Don’t quote me on this
Some interesting happenings in the local booze and boobies markets today, with the City Council Public Safety Committee moving to amend our adult entertainment zoning in such a way that I may be forced to start wearing pants in my own shower. But the interesting thing about today’s coverage in the T&G was not the amendment coverage itself, but one tiny little detail which appears to be the lynch pin in the cities argument.
Back in Jan, when all this was kicking up, Zoback over at WoMag crafted a great story laying out exactly what is at play in this debate. He included a quote from a memo to City Manager O’Brien from Chief Gemme which stated:
“My concern is with the criminal activities associated with adult entertainment establishments. Numerous studies have shown that there is an increase in criminal behavior in the areas surrounding adult entertainment establishments and that this criminal behavior multiplies when these establishments are concentrated together or with certain other types of establishments, particularly places where alcohol is served.”
Here’s that equation for those of you who hate word games:
Adult entertainment = crime
Adult Entertainment + ETOH = more crime
Today in the T&G, reporter Nick Kotsopoulos implied that Gemme made this statement to the committee:
Police Chief Gary J. Gemme told the committee it is well-documented that criminal behavior increases in and around establishments where alcohol is served, and that criminal behavior is further escalated when adult entertainment venues are concentrated near pouring establishments
This is identical to a statement Nick attributed to Mike O’Brien in a Jan 16th story on the same subject:
He said it is well-documented that criminal behavior increases in and around establishments where alcohol is served, and that criminal behavior is further escalated when adult entertainment venues are concentrated near pouring establishments.
Again with the math:
ETOH = crime
ETOH + adult entertainment = more crime
Now we get to the troubling bits. First, the latter two quotes prove what I have long believed; Mike O’Brien and Chief Gemme are poorly programmed robots. Most likely surplus animatronics purchased from the Disney Corporation and previously in use on the ‘it’s a small world’ ride in Orlando.
Second, both of these statements are either true, which means we must immediately shutter any and all adult entertainment venues AND poring establishments. Or, we’re being fed a line of illogical (albeit extremely popular) horse shit. I’m leaning towards horse shit and here’s why. First we have to define our terms. What do they mean by increases in ‘criminal behavior’? Are we talking increases in littering? Running red lights? Bestiality? Cops selling drugs? If there was a clearly defined threat wouldn’t you expect the city administration to tell us law abiding drinkers and consumers of ’smut’ so we could keep a look out? I think we can all agree that without knowing exactly what kind of criminal behaviors we can expect increases in we can’t actually make an educated decision on how to handle these businesses. But more importantly we can’t discount the existing businesses we have in Worcester which defy both possible equations. Is the area surrounding Hurricane Betty’s some sort of post apocalyptic war zone but only when I’m not there? What about pouring establishments with no criminal behavior worth noting? The ETOH = crime math falls apart at a place like the Dive Bar which is full of med students, politicians and jazz musicians. Does this look like a gang of criminals to you?
Don’t answer that.
This forces us to look at causes, not effects. Is ETOH the cause of crime? Or are stupid people simply more likely to commit crimes when they drink? Maybe what we have on our hands then is NOT an argument against naked women, but an argument for increased school funding and a massive apology for the billions wasted on D.A.R.E.? But we also have to look at these two equations and determine whether or not they can logically coexist. On the one hand we have local officials blaming ETOH for an increase in crime seeded in the sex industry and on the other hand we have the same local officials saying the adult entertainment industry is the cause of increases in alcohol related crimes. But in neither case are we afforded local examples in play. Even in the absence of local examples we’re stuck with a perplexing chicken or egg game; am I supposed to believe that alcohol exacerbates nudity related crime? Or does nudity exacerbate alcohol related crime? And regardless of which it is, if either is a catalyst then why do we not see these effects uniformly throughout the nation? Or internationally? And why are we allowing officials to label sex OR alcohol criminal in 2008 in the first place? The reason, of course, is because we’re dealing with simplistic horse shit. The simple confusion of the administration’s argument creates more questions than it answers which is exactly how an argument needs to be formulated for it to meet the constitutionality tests the city is trying it’s damndest to skirt.
In other news…
Worcester hero to the stupid Henry Ventura Landa, who was accused last month of urinating on Wrangler brand jeans in a local Wal-Mart has had his case continued without a finding. Now personal feelings on Wal-Mart and Wrangler brand jeans aside, I’m not sure this is the appropriate use of the CWOF plea. Personally, I think anyone who harbors the desire to pee on consumer goods they have yet to purchase should be identified and shunned by society. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking water-sports, diaper fetishists, people who drink allot and urinate OUTside of buildings or even folks who urinate on their own clothing for fun… but the people who want to pee on someone else’s clothes without permission, we kinda need to keep a good eye on.
Free is always the best way to sell
This past Friday I made a quick stop at Mass Liquor on Chandler St in Worcester to stock up for the weekend. While wandering around between their wines and impressive selection of craft beer I noticed an attractive woman in her twenties standing awkwardly in the middle of the store. Since I was focused on more important matters, like alcohol, I mostly ignored the blond sore thumb until I got in line when she asked me if I’d like to try some vodka. So I turned around and… “wait a second… are you offering me a shot?” to which pretty lady responded “yes, it’s from Norway”, clearly overlooking my astonishment at the availability of free shots while waiting in line. I pretend to be interested in the point of origin of the deliciously clear liquid and hammered back what I believe was the first shot I’ve ever been offered in a package store. Immediately my puritanical New England sensibilities went into overdrive trying to determine how what I had just done must be wrong before coming to grips with the truth, I really don’t give a shit. This is a simple, mostly genius idea and one I hope to see much more of.
Mass Liquor +1
