This must be 1984!

George Orwell must have been thinking of the Post-Journal when he coined the phrase "doublethink."  You know, 'war is peace,' and 'friend is foe.'  Apparently whatever truth the New York liquor stores say, the Post-Journal looks right into your face, lies like a rug and lo and behold: 'good' becomes 'evil,' 'yes' becomes 'no' and 'hot' becomes 'cold.'  Here is a case in point:

The New York State Law Revision Commission (please note, they have absolutely nothing to do with the New York State Liquor Authority like this article incorrectly reports) made the following statement on page 3 of their December 15, 2009 final report to the state:

“Wine in grocery stores has not been addressed herein because we concluded that before any action should be taken a complete and independent analysis of its economic consequences should be undertaken.”

Now, considering that this commission is made up of lawyers, people that make their living using words and ideas as tools, I think we can safely assume that they know how to say what's on their mind. Let me break this down to see what it means.  My understanding is in red: "We concluded" (after gathering all the pertinent facts from a broad number of industry sources, we came to the realization) "that before any action should be taken" (before the state does anything to revise the laws affecting wine sales in grocery stores) "a complete and independent analysis of its economic consequences should be undertaken." (the state should take a careful, complete and impartial look at who the financial winners and losers of any changes might be.)

Okay, pretty straight forward. The article author, Dennis Phillips, omitted that part of the report, but did quote the two sentences just after it:

''Regrettably, we lacked the time and experience to conduct such a study and the financial resources to engage experts on the subject,'' the report states. ''Our silence on the subject should not be viewed as an endorsement of any particular point of view.''

Okay, again, pretty straight forward.  Let me translate the above: Although we recommend that a thorough, complete and impartial economic impact study be done before any laws concerning this issue are changed by the state of New York, doing such a study was not our job.  It was not the commission we received from the state of New York, which is probably why we didn't have the money and manpower to conduct it.  We aren't saying we are for wine in grocery stores or against it. How could we have an opinion until after the study we recommend is actually completed!

I do think it is intellectually dishonest of Mr. Phillips to use the last part of the quote, the part that starts with "Regrettably . . ." but leaves the first part out.  No doubt because to include it would undermine his attempt at deceipt.

Mr. Phillips then quotes from a www.lastmainstreetstore.com coalition press release:

'What was the point of having a commission spend all that time and money (they did spend time and money) to produce a report (they did produce a lengthy, 342 page report) if you are just going to ignore it? (see the paragraph below)'' said Saunders in the news release from Jan. 25. ''Rather than follow the recommendations of the commission, the governor clearly followed the wishes of 'Big Box' store lobbyists who are looking to destroy our businesses. That's just wrong.''

Now, the Commission report was published on December 15, 2009.  Less than three weeks later Governor Patterson ignored the words "before any action should be taken a complete and independent analysis of its economic consequences should be undertaken," and put a recommendation in his 2010-2011 budget proposal that the laws of New York be revised to allow wine sales in grocery stores.


Now I have been called a lot of things, but never blind, deaf and dumb.  It sure looks to me like the Governor absolutely ignored the recommendation of this commission to do a thorough, independent study of the economic impact of revising these laws before making any changes.


Oh, and the part about big box stores trying to destroy the liquor stores?  A very well reported on study by Bradley J. Rickard, the Cornell University assistant business professor who authored The American Association of Wine Economists Working Paper No. 48, ‘Introducing Wine into Grocery Stores' reported that over 20 economic simulation models predicted that up to 32% of New York liquor stores' wine sales would be lost to the new grocery outlets.  I think its fair to conclude that when over 30% of your most profitable sales are lost your business is effectively and irrevocably ruined! 


Now, here is how this Orwellian "journalist" reports these facts:

This statement [''Regrettably, we lacked the time and experience to conduct such a study and the financial resources to engage experts on the subject,'' the report states. ''Our silence on the subject should not be viewed as an endorsement of any particular point of view."] is contrary to the statement made by Jeff Saunders, founder of the Last Store on Main Street coalition and president of the Retailers Alliance, who stated that the state commission spent time and money to produce a report the governor is supposedly ignoring.

How could anyone come to the conclusion that Mr. Saunders' statement is contrary to the statement of the Commission? Is this deductive logic?  Is this inductive logic?  No, it's Orwellian logic!  Right in front of our face Mr. Phillips tells an obvious and blatant lie. There is no way he can support his statement.  It is false and corrupt.


How do these "journalists' get away with this stuff?  It's simple, really.  It's because no one ever reads this clap-trap anyway.  They don't read it because critical thinking people have written these "journalists" off as charlatans and thieves precisely because of such shoddy reporting as this.


But remember this Mr. Phillips:  You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you..., well you know the  adage. To write such a trash piece as this you must be either dull or dishonest.  If I were your boss I would add one other term: unemployed.