine, and shot of liquor you pour down your gullet. And > > > > there's been little resistance to them, for a few reasons. First, > > > > wholesalers don’t interact with consumers. They take their markup > > > > between producer and retailer, out of the sight of the people whose > > > > money they’re ultimately taking. Second, they’re rather powerful. > > > > Alcohol wholesaling is a lucrative, concentrated industry that reaps > > > > enormous benefits from policies whose costs are spread out across the > > > > general public. Which brings up the third reason distribution laws > > > > aren’t frequently challenged because they haven’t had many obvious > > > > opponents. Until recently, the only people hurt by the three-tiered > > > > system were consumers, and again, the cost per consumer was too > > > > negligible, hidden, and entrenched for anyone to notice. > > > > > That’s changing. Bulk retailers like Costco and Wal-Mart have waged > > > > lawsuits against some of these laws, with mixed success. The > > > > popularity of microbrews, niche wineries, and the ability of both to > > > > reach consumers over the Internet has also put a dent in the > > > > distributors’ empire; wholesalers are among the leading advocates for > > > > banning alcohol sales over the web. > > > > > But it gets worse. Many states have placed further restrictions within > > > > this already artificial market. Some states, for example, give > > > > wholesalers exclusive rights to distribute alcohol in a particular > > > > region, effectively creating government-enforced monopolies. Other > > > > states (including Arizona) have enacted “franchise termination laws,” > > > > which make it more difficult for retailers and/or producers to switch > > > > distributors once they’ve started doing business with one. Producers > > > > and/or retailers get locked in. If they feel their existing > > > > distributor is taking too much of a markup, isn’t offering a wide > > > > enough variety, or is otherwise performing poorly, there's little they > > > > can do. The effect is to squeeze out the upstarts and the competitors. > > > > According to Whitman, the number of alcohol wholesalers nationwide has > > > > shrunk by 90 percent since the 1950s. > > > > > The Hensley company provides a good example of how these laws can hurt > > > > consumers. Hensley is the fourth largest beer distributor in the > > > > country, one of the largest privately-held companies in Arizona, and > > > > holds a 60 percent market share in the parts of Arizona it serves. It > > > > also distributes Anheuser-Busch products exclusively. Beer-producing > > > > giant Busch began an incentive campaign in the late 1990s aimed at > > > > getting distributors to drop the products produced by its competitors. > > > > In those parts of the country where a given distributor has a huge, > > > > government-abetted market share, such arrangements put the squeeze on > > > > the variety of options available to consumers (Anheuser-Bush’s > > > > national market share rose five percent during the campaign, to 50 > > > > percent nationally). > > > > > Alcohol wholesalers put out several arguments to justify their > > > > existence. None of them are very convincing. > > > > > First, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
