It's hard to argue with logic like this.

A little geographical background. I live in Irving, Texas, almost the former home of America's Team, the Dallas Cowboys. The eastern side of our city is adjacent to Dallas. Dallas has full liquor sales, hard stuff and all, on darn near every street corner in the city. Gas stations and grocery stores alike sell beer and wine, and liquor stores sell everything from practice beer to the hard stuff.

Irving is voting again as a city on whether we want beer and wine for sale within our city limits. Currently, if you'd like to have a party and serve beer, you have to drive to Dallas to buy it. Some of us (many of us, actually) think it makes more sense to be able to buy beer here, while you're loading up your grocery cart with things like cheese dip and tortilla chips. Not only is it easier on us heathens that, God forbid, drink alcohol, but it also keeps the tax revenue in our city instead of sending it next door. And this is just for beer and wine, not the hard stuff.

Anyway, this is the third time this has been on the ballot, and over the years we've heard all sorts of arguments against it. Today, however, takes the cake.

A caller to a local radio station says that he is voting AGAINST the beer and wine referendum. Because, get this, our city has public transportation. Einstein, the caller, believes that allowing beer and wine sales in Irving will encourage the homeless to hop on a bus and come here to buy their 40 oz cans of Schlitz Malt Liquor.

So tell me this. If I'm a bum in the City of Dallas, am I really going to part with my beer money to hop on a bus and come to Irving so I can find a grocery store?

I don't even know what to say.