Oct 6

Lets be honest, age isn’t the best barometer to determine if a person should be trusted with alcohol.  I know 10 year olds who would be more responsible with drinking than a lot of 40 year olds.  So why in the US is 21 the magic number where we decide people can drink?  We do a lot of stuff by age here, so I guess we are just used to it.

A better way, would be to allow people access to alcohol until they prove they can’t handle it.  If they can’t handle it, they don’t get it anymore, no matter what age.  Obviously there would be a starting age, and I think it should be younger than 21.  How many people can honestly raise their hand to say “I had my first drink of alcohol on or after my 21st birthday?”  Put your hands down highschoolers, you are lying because your parents are in the room.

Here is how it works, when you go in to a store/bar/etc. to purchase alcohol, they swipe your driver’s license.  It tells them if you are allowed to buy alcohol.  If you have a DUI/DWI you can’t.  Maybe not forever, but at least for a time, you can’t.  If you ever committed a felony, like raped a child, you can’t, because you should be in jail and I hate you.  If you are under a certain age, lets say 18, you can’t.

But what about XYZ way of getting around it?  You can get around being under 21 and drinking in all the same ways, so it isn’t perfect, but it is better than our current system.  Instead of waiting until a drunk driver has gotten 5 DWIs, installed a breathalyzer in his car, endangered countless people, etc., he just isn’t allowed to buy alcohol for 1 year after his first DWI.  Instead of looking at some 16 year old with an expired driver’s license from their older brother, you swipe it and it shows you that it’s expired and they can’t buy alcohol.

In order to be allowed by TABC to serve alcohol, you have to install a machine that swipes DLs and connects to a network with this information.  If you get caught serving people who fail the check, or not checking at all, you get a fine, just like before with underaged drinkers.  Yes this means law enforcement has to be a little more cooperative in sharing data from local to national level, but that needs to happen anyway.

Like I said, it isn’t perfect, but I think it is better than the current system.

Oct 6

So when I last left this topic, I had 3 variations of congratulating people on sucking.  Today I would like to add 2 more.  They are only minor variations, but they have been pretty prevalent lately so I felt they deserved their own designation.

First: Congratulation you used to suck REALLY BADLY, now you just suck a little less.  Your name is Sarah Palin.  Sarah Palin decided to do only a couple of interviews prior to the VP debate.  Apparently this was a good strategy on her part.  First off, she sucked hard core in these interviews.  If you haven’t seen them, I recommend not watching them ever.  They will make you hurt inside.  But the reason this was a good strategy is because they set her bar for intelligent conversation very low.  Then when it came time for the debate, everyone thought “wow she has no chance”.  During the debate she continued sucking by avoiding questions, at one point the moderator actually re-asked a question and said “do you want to respond to my actual question at all? here is your chance.”  I think she only answered one question asked to her, and I mention it below.  Awesome.  When they call it a “debate” Palin thought they really mean “i ask you a question, you spout your pre-drafted propaganda, we all get a little dumber.”  She continued sucking by lying, a lot.  One example: “Palin, will any McCain/Palin promises have to be turned back on due to recent economic developments?”  Here was her chance to say “Yes, we will not veto all pork barrel spending like we originally promised, because we just broke that promise when McCain voted for the bailout, which contained tons of earmarks and pork barrel spending.  Thanks for giving me that opportunity to come clean to the nation and not be a douchebag.”  Instead, first she responded with something not relevant to the question, then she lied and said “Nope, we will keep all of our promises including getting the country back on its feet by getting this bailout passed.”  If you are going to lie to me about not lying, don’t mention something you lied about in your promise to not lie.  So when the debate was all over, what were all the media discussing (at least Middle Eastern, French, British, and American ones that I saw)?  How Palin came off looking good because she sucked less than when interviewed by Katie Couric.  One French reporter hit it dead on when he said “Palin sucked so bad before the debate that anything short of saying ‘I poop on America’ would be a win”.  That is paraphrased.  Another reporter from BBC said “she came out looking attractive with a nice dress and a big smile, she kept smiling the whole time and looked at the camera.  She also held a baby at the end, I’ve never seen that in a debate.”  If the only way you can make it sound like she didn’t perform horribly is by pointing out things unrelated to the actual debate, you just proved she was horrible.  Finally a reporter from Darfur said “I wish these people would stop murdering my entire population so that I could watch the VP debates.  I think Palin relates to me because of her accent and folksy jargon.”  I made that last one up, but I’m sure that’s what they would have said.  So by sucking so badly prior to the debates, and then sucking only marginally less during the debate because she could read from notecards, Sarah Palin tricked several members of the media, and probably half the U.S. population into thinking she didn’t lose.

Second: Self-congratulations we used to suck REALLY BADLY, now we just suck a little less.  Your name is Senate.  Notice the subtle difference.  In this scenario, no one congratulates you on sucking, so you have to do it yourself.  Congress (which includes the Senate, for those who didn’t take government in high school) recently dropped to the lowest approval rating in Gallup poll history (18%) so I think there is no question about the ‘you used to suck REALLY BADLY’ part.  However, they just passed the bailout, err excuse me ‘financial rescue package’ bill.  So are congratulations in order?  According to the senators, they are.  They made a huge deal about how “this is the senate at its best” and “this issue was so important that we rose above party politics for a solution” and “senate rules, house drools”  and “i’m a rich old guy that just gave out a bunch of your money to other rich old guys, yay me!”.  The main problem I have with this is the fact that they are patting themselves on the back for getting one small part of their job accomplished.  That part is ‘passing a bill’.  It’s not even saying they passed the right bill, they just passed a bill.  If this is the senate at its best, then its worst must be on par with the guys from Jackass.  They also seem to think it is a good thing that for once they were able to ‘reach across the aisle’ (could we constantly repeat a gayer analogy for ‘work together with both parties’, no, no we couldn’t) and get both parties to agree on something.  So senate, you are saying that usually you don’t give a shit about the country or the issue, as long as you vote opposite the other party?  Awesome, please represent me.

So here is a thought, maybe instead of getting all excited over sucking, we could do things a little bit differently.  First, McCain could have put his country first (which is a good trait in the job he is running for) and chosen a running mate that isn’t a slap in the face to america, instead of just trying to play politics to win the election.  I don’t know if it is more disconcerting to me that he chose Palin, or that almost half the country doesn’t mind that he chose Palin.  Second, our elected representatives could come down one notch on the douchebag scale and actually try to get results instead of just passing blame when nothing is accomplished or even worse, giving themselves false congratulations to pretend something is accomplished.