Arkansas Blog

There is one thing that I really, really don't understand and if anyone has any insight I would appreciate hearing your comments.

It is accepted that GWB is extremely unpopular with the American people and the reason for that is mostly the Iraq war. So, if a problem looms in Iran or with Russia and Georgia, why on earth would McCain's popularity rise?? Why would anyone in their right mind want John McCain in charge of foreign policy if there is a potential problem out there. He will do whatever Bush did only better, but it would still be a mistake to start any unnecessary war.

I would think the more trouble there is in the world, the more unpopular McCain would become - why is that not happening?? Would people really want someone just like GWB to be in office?

What's the deal?

Hey, Zelda honey. You didn't answer my question about hillary. Is she going to deep six obamayomama's nomination at the convention? I need a broad's perspective on this. I mean, is she suffering from, maybe, post menopausal syndrome by any chance? Is it possible that the old hormones are trying to stage a come back?

McCain selects Fred Thompson to be his VP running mate. Click on Cato for the latest!

When people feel that their security is threatened they get conservative. They don't want someone unproven. It is risky. People will take chances when all is well but not when they sense danger. Americans sense danger looming on the horizon.

Why is Restaurant Week actually two weeks? I've seen the billboards, and they proudly announce that Restaurant Week is August 15-30. Is that much time needed to sample all the local fare?

Off presidential politics because there are so many Hillary-wonders here, but...

Latest rage: 18 or 21 legal drinking age?

Some college presidents think 18 is more suitable...anyone?

Take your time with it...

Awwwww, Cato, you always come up with good ones.....now, that would be a ticket.

Grump and Gramps

Why would you lower the age from 21 to 18?

CiCi, what's the deal????????????

Beats hell out of me...........
maybe someone will tell the both of us.

Take yer time with it, strangetoe...

rosso, this is my own personal view on age limitations on alcohol consumption. It may be right and it may be wrong, but it's how I intend to handle the issue in my own family. Our little boy just turned 5. He has had a sip of wine: *yucky*. He has had a sip of beer: *yucky*. I expect there'll be more sips between now and the time he reaches the legal limit, whatever it is at the time.

As long as his mother and I are responsible for his care and well-being--age 18 being the current milestone--I will use what I consider my own good judgment regarding any alcohol consumption in the home, regardless of whatever law is on the books.

This country seems to make even moderate alcohol consumption by *minors* a taboo, but in other countries where it is not only legal but customary for younger people to have, for example, a glass of wine with dinner, the prevalence of alcohol abuse and dependency is much lower.

So I intend to make good judgment a big deal in our family, and moderate alcohol consumption not a big deal at all. That way, when junior goes off to college drinking might not be such an exciting and novel concept.

(Hey...stop that snickering older blogger parents. For your information I'm nearer my 50th birthday than my 40th.)

I don't think there is anything magical about the age of 21 or 18, but I certainly think that a person old enough to serve in the armed forces should be considered old enough to buy a beer.

Do you consider that the judgment and maturity required to handle alcohol the same as the maturity required to serve in the military?

if our 18 year olds are old enough to "handle an M16" with full ammo in a war zone--they should be able to "handle a beer" with friends

"Do you consider that the judgment and maturity required to handle alcohol the same as the maturity required to serve in the military?"

It depends....

Lt Gov Bill Halter visited Chickenopolis today to pitch his scholarship lottery proposal to NWA Demcrats. Two TV stations covered it and all the newspapers.

Needless to say the audience with numerous college professors, retired and working, had a wide range of questions. I didn't watch the clock but it sure seemed he answered questions longer than he spoke. Just reflecting upon when he began and when the questions ended I'm fairly sure questions took up about twice as much time as his speech.

Halter was very open and direct in 99% of his representations. He outlined that to raise ourselves up from 48-49th in per capita income we must be willing to take a risk. The main reason students drop out of college is due to finances. He told the audience of 120 not to expect funds or results for about 14 months. He did a good job of informing people not to over-expect, that the largest cost of the lottery is the payouts to winners.

When Halter mentioned that Gallup polling had revealed that low-income or poor people Do Not spend more on lottery tickets than mid-income or wealthy people eyebrows raised and feet shuffled there were grunts and doubts. A quick google search indicates gallup findings are opposite from what was presented.
Bill Halter is an impressive speaker and I do expect him to go far in Ark politics.

Afterwards his staff member said they read the AT blog just about daily but never post. DBI is their favorite.

here is another thought-- if our 18 year olds are able to "handle voting for president" they should be able to "handle the alcohol"
At 18 we have given our children all the rights of an adult, along with all the responsibility. I have long thought that drinking age should be 18 and am glad it is rising to the top as an issue. Either let 'em have it all, or dont make them have the responsibilities of an adult until they are 21.

Thank you, friend hugh...

For anyone at all interested in dynamics just read hugh's post out loud...

Oh, and make sure there are people around to hear it...

At the Arkansas Democratic State Convention, Lt. Governor Halter stated the most un-democratic thing to do is to challenge something in court and not let the people vote.

After reading the story below, does that mean he is opposing the efforts of Arkansas Families First???

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AR_GAY_FOSTER_BAN_AROL-?SITE=ARMOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I would support the minimum age of 21 to buy pot legally, however.

Interesting program on NPR around lunch. Michael Beschloss playing LBJ tapes to promote Volume II of his book.

A close White House Aide, Walter Jenkins, with Johnson since 1939, devout Catholic, and father of three, got drunk at a Newsweek party and was arrested for a homosexual tryst in Washington D.C. YMCA basement bathroom, a hovering scandal.

Johnson has a taped conversation with J. Edgar Hoover about how to spot a closeted homosexual.

Almost as bizarre as following Strangelove, Severus, ARed and and Chasv's threads.

click to hear

I never made alcohol taboo or sinful to my children or grands and none of them have more
than an occasional social drink.............and, my kids were raised in south Louisiana where
the cajun kids sucked the last drop from an empty bottle of Dixie beer.
In Europe everyone has a wine glass next to their water glass..............
Good Lord, we are so puritanical.

Thanks for the post doc. I won't read the link. I profoundly disliked LBJ because of this carryover
Cold War mentality that keep us invested in that horrible, crazy war. However I've come to think of him as a fascinating historical figure who has a mixed record of good vs. evil. It's unfortunate that his war record cast such a shadow over his wife's noble efforts to beautify America.
But mostly back then a tryst or gay episode did not raise a national stink. Policy was what mattered and not the personal destruction heaped upon groups of people with differing ideas. It was a grander time so to speak, politics of pettiness and manufactured non-issues rarely entered the public concern.

Then 10 years later, enter the fundamentalists.

Believe it or not, there are some colleges which make an attempt to limit underage drinking, primarily by requiring paid alcohol monitors and wristbands at parties.

Half the student body "can't drink" at parties, so they sit in the dorm room for an hour and get toasted before stumbling to the party.

Heavy binge drinking in the dorm seems to be more of a problem that moderate binge drinking at the frat house.

Now for the unpopular voice on the drinking age:

etoh = ethyl alcohol. Can be used as a motor fuel. Makes race cars run really well.

Toxic. That is: poisonous. You've heard of "intoxicated"? in-toxic-ated = poisoned.

What is the proper age to allow people to drink poison that will pickle their brains.

.04% blood alcohol is typically fatal. I treated only one alcoholic admitted with a level that high who survived.

Have you ever met a person who started to drink with the intention of becoming an alcoholic?

And in case you don't already know, a person doesn't become an alcoholic from drinking too much; a person drinks too much because s/he is an alcoholic. It is a chemical addiction.

"Addiction," in sidewalk terms: loss of will-power; loss of control; "can't help it."

If there were no such thing as alcohol abuse, I would not raise an objection.

But NOBODY can predict who will become an alcoholic and who won't.

In some cases, there is a genetic pre-disposition. But there are exceptions on both sides.

Alcoholism is the result of the way the brain processes alcohol. Some brains process it in a way that turns people off and essentially they never drink again; it's a real downer.

Some brains process it OK and people can drink the rest of their lives without ever becoming drunk or losing control. They can, literally, and honestly, "take it or leave it."

But some brains process it in a way that sets up a craving for more. Those in that category who tell you they can take it or leave it always seem to wind up taking it.

In substance abuse counseling, I've heard many alcoholics say, "The man takes a drink; the drink takes a drink; the drink takes the man."

Alcohol is a mood-altering chemical. What mood is it you want altered when you drink? What mood do you want to achieve by the use of alcohol? What mood do you want to escape by the use of alcohol? What are you trying to accomplish in your life that requires the use of a chemical?

From my many unhappy and tragic experiences, my answer to the question about an appropriate age for people to start drinking is a question: At what age do you want to start people (your children, for example) on the road to a behavior that can wind up costing their jobs, their families, their homes, their money, their health, and their lives? At what age do you want to start letting people drink poison?

When a person takes her/his first drink, s/he has rolled the dice in the first crap shoot.

For some, the first drink will be the last.

For some, the first drink will be the initiation to a long life of responsible drinking.

For some, the first drink will be the initiation to a life of alcoholism.

Which one will your child be?

I'll leave you with a little exercise to perform, or at least think about:

Take a sheet of paper and list all of the bad things that can come as a result of drinking alcoholic beverages.

Now take a sheet of paper and list all of the good things that can come as a result of drinking alcoholic beverages.

How do you like the results?

>>After reading the story below, does that mean he is opposing the efforts of Arkansas Families First???<

I dunno Drew. But I do wish you would learn the bluename link process* so that you need not overflow the page.
Have you considered a call to Lt Gov Halter's office?

* drag copy your desired url,
just above the comment box is a slot labeled URL: paste the desired url into that box.
Your name will then become a hyperlink (blue) to your desired url.
Do not preview your post as it wil cause you to lose the pasted url.

This is how I see it...

* A 1/8th of a percent sales tax would bring in money for scholarships without a lottery.

* If we have a lottery, more money will leave the state to pay for administration than currently goes out of state for other state lotteries.

Therefore:
The only reason to have a lottery is really so people that like to play the lottery can do so more easily.
Unless you're a politician looking to score political points, that is.

If you want to play the lottery, I could care less. Just be honest about it. Don't use college students as your excuse. We have the money to provide those scholarships if that's what we really wanted to do.

Perhaps the state should get into the loan-sharking or prostitution business and dedicate the profits for scholarships?

J. Ed Hoover certainly should have known a closeted homosexual when he saw one. hugh mann and jazzy, I'm with you on taking the mystery and wonder out of booze by allowing it to be introduced to the kids in small doses and without making a big deal out of it. Nothing makes it more appealing than making it taboo.

Maybe we could take that 1/8 cent away from Fish and Game (or Game and Fish), since they won't need it anymore, and give it to scholarships.

I don't think it is the popularity of McCain. I think it is that people don't trust Obama with these type problems.

Maybe we could responsibly introduce our chldren to sex at about the age of 12 or 13. We could manage that in a controlled environment--you know, parental supervision--with proper protection. That way, we'd take the mystery out of it so when they get a few years older they won't feel they have to sneak off to experiment and do it where their parents won't find out.

In fact, if their parents made them do it, they'd probably rebel and not even want to.

Maybe we should introduce REAL sex education into the schools. It could be a required course. With homework. And periodic tests. Maybe work it into the physical education curriculum. Possibly have a dimension that is a team sport.

If it were required in school, you KNOW they wouldn't want to do it.

Maybe that would cut down on all the affairs that ruin the lives of so many politicians, and produce so many divorces in American culture.

"introduce our chldren to sex at about the age of 12 or 13"??

"so when they get a few years older?? they won't feel they have to sneak off to experiment and do it"

methinks that you don't really get it... there are more kids at the age of 12 or 13...running off and doing that now...

Sky Pilot, I can appreciate your perpective. As I noted at the beginning of my first post my view may be right or wrong. But that view coupled with my own life experiences tell me not to make a big deal out of drinking in moderation. I think genetics has a lot to do with conditions like alcoholism. It's possible that all of us--my precious young son included--are either predisposed to chemical dependency or not. I don't believe allowing him that first sip changes/changed any of that programming. Giving him a baby bottle full of peach schnapps would be another matter entirely.

I think his observation of our modeling acceptable behavior will have a more profound impact on his own behavior. I could be wrong but it seems more right for our situation.

Excellent points, as always, SkyPilot. Thankfully, my kids were never fascinated with or abused alcohol. As adults, they take a "social" drink now and than, but that's all. Is it because we took the mystery out of it and taught them to have reapect for the stuff? Were we and they just lucky? Did the genes line up just right? All (or none) of the above? I dunno. But given the way things turned out for us, I think we'd do it the same way if we had to do it over.

I have to second the lower age limit. Just makes no sense that I can vote and die for my country but can't get a buzz. I don't condone drunkeness and DWI should be heavily prosecuted. But punish crimes not acceptable behavior.

RCP still shows Obama ahead in Electoral Votes but for what I think is the very first time this campaign McCain now leads if RCP calls the Toss Up states as they lean and he gets 274 Electoral Votes (with 270 needed to win, of course)!

The "Excellent points" to which I referred were those embodied in the 9:57 p.m. post.

Shucks, Ark finally rises to the Top Ten and Mississippi still beats Ark

LITTLE ROCK - Arkansas continues to be ranked in the top 10 in adult obesity rates, according to a study released Tuesday.

In the annual report by the Trust for American's Health, Arkansas ranked eighth, tied with Oklahoma, with 28.1 percent of adults obese, up from 27 percent last year.

Mississippi was the heaviest with 31.7 percent of its adult population obese, and Colorado was the leanest with 18.4 percent, according to the study.

Twenty-eight states had adult obesity rates of more than 25 percent.

.

You're assuming that obamayomama will be the democratic nominee. Have you forgotten about miss hillary?

Thanks for your courteous responses. As I mentioned, I know my position is the unpopular one.

And you who introduced it in your own homes, and modeled responsible behavior, and things turned out right: I'm glad that worked for you. I certainly agree it's better not to put up a lot of taboos and surround things with a lot of mystery that causes young impressionable minds to become curious and fascinated.

I don't judge you or condemn you for your decisions. I don't think you're bad parents. And I'm truly grateful that yours turned out OK.

Unfortunately, most of the people in my treatment programs got their first sips on their fathers' knees. The taboo and mystery was removed. But they became alcoholics anyway.

But without making an argument out of it, I think you can see where I'm coming from--and why.

I'm not so much trying to argue you into my position as I am to get you to see the reasons that some people object to lowering drinking ages. It's not all "morals and Bible."

I think you're aware that most of us as immature adolescents were attracted to behaviors and activities that were not in our own best interest. So surely, introducing a kid to alcohol at home can remove the taboo and reduce the mystery. And there is merit in that. But it's not without risk.

As for "proper ages" for certain behaviors: apart from the points I've already expressed, I think it would be well to take into account the findings of brain research. The human brain is not as fully developed at 18 as it is at 21. And it MAY not be as fully developed at 21 as it is at 24. So this MIGHT be an appropriate consideration.

And as for the other issue in this thread: 12 & 13 year olds having sex. Yes, I'm well aware of that.

But currently most of them are having it without proper supervision and protection. I'm suggesting that if they're going to do it--and they are--we should make it more wholesome, should take the mystery out of it and remove the taboo.

Of course, I'm hoping that you'll see that I'm simply applying the logic that has been presented to another tabooed and mysterious behavior--drinking alcoholic beverages. Does the logic of one apply to the other?

I'm not seriously arguing for it; I'm just examining the logic.

Durango: The answers to your questions? I think "all of the above."

Glad you were lucky. Let out a big "whew!" and thank your lucky stars, or whatever heavenly being you prefer.

I think all of us parents let out a big "whew!" when our kids leave home and go out to make it on their own relatively unscathed and healthy, without major problems.

SkyPilot,

I recognize your sarcasm regarding introducing our children to sex at 12 or 13. I have a better idea for that bridge, though. If my 5 year old asks me where babies come from, I will answer his question to the best of my ability in what I deem age appropriate language. If he asks when he's 10 I'll do the same. When I was 13 or so I still didn't have a very clear understanding. Why? In our house we didn't discuss such matters.

I will not tell my son and tales about storks, etc., because I think to do so would damage our relationship and mutual trust. Same goes for any questions that are bound to come up regarding homosexuality. (Every year since his birth we've gone to a Super Bowl party where the majority of attendants are lesbians.)

Now if you tell me that because of the Super Bowl parties he's gonna have a thing for lesbians...well, you might be on to something!

>>I don't think it is the popularity of McCain. I think it is that people don't trust Obama with these type problems.<<
Maybe people will think twice about McCain because of his quote "I don't know much about economics"
Yet one of them will be facing some very difficult situations:

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The worst of the global financial crisis is yet to come and a large U.S. bank will fail in the next few months as the world's biggest economy hits further troubles, former IMF chief economist Kenneth Rogoff said on Tuesday.

"We're not just going to see mid-sized banks go under in the next few months, we're going to see a whopper, we're going to see a big one, one of the big investment banks or big banks," said Rogoff, who is an economics professor at Harvard University and was the International Monetary Fund's chief economist from 2001 to 2004."

(of course the usual pea n' shell game---will your funds be in a bank connected to the whopper?)

"We have to see more consolidation in the financial sector before this is over," he said, when asked for early signs of an end to the crisis.

"Probably Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- despite what U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said -- these giant mortgage guarantee agencies are not going to exist in their present form in a few years."

Rogoff's comments come as investors dumped shares of the largest U.S. home funding companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Monday after a newspaper report said government officials may have no choice but to effectively nationalize the U.S. housing finance titans.

A government move to recapitalize the two companies by injecting funds could wipe out existing common stock holders, the weekend Barron's story said. Preferred shareholders and even holders of the two government-sponsored entities' $19 billion of subordinated debt would also suffer losses."
....
.
on name
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubtful that Paulson can keep his finger in the dike before Bush/Cheney leave office.
.

Yes, but obamayoumama said that he couldn't answer because it was above his pay grade.

Hugh: Yes, of course. Age-appropriate answers. And again, telling the child enough to satisfy his curiosity and ease his mind, but not overloading him with a lot of stuff that is beyond his level.

But I didn't really mean it to be sarcastic. I meant it to illustrate the logic. I think most parents who are willing to apply that logic to alcohol are not willing to apply it to sex. I reject the logic in both cases.

Sex wasn't discussed in my house when I was a child either. In fact, when I asked questions in that arena, I was either shushed or sent to a book that was beyond my level of comprehension. I'm sure my mother thought she was doing what was best. I won't go further, because it is far too personal to expose on a blog. But I certainly understand the consequences of children's not getting age appropriate information when they are curious. I'm one of those who learned all about sex in gutter language from "the big boys."

I think I did a LITTLE better than my parents--although maybe not much. And I have the impression that my children did better than I did, although I have not discussed the issue with them.

But I didn't REALLY intend to turn the thread on the appropriate drinking age into a thread on the proper age or method for sex education. So I think I'd better bow out on this one.

Sometimes the most interesting threads are a series of tangents. Besides...Open Thread. Most anything goes if it "takes hold".

Rosso,

There is a "movement" to lower the age to 18 and supporting study which shows that a significant percentage of parents feel (and many ACT) just as Hugh has described. That's the way I was raised (even WITH an alcoholic mother, and also a very good series of lectures about "responsibility" and NEVER getting drunk so you've lost control by my dad; it stuck) and that's the way we've raised 4 kids. One ended up an alcoholic too. Cause & effect? I don't think so, and of course I'm prejudiced. Still think it's the way, with most of the rest of the world WAY ahead of us on this issue, as pointed out above.

An (hopefully) interesting aside - I grew up in a state that allowed buying/drinking of 3.2% beer for 18 year olds. That was the law. The "custom" in our small town was you could drink (in bars) IF you were with your parents, and whatever you wanted once you graduated high school. UNTIL you did something stupid, then you were banned and EVERYONE knew it. Worked just fine. Also I married (in the same town) after 1 year of college. The reception was in the STRICT Methodist Church and in the afternoon. That night we (kids only) had arranged to "take over" a small road house 90 miles away, in "civilization." We drank up a storm, no one caused any trouble, and when closing time came we'd all arranged to stay at an adjacent motel. No harm, no foul - common sense prevailed; impossible/unlikely today.
|

Skypilot I think it's scary that you are treating anyone for anything. If you treat alcoholics then you should realize that the way they were raised didn't make them become alcoholics. Just because you don't encounter people who had parents like durangokid, doesn't mean they don't exist. You only see what you see, and you are oblivious to what you do not see.

As the sandman carries me away, let me remind that while our kids are perfectly legal to be slaughtered in Iraq for Oil at the age of 18, but not have a beer. Also our daughters can dance naked and slide down a pole on a stage in front of horny old men at 18, but not have a beer. That's FK'ed!

Dang, I need a drink. /s

eark: YOU are scaring ME.

"If you treat alcoholics then you should realize that the way they were raised didn't make them become alcoholics. "

You are absolutely right. The way people are raised doesn't make them become alcoholics.

But the scary thing is, I never said it did. I never suggested it did. I never even implied that it did.

What I DID say was this: "Alcoholism is the result of the way the brain processes alcohol."

And this: "Unfortunately, most of the people in my treatment programs got their first sips on their fathers' knees. The taboo and mystery was removed. But they became alcoholics anyway."

Nothing about either of those statements suggests that the way people are raised makes them alcoholics. RAISING DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT!

The way the brain processes alcohol is what has to do with it!

The issue being discussed was introducing alcohol in the home to remove the taboo and the mystery.

I agreed that removing taboos and mystery can be a good thing. The surest way to make a kid want to do something is tell him he can't. Remember the Garden of Eden? God said, "No." Eve said, "But I want to."

I applauded the posters who had taken that path and things turned out well for them. I'm glad they did. Can't argue with good results.

In fact, I even said, "I think you're aware that most of us as immature adolescents were attracted to behaviors and activities that were not in our own best interest. So surely, introducing a kid to alcohol at home can remove the taboo and reduce the mystery. And there is merit in that. But it's not without risk."

My only point was that removing the taboo and mystery is no guard against a person's becoming an alcoholic. Most of my clients had the taboo and mystery removed. That was my ONLY point.

I made no reference to the people who WEREN'T alcoholics who had the taboo and mystery removed. Not everyone who has the taboo and mystery removed becomes an alcoholic. Never even suggested that in the slightest way.

Simply indicated that removing the taboo and mystery DOESN'T PREVENT a person's becoming an alcoholic, or otherwise abusing alcohol.

And not everyone who drove under the influence was an alcoholic.

Neither was everyone who ever abused a wife or a child.

Or got into a fight while under the influence.

You don't have to be an alcoholic to make some very bad decisions.

And you don't have to be under the influence of alcohol to make some very bad decisions.

But a lot of bad decisions are made while under the influence of alcohol.

And you DO have to drink it in order to be under its influence.

I even said, "If there were no such thing as alcohol abuse, I would not raise an objection."

So my question remains: At what age is it proper to allow someone to consume a product that has the potential for doing that?

Eureka: When you NEED a drink, you might ask, "Why do I NEED a drink?"

Remember that old M*A*S*H episode when Hawkeye raised that question? As much as those guys loved their liquor, and as lightly as they engaged in its enjoyment, that was the question that pulled him up short and made him take a second look at himself.

It's a legitimate question. Why does the human body NEED alcohol?

There's no nutrition in it. Many bodies go through their entire existence without it. Why would one body need alcohol when so many other bodies do not?

Alcohol is a depressant. Why does a human being need a depressant?

The first area of the brain to be affected by alcohol is the judgment center. What human being needs LESS judgment? WHY would any human being need LESS judgment?

What is the proper age to introduce the young to a product that will result in their having LESS judgment?

Well I missed an interesting discussion while I played with my two little grandbabies last evening!

I still don't get how anyone would want more of the same to handle possible trouble on the foreign policy front. As I understand it, becoming more "conservative" would mean no saber rattling, very cautious speech, considering US interests first and foremost. McCain is modeling the opposite - reckless, saber rattling - threatening intervention (if not explicit then implied). It just seems to me that McCain would be the last person any thinking American would want in charge with hot spots around the world and I would truly like to know what makes some turn to him at this time. As the other POW who was with McCain at the Hanoi Hilton said, I wouldn't want McCain's finger to be the one nearest the red button.

As for drinking at 18, my thoughts are mixed. I think some people have addiction tendencies and if they are going to become addicted to alcohol they will, whether it be at 18 or at 21. I also doubt that anyone who wants to enjoy alcohol, waits to age 21 anyway. I suspect it works much like prohibition worked - not very well.

There are some genies that should never have been let out of the bottle IMO, such as nuclear weapons, tobacco, etc., but they were and we deal with it. At the time of Christ there were those who imbibed too much, so the grape fermented has been with us for a very long time and isn't going away, so as parents we deal with it as wisely as we can.

BTW, the "other" POW is Dr. Philip Butler, and his op ed on the Military Times that someone linked to on this blog just recently seems to have been taken down. Does anyone know why?

I sure enjoy the late-night crowd. And I'm on the side of moderation, not making it a forbidden fruit and 'if they can be drafted, they can drink.'

I've watched enough Food TV to know I have Italian blood 'cause alcohol is all about the food that goes with it. A glass of wine with its cousin food...yum.

Ci.Ci...I have NO idea why it's even close. But I'm still wondering how we allowed President Shit for Brains to steal the last two elections...I still can't believe it's so. I do know that the MSM doesn't give us anything other than their Republican master's point-of-view.

As I said earlier...I'm counting on Obama being much more politically savvy/smarter than me...COUNTING ON IT!

Good morning, Ci.Ci--and Zelda.

Ci.Ci: You've put your finger on an obvious truth: "There are some genies that should never have been let out of the bottle IMO, such as nuclear weapons, tobacco, etc., but they were and we deal with it. At the time of Christ there were those who imbibed too much, so the grape fermented has been with us for a very long time and isn't going away, so as parents we deal with it as wisely as we can."

That's our reality and we have to deal with it.

It's a very weak argument, or maybe no argument at all, but the wine in biblical days was much different from the "hard liquor" of today.

If we had ONLY wine, and it were consumed ONLY with meals, we would be discussing a much different issue from the one presently before us.

Some people do drink beer only with meals. But when "the boys" go to the tavern and drink until they get a buzz, or beyond, that's different. I have a friend who used to drink at least a six-pack between supper and bed time every night. That's not having a couple of glasses of wine with supper.

And going to the bar and drinking away an evening because you "need a drink," is not what was going on in biblical times either.

You're right; there were people who drank too much. So I would assume that there were alcoholics in those days too. And the genie is out of the bottle.

So we have to deal with the reality that is ours. And I applaud parents who make rational, conscious decisions about how best do deal with it. And do it in an honest attempt to protect their children as much as possible. Who could argue with a parent who sincerely believes he is acting in the best interest of his child? Certainly not I.

I don't AGREE with some of those decisions. But at least they made conscious decisions and they have every right to make them. In fact, they have a responsibility to make them. And they're not responsible to me for the way they make them.

So my postings have not been an effort to convince other people how they should behave. My postings have been an effort to help others understand the reasons for my decisions, and some of the reasons that there are people out here among the citizenry who may favor the drinking age at 21 rather than 18 on the ground that we should keep a dangerous product out of the hands of our children as long as possible.

There's nothing magical about the difference between 21 and 20 + 364 days. There's nothing magical about the difference between 18 and 17 + 364 days. But when we attempt to establish rules about alcohol consumption, as we do about driving, voting, marriage, etc., etc., etc., we can't say, "when a person is old enough to be responsible."

There is not universal agreement on this, but in general the psychological community doesn't place the "line" between adolescence and adulthood at 18. Being an "adult" doesn't happen magically on a date on a calendar. But probably a person is closer to being an "adult" at 21 than he is at 18.

The argument that "if you're old enough to vote, you're old enough to drink," or "if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to drink" simply doesn't wash with me. Those arguments imply parallel case, and the cases are not parallel. They might also be labled "false analogy." Those arguments are based on logical fallacies. I reject arguments based on logical fallacies.

So when it comes to voting on this issue, don't try to argue me into agreeing with you by using that line of reasoning (Ci.Ci and Zelda: those arguments came from OTHERS on this thread; not you. So these remarks are addressed toward others, not you).

I don't think there IS any proper age to permit people to consume a chemical that has no nutritional value, is a poison, is a depressant, and first and foremost affects the judgment (decision-making) centers of the brain. But if I'm asked to vote for 18 or 21, I'll vote for 21. If I got to vote for 75 or 80, I'd vote for 80.

Mine is not the popular position. And I don't expect it to be widely adopted, let alone universally. But at least you'll understand the thinking of those who favor no drinking at all and, short of that, delaying it as long as possible. You don't have to agree with us. But please make an attempt to understand us.

Zelda: Oops: "and 'if they can be drafted, they can drink.' "

That one slipped past me. So you did argue that after all.

I had missed it and didn't want to falsely accuse you, or have you think I was aiming my remarks erroneously toward you. So I just THOUGHT I had made a mistake; and in an effort to avoid one, I made one.

Life gets so REAL sometimes!

Anyway: You have every right to your position. I just don't happen to agree with it; and now you know the reason.

But I trust we're still friends.

For the record, Skypilot, I grew up watching three beloved aunts drink themselves into a daily stupor and into a shorter life. Thus I've always been aware of the genetic factor/ugliness of addiction. It was depressing as hell watch them morph from morning gems to night nightmares...and all the while arguing they weren't drunk or drunks. (Well, all but one, my favorite, of course, who routinely admitted she was drunk/ a drunk.) They didn't fool around with much wine...straight bourbon/whiskey/vodka...and maybe a little added water to acknowledge it wasn't noon yet. But life/age taught me that some people can turn drinking Coke into something ugly...that life should be lived fully, all things (mostly) in moderation. Plus my goddess blessed me with the drinking stamina of a seven-year-old, which tempered any genetic susceptibility. I like good food first...and wine/beer to enhance the meal second.

Sure, no one needs to drink alcohol...or eat bacon-cheeseburgers...or drive fast; but I don't understand limiting myself according the problems of others and the possibilities of something. I like living as full out as my body will allow...which, sadly, is not much these days.

Zelda: I applaud and approve of the Golden Mean: Moderation in all things.

Well, not to an extreme.

There was also an alcoholic in my family, Zelda, and I suspect there aren't many people who haven't been personally acquainted with one. It robs lives and families of everything that is important. And, as you pointed out, there are other addictions that also destroy lives - food, speed/thrills, power, as well as drugs and alcohol. We aren't going to rid the world of any of these things, they are here to stay, so I tried to give my kids the skills to cope with the realities of our world. I don't know if I was right or wrong, but I ordered, taught, begged, pleaded with my kids when they were young not to smoke, drink or experiment with drugs, but I also taught them to discriminate if they didn't have the courage to be teased, much as I did about sex. I also never wanted my kids to be afraid to come home and discuss any subject with me so I tried to always give them an out. I believe anyting can be handled if we keep the lines of communication open and I worry about kids when mom and dad are so harsh that they end up hiding all their problems from the two people who love them the most.

Sky, you are a very wise man. Could have used your advice many times in the past, with my youngest son. Thankfully, at 27, he seems to have grown up but there was a time........

Ci.Ci: Sometimes our children turn out pretty well--despite everything we did to mess them up.

Thankfully, mine turned out pretty well. Not perfect, of course; my mother's children didn't turn out perfect either. But reasonably so. In spite of me.

Look at some of the consequences of the regulatory authorities decisions regarding alcohol and the impact on today's kids. In the early 80's the regulations banning the sale of alcohol in any business also selling motor fuels was repealed. At the time gas stations were the largest employers of teens for part time after school and weekend jobs. Once gas stations started selling beer they could no longer have anyone under 21 on their payroll and thousands of teens no longer have those entry level employment opportunities. Many have gotten involved in other ways to earn money, some not as socially desireable, like drug dealing, break-ins and burglary, gang activity, etc. Perhaps if these teens had a job to go to after school we might not need to deal with the need for more jail space, and the costs of incarceration.

It's a truth that cannot be avoided: Many of our best intentions have unintended consequences.

"There is no good thing that cannot be abused."

"There is no good thing that cannot be abused."

Tell that to he (who will not be named) that drifts in and out of the conversations with pointless comments and suspect observations. Reminds me of a guy I saw in the nursing home who talked constantly, mostly to himself and bereft of manners or sense about what he was saying.

On a side note, am currently running a reunion website. Now I understand Max's perspective a bit better: you're like a microcosmic god (lower case of course) who feels some sprirtual connection to Dr. Frankenstein. The monster wants love and freedom but scares the crap out of everyone else.