San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, October 30, 2015

REI And Economic Ignorance About Black Friday

I was reading my newspaper earlier this week when I turned the page to see a full-page ad paid for by REI.  Those of you who are familiar with outdoor gear are no doubt aware of REI.  It is a Seattle based co-op formed by mountaineers that came into existence to serve mountaineers by providing quality gear at a reasonable price for its members.  It ended up growing and becoming a commercial success as it expanded to sales to the general public.  It has now grown to the point that Yuppies go there to buy clothing that allows them to look like they know what they are doing as they go about engaging in their various "extreme" activities.
The full-page ad announced that REI is going to be closed on Black Friday.  Black Friday, as I am sure everyone knows, is the Friday after Thanksgiving that has become infamous as the first day of the Christmas shopping season.  As long as I can remember I recall people going shopping on the day after Thanksgiving.  Everyone always got both Thursday and Friday off from work and it made sense to get out and do something on Friday after spending Thursday gorging on turkey.  Over the years stores began to promote significant discounts on their goods as they realized there was pent up demand for shopping on the Friday after Thanksgiving.  As things evolved many businesses made the decision to open their doors early to allow the waves of shoppers access to their sales.  In recent times Black Friday has become infamous for how many people are trampled as hoards of shoppers force their way into stores as the magical hour of opening arrives.
For the past several decades I have taken the Thanksgiving vacation as an opportunity to go hiking.  I have made about ten trips to the Grand Canyon where I have spent Black Friday doing various hikes in the canyon, including a fair number of rim to river hikes as well as all but one of the South Rim trails (the New Hance trail for those of you in the know).  I have also visited Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park (multiple times), Capitol Reef, Zion National Park, the San Rafael Swell and several slot canyons in the area southwest of Green River, Utah.  Needless to say, I have not been anywhere near a commercial establishment on Black Friday for a very long time.  All of this is to say that REI did not need to convince me to be doing something outdoors on Black Friday.  I made that decision long ago.
In addition to being a long way from shopping centers on Black Friday I believe that every person should be free to do whatsoever they want to do on any day of the week.  If a person wants to go shopping on the Friday after Thanksgiving they should be free to do so without being labeled as immoral for doing so.  If enough people want to go shopping on Black Friday it makes commercial sense for profit seeking businesses to bow to the sovereign demands of the consumers and be open on that day.  And this is where things get crazy.  Socialists cannot understand why a business might want to serve the public on Black Friday.
Dave Usechek wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post to express his hatred for profit seeking businesses and his support for socialism.  He wrote, in part, "During a time when retailers are after the ever-living dollar and their quest to get consumers to buy, REI has to be commended for its decision not to open on Black Friday and to consider employees first, rather than money.  There are other days during which sales could be offered outside the impact of a holiday, when families should be considered.  Consumers created the problem in their quest for good buys with no consideration for others and their families."  Dave's comments are a perfect illustration of the gross economic ignorance and sense of moral superiority evidenced in all those who believe people who participate in Black Friday are evil.
Dave begins with the socialist mantra that profit-seeking businesses somehow have the ability to make consumers purchase their goods by means of a secret mind-control procedure called "advertising."  How many times have we heard that advertising creates demand?  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Advertising, economically speaking, simply informs consumers of what is available.  Demand, if it is going to exist, comes from the fact that consumers want the thing advertised.  I could run full page ads in every newspaper in the country advertising the fact that I will sell you a pile of horse manure for $1 on Black Friday and I still will not get anyone to respond to my ad.  It is not the advertising that sells a product.  It is the product that sells a product.
Retailers are evil, according to Dave, because they want to make a profit.  Dave needs to read my blog post about profits.  There he will learn that profits are not only not evil, they are necessary if producers are going to continue to provide goods for consumers to purchase.  Take away profits and you take away consumer goods.  Take away consumer goods and we have a very bleak world indeed.  But it is not just the greedy profit-seeking businesses that are evil.  According to Dave consumers are evil because they want to get something for a price they are willing to pay.  Yes, consumers respond to lower prices and that, according to Dave, makes them immoral.  I wonder....has Dave ever gone to a sale?  Has Dave ever bragged about how he got a good price on something?
Dave rightly declares that consumers are responsible for the Black Friday phenomenon but wrongly goes on to call their behavior immoral because it somehow does not take "families" into consideration.  I wonder, does Dave not want members of family members to work on Black Friday in order to earn income for themselves?  Does Dave not want employees to earn income?  What is wrong with working and what is wrong with making money?   How does working and making money hurt the family?  How does a person going out to purchase a good that is on sale hurt a member of a family?  Dave does not explain any of these things.  That makes him a good socialist.  What about those who enjoy working on holidays?  What about those who can earn a higher wage because they work on a holiday?  Apparently Dave does not care about those people, or their families.
Dave praises REI because of its decision to not be open on Black Friday.  According to Dave the decision to not be open on Black Friday is an example of a company considering its employees first, rather than profits.  That is a most interesting thing to write.  Although it is true that the ad paid for by REI encouraged people to get outside and do something on Black Friday other than go shopping, it does not follow that REI's closure on Black Friday is good for the employees.  The employees are paid from the revenues produced by sales in the stores.  Refusing to be open on what is admittedly one of the biggest shopping days of the year might seriously impact the total revenues earned by REI this year and that could seriously impact how many people it employs and how much it pays those who are employed there.  REI could be doing a great disservice to its employees by refusing to open on Black Friday.
REI executives are no doubt aware of what I just wrote.  They have made the tactical decision to advertise (yes Dave, your favorite store uses mind-control advertising as well....and they do it in an attempt to increase profits!) the fact that they are closed on Black Friday as a means to increase sales on the remaining days in the year.  Whether that tactic will work or not remains to be seen.  If it does, and REI ends up making more money this year by being closed on Black Friday, expect other stores to consider that strategy.  If it does not, expect REI to be open next year, selling all sorts of fancy clothes to Yuppie buyers on Black Friday, 2016.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Ask The Mad Welshman, Not Amy

I have confessed to reading the syndicated advice column called "Ask Amy" previously.  I finish my paper each day with a handful of my favorite comic strips and her column, which I view as a comic strip equivalent.  Monday's column was headed by a letter from a women who signed off as "Jealous in Jersey."  In her letter she described how Facebook drives her into fits of uncontrollable jealousy.  To give you the full impact of her letter I quote it in its entirety here:
"My cousin and I are both married with kids.  I am generally a happy person, but when I see her updates on Facebook I am filled with envy.  She does not have a college degree and went from a retail position to a high-level executive position in a short time, while I have a degree and am struggling with my career.  She owns a beautiful house, while my family is cramped in an apartment.  She is an amazing cook, is beautiful and thin, while I have a few extra pounds.  She goes on amazing vacations in exotic locations, while we cannot afford to go away.  Recently in response to a post, her friends and family gushed about how generous, kind, etc., she is.  I wanted to scream.  I keep wishing that something bad happens to her, and I hate feeling this way.  This jealously is consuming me.  My husband says I need to just get over it, but I cannot. This is not the type of person that I am, and I am not sure what to do."
How do you think Amy answered this person?  How would you answer this person?  Amy's advice was for her to recognize that Facebook is now known to cause "depressive symptoms"  (not just in California by the way) and for her to stop looking at the Facebook posts of her cousin.  Then she exhorted her to spend some time with people who will spend all of their time thinking and talking about her as well as being, if possible, inferior to her.  What horrible advice that is.  If only Jealous in Jersey had written the Mad Welshman.  Then she would have a chance at rehabilitation.  So, on the outside chance (really no chance at all) that this envy-filled woman might read this blog post, I present the Mad Welshman's answer to Jealous in Jersey.
Jealous seems to have a hard time figuring out what sinful emotion or behavior she is expressing.  She goes back and forth between describing herself as jealous and envious.  Allow me to enlighten her.  The Bible gives us three emotions and their associated behaviors that are often mistaken for one another.  Jealousy is the desire to exercise control over something you have no right to exercise control over.  Jealousy can be either sinful or morally proper, depending upon the circumstances.   A mother can be sinfully jealous of her daughter when she unsuccessfully attempts to control her behavior to make her feel better about herself.  A husband can be morally jealous of his wife if she is committing adultery with another man.  What Jealous in Jersey is describing has nothing to do with human jealousy.
Envy and covetousness are the two sins being described by Jealous.  Although these two words describe two different behaviors, they are also frequently used synonymously.  Coveting is forbidden in the Ten Commandments.  To covet something is to see something that your neighbor has and want it for yourself, without reference to how your neighbor obtained or uses that thing.  Covetousness is often directly related to the sin of materialism since most people covet material things. Envy takes covetousness one step further.  Envy not only wants to have what the neighbor has but envy also wants to destroy the neighbor for having it.  An old Russian proverb illustrates envy well.  A genie appears to a man one day and informs him that he can have one wish for anything he wants.  The only condition placed upon the granting of that wish is that whatever he wishes for himself will be granted to his enemy in double abundance.  The old Russian thinks about it for a while and then informs the genie that he wishes to be blind in one eye.  When Jealous declares that she "keeps wishing that something bad happens to her" we have a pretty clear-cut case of envy.  So let's focus our attention upon her sinful envy, shall we?
The first thing Jealous has to do is repent.  Like all sinners, and especially like envy-filled sinners, she sees herself as a victim of her cousin's success.  Also, like all envy-filled people, Jealous claims that she is not an envious person despite all of the evidence to the contrary.  Her entire life is consumed by envy and yet she has the audacity to proclaim that "this is not the type of person that I am."  Wrong!  Being an envy-filled sinner is precisely the type of person you are and if you do not repent it will only grow worse.  The Lake of Fire is being prepared for people just like Jealous and if she does not repent that will be her future.  She needs to stop whining and complaining and blaming others for her own sinful thoughts and behaviors and repent before it is too late.
Jealous also needs to repent of her materialism.  She has made material success equivalent with happiness.  She believes, as so many sinful people do, that having more things will make her happier.  That belief is a lie.  No matter how much Jealous might accumulate in the future she will always be able to look to someone else who has more.  Once she finds and obsesses upon that person who has more she will be able to  cultivate a powerful hatred for that person just like she has for her cousin today.  This cycle will never stop until she repents.
Jealous also needs to mind her own business.  Does anybody remember that phrase?  I remember growing up and being told to mind my own business all the time.  It was a phrase that people used all the time and it was generally understood that not minding one's own business was a bad thing to do.  Today it seems as if minding the business of others has become a cottage industry.  Jealous minds the business of her cousin obsessively.  What does she care what her cousin does, where she goes, how much she makes or what others think of her?  She can't control any of those things, nor should she be able to control any of those things.  All Jealous can control is herself and her own sinful reactions to the success of her cousin.  If Jealous spent just half the time she obsessively and sinfully spends envying her cousin on seeking to control her own sinful behaviors she could become one of the nicest people in human history.
Jealous needs to stop blaming others as well.  Playing the victim is anther modern behavior that is well entrenched in our sin-ridden society.  If her cousin is skinnier than she is and she wants to be skinny, then go on a diet and starve yourself to death.  Stop complaining about the fact that you have a "few extra pounds" and get rid of them.  These first world problems always amaze me.  How selfish, how egocentric, how stupid they all are.  If Jealous wants to move to a better home, find a better job and make more money so you can.  Stop looking at others and start looking at yourself and you will be much better off.
Of course this entire rant is just my suggestion on what to do to help Jealous.  I have no intention or desire to control the behavior of Jealous.   As a Welshman I realize that self control is the only possible form of human control and the only control of any real value. And as a human I have plenty of things to work on myself before I am ready to fix everyone else. 

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

The Pope Does Not Understand Judgement Or Mercy

A group of Catholic bishops got together in Vatican City recently to consider the future direction of their group.  After the meeting the majority issued a statement about the things they consider to be important that was quickly endorsed by the Pope as a series of good ideas.  The minority, which in this case makes up the theologically conservative bishops, had no say in the matter.  What are the new directions for the group that the Pope considers to be just swell?  Here is a part of the story from the Associated Press:
"Catholic bishops called Saturday for a more welcoming church for cohabitating couples, gays and Catholics who have divorced and civilly remarried, endorsing Pope Francis' call for a more merciful and less judgmental church....they emphasized the role of discernment and individual conscience in dealing with difficult family situations....Pope Francis said the synod had 'laid bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the church's teachings an good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge...'"  As I considered the Pope's endorsement of the bishop's statement it occurred to me that he has no concept of what justice, judgement, judgmentalism or mercy are.  Allow me to enlighten him here today.
This Pope is doing the same thing all religious leaders are doing these days when they want to be popular.  It does not matter if you are Catholic or Protestant, in order to be popular with the masses it is crucial to ignore the Law of God and replace it with the majority will of the people.  Since the majority of the people now regularly practice fornication and call it a good thing, fornication needs to be removed from the list of sins previously taught as sinful.  Since the majority of the people now believe homosexuality is a good thing, homosexual behavior must also be removed from the list of sinful behaviors.  Since the majority of all people have now been divorced and remarried, the church's prohibition of such things needs to be set aside.  I don't care about the Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage.  That teaching has been shot through with gross hypocrisy for centuries.  But I am interested in how the Pope believes that teaching fornication and homosexuality as sinful constitutes the act of being judgmental.
Francis is fundamentally confused about the difference between judgmentalism and rendering judgments.  The Bible makes a clear distinction between the two behaviors but the Pope is not the world's greatest biblical scholar.  It comes as no surprise that he does not know what he is talking about when it comes to rendering judgments.  When it comes time to talk about judging, everyone, including God-hating pagans, immediately thinks of the words of Jesus when He said, "Judge not lest you be judged."  When Jesus issued that statement He did so to condemn the practice of judgmentalism.  Judgementalism is judging others by an unbiblical standard.  This sort of practice goes on all the time.  Who does not spend most of his day making comments about how the behavior of other people is stupid and something that he would never do?  I would never drive a Ford.  I would never let my car get that dirty.  I would never let my kid play football.  I would never dye my hair purple.  I would never get a tattoo that says "Mom" on my left ankle.  I would never eat that sort of food.  I think you get the point.  All of those judgments are made upon the basis of how I view the world and have nothing to do with moral truth or biblical law.  If the Pope was echoing the words of Jesus in condemning such behavior I would not be writing this blog post today.
When the Pope declares that his organization needs to be "less judgmental" and then proceeds to give examples of  transgressions of biblical law, we have a situation where he is endorsing the theological heresy of antinomianism, not appealing to the church to avoid gossip-filled personal judgments about others.  Those who claim to stand in the place of God before men need to be very careful to only say the things God has authorized them to say.  The Pope makes that claim.  God says that fornication is a sin.  The Pope says that his organization needs to overlook that sin, in the name of mercy, and acknowledge the "commitment" two people who have shacked up have made to each other.  God says that homosexuality is a sin.  The Pope says he is not going to talk about it because it makes him sound judgmental.  In the name of mercy he simply ignores God's requirement to judge those who violate His most holy and perfect moral law.
The Pope juxtaposes mercy and judgementalism.  Since he uses judgementalism in place of rendering biblical judgments I believe it is fair to say that he also juxtaposes mercy with biblical judgements about sin.  Now that is a very interesting position to take.  Mercy, by definition, is the decision to not apply a proper punishment to a prior sin.  In order for mercy to be exercised it is necessarily the case that a prior judicial decision about a sinful action must take place.  In the case of the Pope, for him to exercise mercy towards a fornicating couple he must first render the biblically correct decision that they are living in sin and God is angry with them.  Only after that decision and judgment has been made is it logically or theologically possible to pronounce a merciful suspension of that sentence.  To declare that he is behaving with mercy towards someone he has not previously judged is logically and theologically impossible.
The logically and theologically impossible does not concern this Pope, the bishops or most people who call themselves Christians these days.  Teaching the Law of God and commanding obedience to it are not the best way to get new members, grow a mega-church, get a huge salary and be able to retire early with a gigantic pension.  Bishops and preachers have figured this out and that explains why the Law of God had to go.  That is also why, at the day of final judgement, many bishops and preachers will stand before God only to hear Him say, "Depart from Me, for I never knew you." 

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

The Second Wave Advances: Transvestites On The March

Now that homosexuality is approved and endorsed as a moral behavior by 63% of the citizens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika (according to a Gallup poll taken this year), it is time for the advocates of perversion to move on to the second phase of their attack upon biblical truth.  We all know what happens the moment a cause or doctrine achieves that magical 51% approval rate.  Once a majority is attained the laws in regards to morality and political privileges are changed and new laws, enforcing the new morality and political privileges are put into place.  In addition to the new laws establishing the moral and legal propriety of the new doctrines and practices there is also a new intolerance established towards the old doctrines and practices.  Eventually, in the SDA, the Supreme Court of Jokers weighs in on the matter and declares a winner.  In the most recent conflict a winner was declared and the homosexuals won, thus moving the SDA into what is likely to be a permanent, and terminal, status as a post-Christian society.
Those who were advancing the cause of God-hating homosexuals are not content to stop there however.  There is never time to rest on their laurels and congratulate themselves for what they have accomplished.  Hatred for the God of the Bible and the associated hatred for His moral law does not allow a God-hater to sit back and rest.  All vestiges of the offensive biblical doctrines and practices must be eliminated before victory may be proclaimed.  As I wrote previously in my blog, the advocates for homosexuality as normative must move on to another perversion or they will become politically and culturally irrelevant.  I am here to tell you today that the second wave in the attack has been launched.
The Denver Post, which did a series of front page articles in the Sunday issues a couple of years ago advocating for homosexuality as morally proper, has recently embarked upon another series of articles which are also splashed on the front page of the Sunday paper.  Last Sunday I was treated to an article entitled, "A Genuine Life, Transgender in Colorado."  The story featured Pat, now Patricia, King.  Pat is a heavily muscled and tattooed man who wants to be recognized as a woman.  As is always the case with the articles in the Post, the article is accompanied by a series of photographs designed to break down the natural revulsion morally sensitive people have when they witness sexual perversion.  In this case the photograph on the front page featured Pat wearing a sexy nightgown and doing some ironing in his barracks at Ft. Carson.  Prominently featured are his huge biceps and tattoos.  The photograph carried the caption, "A Fort Carson soldier struggles to be true to herself amid strict military codes about dress and bunking."  The story begins by telling me about the emotional distress Pat feels because he sounds like a man.  It says, "Her voice.  She hates the sound of it, low and deep like a man's.  It keeps Staff Sgt. Patricia King up at night.  Especially when the next dawn means she will have to lead soldiers on a 4 mile training run, when she will have to 'call cadence' while jogging in formation."  The author of the story, Jennifer Brown, goes on to tell me that Pat desperately wants to have a surgery that will modify his vocal chords to make him sound like Tiny Tim.  If you do not know who Tiny  Tim is, Google his name plus "Tiptoe Through the Tulips."  The surgery costs $10,000 and Pat wants the military to pay for it.  After all, all he really wants is to lead a "genuine life," whatever that means.  Of course, like all socialists, Pat wants the taxpayers to pay the bill for his genuineness. 
If I have feelings of sexual attraction for 10 year old boys, should I be permitted to live a genuine life?  If I have feelings of sexual attraction exclusively for married women, should I be permitted to live a genuine life?  If I have feelings of sexual attraction for the sheep in my neighbor's back yard, should I be permitted to live a genuine life?  If I have feelings of sexual attraction for the oak tree in my yard, should I be permitted to live a genuine life?  I believe we all recognize that when living a life consistent with my immoral inclinations comes into contact with society it is the job of the rulers in our immoral land to suppress those behaviors.  Previously it was understood that homosexuality was a behavior of that sort.  Until today it was understood that transvestism was also a behavior of that sort.  In order for those who desire to have sex with anything that moves, and many things that do not, to get their way, it is necessary to break down the next moral barrier that stands in their way.  The new barrier that must be breached is social opposition to transvestism.
The first casualty in any war is truth.  According to the newspaper article there are 16,000 trannies in the military right now.  Since the number of people currently serving in the military numbers 1.4 million, that means 1.1% of the people currently in the military are trannies.  Those who want trannies to be recognized as moral paragons also claim that 4.7% of the people in the military are homosexuals, bringing the total number of sexual perverts in the military to 5.8%.  How accurate are those numbers, you might ask?
According to the Gallup organization, 1.8% of the population identifies as homosexual and 0.6% of the total population of the SDA identifies as a tranny.  The question must be asked....are trannies drawn to military service or are the people feeding us the numbers deliberately misleading us on the percentage of people who are trannies in order to make it appear as if there are more of them than there really are?  I would guess the latter is the case.
In order to begin to break down the Christian moral barriers to transvestism it is necessary for its proponents to exaggerate the number of people who practice the perversion.  The propaganda war has begun.  Don't underestimate the importance and significance of this propaganda war.  The homosexuals were extremely successful at convincing the citizens of this immoral land that they exist in far greater numbers than they really do.  According to the same Gallup poll I mentioned above, the citizens of this country believe that 23% of us are homosexual when, in reality, that number is less than 2%.  Now how do you think most Amerikans got to that position which is so disjointed from reality?  Propaganda like that delivered on a regular basis by the Denver Post is highly successful at accomplishing its goals.  I expect the same degree of success for the marching trannies.  Get ready, the trannies are on the move and they will not be stopped until the Supreme Court of Jokers gives them most preferred status, just like their homosexual cousins recently were granted. 

Monday, October 26, 2015

Let Me Buy My Booze Wherever I Want

Colorado is one of those states that has made it illegal for grocery stores to sell alcoholic beverages.  I am not sure of the history of this state of affairs but I know that it has little to do with the free market and a lot to do with government creation of monopolies.  In a free market any person is free to sell anything to anyone at anytime.  That is the way it should be. Then some person figures out that he can get career politicians to create laws for him, in exchange for his vote, that will give him an unfair monopolistic advantage over his competitors.  Career politicians and their bureaucratic lackeys come rushing in, creating laws and enforcing rules all ostensibly designed to be in the "public interest," whatever that is.
Since politics is now inextricably linked to free market business activities it is inevitable that each election cycle is going to witness competing parties seeking to obtain the favor of the career politicians in support of their cause.  Every year that I can recall a group of people has sought to overturn the law that says alcohol may only be sold in government approved liquor stores.  They want booze to be sold in grocery stores as well.  And every year when this group advocates for more liberal sales of beer, wine and whiskey, the owners of liquor stores and their supporters rise up and declare that proposal to be immoral.  It is fascinating to see the same arguments trumpeted year after year.  People who make their living selling booze produce commercials telling me that booze is extremely dangerous to use and making it available in grocery stores is going to bring about the end of civilization as we know it as teenagers steal it, drive drunk, kill people and generally ruin everyone's life.  On the other hand, grocery store owners and their lobbyists tell us how great it would be if demon rum was more conveniently purchased at the neighborhood grocer.  Each casts his argument in moral terms and each vilifies the other.
Michael Mazenko, of Greenwood Village, wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post last week in support of the existing law that prohibits the sale of booze anywhere other than in government approved liquor stores.  I suspect Michael is either a liquor store owner or closely related to someone who is.  Michael attempts to make several logical arguments in favor of his position and that is what I would like to discuss here today.  His attempts at rational thought are laughingly absurd and illogical.  He serves as a classic example of what passes for a logical argument these days.  He is also a fine illustration of the 3rd Welsh Rule of Human Behavior.  That rule states, "Never expect a person to understand a rational argument if doing so will cost him some of his money." 
Michael's first argument is, "Allowing supermarket liquor sales will decrease choice for Coloradans by putting many independent store owners out of business while creating a beer-wine monopoly of the Big Three grocers."  Do you see the two illogical arguments contained in that one sentence?  Michael believes that expanding the total number of locations where alcoholic beverages are available is going to decrease the number of alcoholic beverage choices available.  The validity of his argument is not immediately apparent.  In fact, it is a generally accepted economic principle that greater availability of a product usually results in greater selection of that product, not less.  The greater market share and purchasing power a store has the more likely that store will increase its selection of products, in an attempt to garner even more market share.  Michael is exactly backwards in his understanding of the economic principle of market share. 
Michael rightly believes that allowing grocery stores to sell booze will likely drive liquor stores that are operating on the margin out of business but he wrongly declares that that state of affairs constitutes a monopoly on the part of the grocery stores!  The mere fact that sovereign consumers exercise their free choice to purchase liquor from a grocery store, largely because it is more convenient than making a special trip to the liquor store, does not constitute a monopoly.  A monopoly exists when the government forbids one group of people from competing with another group of people, not when the consumers choose one group of people over another.  The only monopoly that exists presently is the one that forbids grocery stores from selling booze.  Government approved liquor stores are the beneficiaries of the present monopoly and they do not want to give that up.  Arguing that consumer freedom constitutes a monopoly is an absurd and ridiculous way to try and maintain the status quo.
Michael's second argument sounds like something right out of the Communist Manifesto as he writes, "Supermarkets are not hurting for business, and they do not need to sell everything.  Clearly their limited shelf space and narrow purchasing practices will not offer consumers the vast varieties of small craft beers, wines and spirits available in the state's 1,600 independent liquor stores."  Somehow an omniscient Michael has determined what supermarkets should be permitted to sell, how much business they should be permitted to have and why they should not be allowed to sell booze.  Normally it takes a bureaucracy staffed with thousands of zombies and a billion dollar budget to figure out such things.  Where does Michael get the right to determine how much business a supermarket should be allowed to have?  How does Michael define a supermarket?  What amount of annual revenues makes a market become a supermarket?  May a market be permitted to sell alcohol?  What if a group of bakers gets together and decides that grocery stores don't need to sell bread?  Do they have the right to obtain a government monopoly that forces consumers to go to bakeries for their daily bread?  What about ice cream makers? What about candlestick manufacturers?  The list goes on.....
Michael also returns to his "greater availability reduces selection" argument when he stupidly asserts that grocery store chains have limited shelf space and narrow purchasing practices when compared to tiny, dark and cramped liquor stores.  If any store suffers from the problem of limited shelf space it is small volume liquor stores.  Huge grocers, like Wal-Mart, have plenty of space for new products, especially when they are profitable.  What planet does this guy live on?
Michael concludes with the powerful assertion that, "Coloradans appreciate the choice offered by individual liquor stores with knowledgeable staff.  Supermarkets  do not need to monopolize beverage sales, and Colorado does not need a pointless and unnecessary new liquor law."   Well there you have it.  I am a Coloradan and I have never gone to a liquor store to interact with a knowledgeable staff member, so I reject Michael's first premise.  Furthermore, I am unwilling to pay more for my booze simply to have a knowledgeable staff member on site because I will never use him.  Let someone else pay a premium for their ignorance of their purchases.  Michael's emotional reaction to the proposed elimination of a law creating a liquor store monopoly blinds him to the fact that a monopoly already exits by government fiat.  He is right that Colorado, whatever that is, does not need a pointless and unnecessary liquor law.  What he does not see is that the law we do not need is the one that already exists.