In the short hours since John McCain selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate, the decision has been hailed by pundits and bloggers alike as anything from baffling to brilliant. Or so I'm guessing, because I've been in class, pondering the logic behind this decision instead of the novels of Eliza Haywood or the finer points of ballad stanza.
The choice of Governor Palin for Vice President is somewhat unconventional for a number of reasons - she's young, female, and a political greenhorn to such an extent that makes Senator Obama look like Senator Byrd. At first this might appear to be a case of simply balancing the ticket - Governor Palin shares several characteristics with Senator Obama (female, not African-American, of course - but demographically underrepresented) where Senator McCain could be likened to Senator Biden in experience and age. Each party is putting a different foot forward.
The more troubling idea is that the selection of Governor Palin is to court Senator Clinton supporters disenchanted with the Democratic Party after the nomination of Senator Obama. One might not expect such a gesture to cause voters to switch parties until one considers the recent poll that put 21% of Clinton supporters voting for McCain in November, with another 27% undecided. Should the selection of Governor Palin serve to increase those numbers further, the lack of a united base could be the Democrats' undoing in a year when they should be absolute shoe-ins. If this is the GOP's motive, it stands as an insulting and dangerous move, even by their standards. Trying to lure in Hillary's supporters with a commercial was shady enough - making an actual campaign decision over it is offensive to the popular Alaska governor, who's now more or less bait at the end of the Republicans' rod.
And I'm really not one to extensively consider John McCain ill-health scenarios, but this one would be especially grim. I do not consider a lack of experience in Washington a distinctly bad thing; indeed, candidates who distinguish themselves from the corrupt rank-and-file of Washington are decidedly appealing. But a candidate needs at least a modicum of familiarity with national politics. Governor Palin has held her position for about a year and a half after serving as mayor of a city smaller than the audiences to whom she'll speak. Should McCain run into a health issue, this woman will be sitting across the table from Ahmadinejad. (Okay, just kidding, we probably would have bombed them by then.) And the Republicans say Obama's inexperienced?
On the other hand, this is all a huge gamble for the GOP. They're essentially betting that the amount of Clinton voters garnered by Governor Palin will be substantially greater than the amount of far-right misogynists who might jump ship (and who, I might add, already aren't too keen about a McCain presidency). And besides, any Clinton hold-out who doesn't support Obama now is likely not smart enough to realize that a soccer mom-looking candidate could rule the free world, or even perhaps that the office of vice president exists at all.
Biden's going to have to handle his debates gracefully as well, because I don't even want to think about the media narrative if it gets ugly. "VETERAN WASHINGTON INSIDER VERBALLY ABUSES BRIGHT-EYED AND BUSHY-TAILED MOTHER OF FIVE."
Friday, August 29, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
reasons Ohio is better than where you live
1.) Cedar Point
2.) The best library system in the nation
3.) Dennis Kucinich
2.) The best library system in the nation
3.) Dennis Kucinich
Monday, August 25, 2008
funny things
"For here or to go?"
"... well, I'm going to have half now and take half home, so you figure it out."
When someone underestimates the weight of a door.
"... well, I'm going to have half now and take half home, so you figure it out."
When someone underestimates the weight of a door.
Friday, August 22, 2008
the drinking age
The recent discussion about the drinking age seems like decent enough blogging fodder. Especially because I haven't written anything in awhile.
The debate about the drinking age skirts the real issue of the futility of attempting to legislate a societal fixture. As anyone who's been to college can tell you, the notion that the drinking age plays any significant role in alcohol availability is silly. A student with a brain and a friend can drink when and where he or she wants regardless of his or her age. However, the fact that so much campus drinking is illegal under current legislation makes it impossible for college administrations to handle the issue with responsibility or realistic policy - condoning lawbreaking sends a less-than-inviting message to parents with a fistful of tuition dollars. Colleges are acutely aware of the importance of the issue and inundate freshmen with garbage like AlcoholEdu, now a mandatory aspect of most any Introduction to University Life course. The target audience of such programs is unknown to me. For anyone who does not yet know the risks of drinking upon entering college, trying to convince them of such is like trying to convince your old racist great aunt that Obama isn't a Muslim. If mandating such programs is enough to garner an insurance break for colleges, fine, but we need to stop pretending that it's getting to the heart of the problem.
Lowering the drinking age to 18 would have a positive effect in fostering the concept of drinking as an issue to be addressed instead of a crime to be punished. During my time at the University of Dayton, they had a program once a semester called "How Much Do UDrink?" which purported to offer students a chance to received unbiased and non-judgmental feedback on their drinking with regard to their health and academic careers. Such an initiative was welcome in the face of all the "alcohol is evil" indoctrination that most college students will be used to.
The drinking age does next to nothing in keeping booze out of the hands of college students. And allowing 18-year-olds to purchase alcohol would let them consume responsibly in a bar or restaurant instead of buying a handle from an upperclassman and putting it away in short order. In addition, it would remove some of the mystique of alcohol use and no doubt blunt the impulse to get blackout drunk as soon as one sets foot in a dorm.
Such an idea is not without its pitfalls. Of primary concern is the fact that lowering the drinking age to 18 would make booze far more accessible to high schoolers. Early studies have shown that the popularity of seniors would roughly triple. I'm as progressive as they come, but the prospect of rosy-cheeked and newly-driver's-licensed sophomores driving home with a few beers in their system is worrying enough as is. To make the age of consumption 18 would be to eliminate an obstacle in the way of that happening. Of course there are always older siblings and fake IDs, but opening up alcohol purchasing to a full quarter of a high school class is going to have some effects on availability.
Therefore, let's make the drinking age 19. This is the quick-and-dirty solution. I'd love to suggest something like requiring a high school diploma (perhaps denoted on a driver's license or something) for 18-year-olds to buy alcohol, so as to assuage the common complaint of "I'm old enough to serve my country, etc." But that's probably too ambitious and costly for serious consideration. So 19 is the right answer. Low increase in availability to high school students, and opportunities for college students to drink responsibly (like they are anyway). The notion that people are going to wait to turn 21 is one of the silliest suppositions in society - it's time to tweak the law to be in line with reality.
The debate about the drinking age skirts the real issue of the futility of attempting to legislate a societal fixture. As anyone who's been to college can tell you, the notion that the drinking age plays any significant role in alcohol availability is silly. A student with a brain and a friend can drink when and where he or she wants regardless of his or her age. However, the fact that so much campus drinking is illegal under current legislation makes it impossible for college administrations to handle the issue with responsibility or realistic policy - condoning lawbreaking sends a less-than-inviting message to parents with a fistful of tuition dollars. Colleges are acutely aware of the importance of the issue and inundate freshmen with garbage like AlcoholEdu, now a mandatory aspect of most any Introduction to University Life course. The target audience of such programs is unknown to me. For anyone who does not yet know the risks of drinking upon entering college, trying to convince them of such is like trying to convince your old racist great aunt that Obama isn't a Muslim. If mandating such programs is enough to garner an insurance break for colleges, fine, but we need to stop pretending that it's getting to the heart of the problem.
Lowering the drinking age to 18 would have a positive effect in fostering the concept of drinking as an issue to be addressed instead of a crime to be punished. During my time at the University of Dayton, they had a program once a semester called "How Much Do UDrink?" which purported to offer students a chance to received unbiased and non-judgmental feedback on their drinking with regard to their health and academic careers. Such an initiative was welcome in the face of all the "alcohol is evil" indoctrination that most college students will be used to.
The drinking age does next to nothing in keeping booze out of the hands of college students. And allowing 18-year-olds to purchase alcohol would let them consume responsibly in a bar or restaurant instead of buying a handle from an upperclassman and putting it away in short order. In addition, it would remove some of the mystique of alcohol use and no doubt blunt the impulse to get blackout drunk as soon as one sets foot in a dorm.
Such an idea is not without its pitfalls. Of primary concern is the fact that lowering the drinking age to 18 would make booze far more accessible to high schoolers. Early studies have shown that the popularity of seniors would roughly triple. I'm as progressive as they come, but the prospect of rosy-cheeked and newly-driver's-licensed sophomores driving home with a few beers in their system is worrying enough as is. To make the age of consumption 18 would be to eliminate an obstacle in the way of that happening. Of course there are always older siblings and fake IDs, but opening up alcohol purchasing to a full quarter of a high school class is going to have some effects on availability.
Therefore, let's make the drinking age 19. This is the quick-and-dirty solution. I'd love to suggest something like requiring a high school diploma (perhaps denoted on a driver's license or something) for 18-year-olds to buy alcohol, so as to assuage the common complaint of "I'm old enough to serve my country, etc." But that's probably too ambitious and costly for serious consideration. So 19 is the right answer. Low increase in availability to high school students, and opportunities for college students to drink responsibly (like they are anyway). The notion that people are going to wait to turn 21 is one of the silliest suppositions in society - it's time to tweak the law to be in line with reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)