More Drinking Madness

Wow, this is creepy! Especially this:

Art Brown, president of the Salt Lake County chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said he would like to see the card scans with the central database on top of the existing private club laws.

To which I repeat what I've said before: groups like MADD aren't the solution; they're the problem. Tip o' the mug to our man-on-the-nanny-state-beat, Jacob Grier.

A Rational Drinker Tells All -- In the New York Times, No Less

Wow. Usually the New York Times "Proof" column oozes do-gooders, nanny-staters, and former alcoholics explaining why alcohol is evil. So this is an unexpected pleasure. His is a view with which, by the way, I agree. (As evidenced as well by all the other posts filed under "rational drinking" in the categories index in the left sidebar.)

Pot, Bongs, Phelps, and Smokes

The whole Michael-Phelps-With-A-Bong thing got right by me (I was busy with and then missing King Willem), but when I caught up with it, yeah....... well. Big eye-roll.

The only thing "regrettable" is that he got caught on camera. This is perhaps the best -- and smartest -- collection of commentary on the episode.

And while we're on the subject of dumbass laws (which, yes, we were ....), this also got by me: a nice essay by Jacob Grier in Doublethink.

I don't smoke anymore but god damnit it pisses me off when governments tell business owners they can't allow smokers anymore. (Which my city council did here in Ames some years back. I never had any problem with places where lots of people smoked.

Or, rather, I solved the problem: I just didn't GO to them. Problem solved....)

As I said to the city council when it contemplated this ordinance, which it did on grounds of "public health": What's next? Someone's gonna complain that they're allergic to grass and so you're gonna pave over all the public parks so that he/she won't suffer the "health" consequences of living in a town with grass?

OHFORGODSSAKE. Drinking Does Not Equal Not Sober

What the fuck is the matter with people? Supposedly smart people. People in the "media" who are supposed to be "smarter" than the rest of us. I refer here to this piece at Slate.com about President Obama's "cocktail party" the other night. The so-called "money quote" is this:

Sobering times do not necessarily require everyone to be sober.

Yeah, okay, so the rest of the piece is about presidents-who-drank. But let me get this intro (which set the tone for the rest of the piece) straight: President Obama invites people over for a social occasion, one that includes the option of consuming an alcoholic beverage.

The result (in the media) is --- people having a drink equals they're no longer "sober." Translation: it's not possible to have a fucking drink and not get drunk (or, by implication, become a "problem drinker" or an alcoholic). Have I got it right? I mean, seriously.

What the FUCK is the matter with us? Is it ever going to be possible for Americans to discuss alcohol in a mature manner? To mention it in "the media" without the writer making some dumbass joke? Okay. End of rant. Now excuse me while I go have a drink, remain sober, and continue (in private) my rant about dumbasses who equate having a drink with being drunk. Or with being a drunk. And no, I don't plan to apologize for using the word "fuck." You think I'm not "professional"? Too fucking bad. Go read some other blog.

Your Drinking Habits In A Recession?

Over at Beervana, Jeff Alworth is conducting a poll of people's drinking habits in this down economy. The results are "unscientific," but interesting. His original post, which prompted the poll, is here. (Do read the comments, too.) He's bumping the poll up the blog so people can keep voting; that's here.

Then check out Patrick Emerson's take on drinking and recessions here. And, if you're still thirsty for more, my previous entries on drinking and recessions here and here.

See? I Told You.

This is how they do their work: envelope it in data and "research" and health issues (most of which, frankly, are bogus). (And, no, I can't find a link to the original study. So you're gonna have to settle for this edited version.)

The American Economic Journal abstract is here. The summary that started my mini-rant is here. But also check out Matthew Ygleias's take on it. (If they can sucker good "liberals," then they can sucker anyone). In any case, this is timely, given the thoughtful comment left by a reader in response to my previous blog entry.

Tip o' the mug to Jacob Grier, my ever-reliable source for nanny-state-insanity (who is, of course, not even remotely impressed by all the charts and powerpoint crapola).