Birthday Booze: Students Report Drinking Heavily

Sorry for double post of same theme. The first was somehow delayed overnight, then appeared when the second was submitted.

BUT, maybe it's okay, since it's hard to overstate the idea that mega-beer dealers are not the best choice to lead America. Even in foreigh relations, for instance, how might we suppose that Muslims (who don't drink) would see America for choosing such people? Would they use this as another excuse to call us an even bigger "Satan" (for terrorist recruitment) than some of them already do?

Conundrum

And in the Arizona region, anyway, Cindy McCain's inherited (and very large) beer distributorship supplies a good percentage of the beer used for the above. John, her husband, the presidential candidate, has been married to this business as long as he has been in Congress

Tell me how social conservatives can be "concerned" about binge drinking and even "consider" voting for a pair of the suppliers to be the First Family..

Make a statement this November!

And in the Arizona region anyway, CINDY McCAIN'S INHERITED BEER DISTRIBUTORSHIP SELLS THE WHOLESALE BEER FOR THE BIRTHDAY BASH!

(and for the drunken car crashes, DWI incarcerations, domestic abuse, and un-planned impregnations while "loose as a goose")

Where, oh where, are the church voters? The parents who give a darn about young people drinking? Are they lining up to assure that John and Cindy, the sellers of billions (yes, with a b) of beers over 25 years do not ascend to The White House? How can anyone tell the kids not to drink and then vote for beer dealers? (Check out Hensley & Company-----LEARN!!!!!!)

Of course drinking would be less problematic if the legal age was lowered to 18. Children would not feel the pressure to be part of the underground drinking culture.

Future Darwin Award Winners?

One would think that by the age of 21, a person would be familiar with the possible consequences regarding over-drinking. They are adults. No one forces them to do this. It may seem cruel to those who have lost loved ones due to their loved one's stupidity (harsh, yes, and cold, but true), but the fact is the government can not save people from self destruction or stop them from being idiots. Lowering the drinking age is more likely to increase the idiocy, the logic being that the older a person is, the less likely they are to act like a child and the more likely they are to have heard about the consequences and will therefore heed the warnings.

Alternatively, require a new Freshman class for all college degrees under the social studies side of things and call it "Social Awareness". Teach them that acting like an ass has consequences beyond their own self indulgence. They need a much more evolved "Is this a good idea?" meter inside them. They may not get the message, but, then, as I said, the government can't protect idiots from their self destructive acts, nor the rest of us from the consequences of those acts. All it can do is show them the picture. It's up to them to look and see it.

The way I see it, those who don't heed the warnings, who end up sad, grim statistics, didn't need to add their uniqueness to the gene pool anyhow. I do feel for their families, but maybe their bad example will help show others the clarity of that picture. "Drank to death". One hell of an immature epitaph.