Seagull Musings Column for February 15, 2004
A recent article appearing in the January 30-31 edition of this paper entitled, “Pennel continues push for alcohol resolution,” reported on local resident Chuck Pennel’s continuing quest for the Branson Board of Aldermen to pass a resolution against the serving of alcohol in theatres. The article said that Pennel “is puzzled that the city will pass a resolution against gambling but not alcohol.”
What caught the Ole Seagull’s eye was the logic used to address Pennel’s concern. Alderman Ron Huff was reported to have said, “I think a resolution would not be the thing for the council to do.Newspapers throughout the country could pick it up and the message could be misconstrued that we don’t want you (people who drink alcohol) here.”
That logic boggles an Ole Seagull’s mind. Why are the newspapers more likely to pick up a story on a resolution against the expansion of the serving of alcohol, from its traditional venues in restaurants, clubs, bars, and at private functions, into Branson’s traditionally alcohol free venues such as theatres and attractions, than they are a resolution against gambling? Using that same logic, couldn’t people who gamble misconstrue things in the same way?
Yet, seemingly, they don’t. The Ole Seagull would bet that a large part of the millions of visitors who come to Branson each year gamble even though Branson’s stand against casino gambling is a matter of long standing record. Why?Could the answer be, as is the case with most destinations, people base their primary decision on whether or not to come to Branson on what they expect to experience while here not what they don’t expect to experience.
Until recently, it was common knowledge that Branson did not serve alcohol in its theatres. Evidently, few, if any, potential visitors construed the message as “We don’t want people who drink to visit Branson.”Why?Because people use common sense and realize that although they can’t get alcohol in Branson’s theatres and attractions they can get all the alcohol they want in all the traditional venues where alcohol is normally served such as restaurants, clubs, bars, and at private functions.
Alderman Stan Barker is reported to have told Pennel “that gambling could be more detrimental to the city than alcohol.” Yeah sure and an atom bomb dropped on Branson could be more detrimental to the city than alcohol and gambling combined but the chances are about as great of that happening as it is, from a family value point of view, that gambling could be any more detrimental to a community, and its families, than alcohol.
The article goes on to report that Barker said, “I’m not going to discriminate against businesses in our community.” Isn’t Rockaway Beach part of our “community?” Alderman Barker is a long time resident and knows full well that what is being asked for in the drinking resolution is actually an affirmation of the way the majority of theatres and attractions have operated since day one in Branson, alcohol free!
Now, because a few theatres want to change the way it has been, and are willing to risk Branson’s family entertainment image to do it, its discrimination to pass a resolution opposing such action? Can anyone explain to an Ole Seagull how a resolution stating the Boards opposition to the expansion of the serving of alcohol from its traditional venues in restaurants, clubs, bars, and at private functions into Branson’s traditionally non alcoholic venues is either discriminatory, inconsistent with tradition, or, most ludicrous of all, unconstitutional?
The article further reports that Barker said, “We need to focus our energy to deter gambling.” In terms of family values, why is gambling any more important than the expansion of the serving of alcohol, strip clubs, a “Hooters” restaurant,” adult book stores, xxx rated movies etc? Each has the potential to erode the very foundation of what makes Branson unique, to visitors and residents alike, its family friendly environment.
In terms of espousing the family values of what Branson has to offer, isn’t it hypocritical to oppose gambling on one hand while ignoring the expansion of alcohol on the other? If it’s moral rather than economic or apathetic factors that drive our concern why focus on just the potential of gambling? How can the actuality of the expansion of the serving of alcohol into Branson’s traditionally alcohol free family friendly venues such as theatres and attractions be ignored? The answer is obvious and that does not bode well for Branson’s future.
Gary Groman is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier and may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.
