bring forth the drinking gourd.....

mmmm… This national debate on lowering the drinking age is an interesting discourse, especially reviewing the muddled mumblings of those of the law and order crowd. For example:

Health and safety experts have reacted with dismay, because raising the drinking age has saved many lives. In 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed 49 studies published in scientific journals and concluded that alcohol-related traffic crashes involving young people increased 10 percent when the drinking age was lowered in the 1970s and decreased 16 percent when the drinking age was raised. The retreat from a lower drinking age translates into some 900 lives saved each year among 16- to 20-year-olds. Those who would argue that other factors, such as safer cars, are responsible should take a good look at numbers posted by Mothers Against Drunk Driving showing alcohol-related traffic fatalities among 16- to 20-year-olds decreasing 60 percent between 1982 and 2006 while non-alcohol-related fatalities increased 34 percent

.

Wow, lives saved. No!! That is the first of many fallacies buried within this stereotypical editorial. No lives are ever saved; it is a philosophical absurdity to suggest one can save a life. We can merely prolong the inevitable death. Death surrounds us all the time, although here in the US we do our best to hide it. And one of the ways we hide it, is to send our 18 to 21 years old kids off to foreign wars where they are killed and maimed by the tens of thousands, invisible to the public eye. And to help them survive, our lovely government and its contractors, provide endless amounts of un-"controlled substances" to the troops, from steroids to amphetamines, from painkillers to mood elevators, etc., et al, along with copious quantities of tobacco and alcohol, to “encourage” the kids (I have been interviewing Afghan/Iraq war veterans, some with multiple tours in-country, all of whom have mentioned the constant, insisted upon, use of drugs, tobacco, and alcohol).

So, let's get this right shall we? Some in this country, especially among those who support the war and the use of our "children" between the ages of 18-21 to sacrifice their lives for others profits, think that lowering the drinking age to the same mark as that by which we say it is okay for our sons and daughters to destroy their lives (and the lives of a million others) is simply not okay. They are glaringly hypocritical and dangerously evil. Ignore them until they offer a more sane and reasonable thesis.

A, B, C,... okay, repeat after me.. A, B, C. got it??

Even a kitten stuck in a paper bag could follow these three stories (from today's news) to their logical earth-destroying conclusion (thanks to Think Progress):

1) Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is touring an oil rig off the coast of Louisiana in order “to highlight his support for increased domestic offshore drilling.” Although he will not join McCain today, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) promoted McCain’s oil rig visit in an appearance on Fox and Friends this morning. Making sure to note that the drilling platform McCain will visit is owned and run by Chevron, Jindal oddly suggested that the photo-op will “emphasize that drilling alone is not enough” to address America’s energy needs. It should come as no surprise that the McCain chose to visit a Chevron-owned drilling platform, considering that lobbyists for Chevron both fundraise and work for his campaign. The Chevron oil rig McCain is visiting is a joint venture with Exxon, which owns 38.38 percent of the project. Lobbyists for Exxon also work and fundraise for McCain's campaign. McCain's plan to cut the corporate tax rate would result in a $480 million per-year tax break for Chevron and $1.2 billion per-year tax break for Exxon.

2) F. Chase Hutto, a senior Cheney advisor, is the leading candidate to be appointed assistant secretary for policy and international affairs at the Energy Department, the Washington Post reports. Former EPA official Jason Burnett said Hutto is “naturally and philosophically opposed to regulation,” adding, “I can’t think of a case where Chase advocated more environmental or health protections.” Hutto is also deeply opposed to regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars. As one energy official described in July: “He [Hutto] would talk, for example, about not wanting greenhouse gas controls to do away with the large American automobile. Last month, a U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming report found that Hutto, "along with unidentified individuals from Exxon Mobil Corp. and the American Petroleum Institute," played a key role in the Bush administration's decision not to allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

3) The oil industry is spending record amounts of money this year to protect its interests as Congress considers a barrage of energy bills. According to recent data the industry has spent $55 million on lobbying so far in 2008. In what may be surprising to some, the most recent figures from the Center for Responsive Politics show that the oil industry gives a relatively small sum to individual political campaigns - it's 16th on a list of top 50 industries. When it comes to lobbying - and spending money that goes toward researching, writing and convincing lawmakers to vote its way - the industry ranks fifth. If the spending continues at the current pace, the industry is set to break last year's $83 million record. The amount spent on lobbying by the industry, along with lobbying money in general, has been setting records since 2005. With record gas prices, a contentious fight over energy legislation and a huge election on the horizon it's not surprising the industry spent so much on lobbying this year.

It's the end of the world and we know it, part a-deux

Dead zones where fish and most marine life can no longer survive are spreading across the continental shelves of the world's oceans at an alarming rate as oxygen vanishes from coastal waters, scientists reported Thursday. The scientists place the problem on runoff of chemical fertilizers in rivers and fallout from burning fossil fuels, and they estimate there are now more than 400 dead zones along 95,000 square miles of the seas - an area more than half the size of California.

The number of those areas has nearly doubled every decade since the 1960s, said Robert J. Diaz, a biological oceanographer at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

"Dead zones were once rare, but now they're commonplace, and there are more of them in more places," he said.

Diaz and Rutger Rosenberg, a marine ecologist at Sweden's Göteborg University, have just completed a global survey of the imperiled areas, and their report appears today in the journal Science.

So... oceans dying, teachers carry guns, US Constitution shredded--as Aaron Sorkin wrote for Jed Bartlett: "What's next?"

It's the end of the world and we know it, and i feel...

After extensive research and discussion with state officials, a small school district in Texas has approved a policy that allows certain faculty members to carry guns on school property at any time. It's the first time such a policy has been approved.

But it gets weirder (of course): In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.

My first question: Who will die first, a student, a parent, or a teacher????