the unequivocal notion

And we thought we had it bad

Well, I think most Idahoans how are peeved with how our state controls booze realize that as bad as it is here in Idaho; it's a lot worse in some other states (I feel your pain Utahns). At least in Idaho it's easy to get good microbrews from nearly any store and wine is easily accessible. Hell, we at least have wine shops, a lot of states require you to purchase wine and higher alcohol content beer from state run liquor stores. Idaho is also one of only 35 states that allow you to buy wine online (thank God for wine.com) and have it shipped to you.

Pennsylvania, being one of the aforementioned states with extreme booze control is going to try out some wine kiosks in supermarkets. You know, so you can buy a wine to go with that dinner you're planning -- a novel idea indeed.

The idea as a whole is really, really disturbing. One, you'll have to only choose from a selection of about a dozen labels (so this would include your white, red, sparkling wine and dessert wine), and two you have to register with the state to be eligible to even buy the wine from these kiosks.

Vending-machine idea appalls wine crowd

HARRISBURG - For many, the future of buying wine in Pennsylvania could soon look something like this: your arm on a biometric sensor that will determine whether you're old enough - and sober enough - to get your favorite bottle from a machine.

Called a "wine kiosk," it's the latest concept being pushed by the state-run Liquor Control Board as a way to reduce hassles for consumers.

The kiosks - looking like large refrigerators with opaque glass built into a wood frame - would be placed in about 100 supermarkets across the state to finally make it possible to buy wine and food in the same place in Pennsylvania.

[...]

The machines would carry about a dozen different wines and hold up to 500 bottles, and the opaque windows would prevent minors from viewing the bottles (ed. note: wtf?).

To use the machines, customers would have to register at the supermarket with the help of a Liquor Control Board employee. The registration would include providing fingerprints and a valid credit card, and allowing an infrared arm scan.

After that, users could go to any machine and place their arm and hand on a sensor. Once their identity was verified and the machine determined they were not intoxicated, the glass would clear and they could make their selection, which would arrive in a sealed package.

The kiosks would not be staffed, but Liquor Control Board employees at a remote location would track purchases, according to the summary.

Purchasing histories could be monitored to weed out potential problem drinkers. And special identification numbers etched on the bottles would make it possible to trace them back to the buyer.

While we continue to push for fairer booze laws in Idaho, thank your lucky stars that you don't have to register with the state to buy wine at your local supermarket... yet.

Meridian Mayor Tammy de Weerd, her daughter and booze

This morning in the Idaho Statesman there is a story about Meridian Mayor Tammy de Weerd’s daughter and two tickets she has received for underage drinking. The common theme in the comments section at the Statesman site is to either forgive her for her “mistake” or advocating harsher punishment.

One commenter even wanted to make underage drinking a felony – yes, making the vast majority of our teens felons for experimenting with a socially acceptable intoxicant is a brilliant solution.

What’s to forgive?

I will also note that high school senior RoAnne de Weerd is the chair of Meridian's Anti-Drug Coalition and also serves on America's Promise National Youth Partnership Team plus a couple of other anti-booze/drugs groups. I think that it's pretty clear she should resign those positions. Of course, drinking while telling others it's evil is kind of an American pastime. This is also the second time she has been ticketed for underage drinking.

RoAnne de Weerd only did what about 66% of Idaho teens and a great deal of teens around the world do -- drink alcoholic beverages. Only other countries actually educate their youth about alcohol. People wonder why we have so many problems with drinking in this country, the solution doesn’t lie with stricter regulations, it lies with education, understanding and reasoning. The prohibition of people under the age of 21 to drink has only pushed it underground, making it “taboo” and thus making it a special thing to drink. This is what creates binge drinking and addiction – binge drinking and alcoholism being the source of most of the ills caused by alcohol. People don’t kill people drunk driving after only 2-3 beers, they do it after 10 or 14.

Over the last couple of weeks there have been some interesting discussions about this topic on several of the wine and cooking blogs that I regularly read. I’ve wanted to mention something about it here, but haven’t been motivated to until I saw this story.

I find the 21 age requirement and fallacy ridden reasons behind it make for an interesting argument. On one hand the state allows you to get behind the wheel of a 5000lb truck or SUV at 16 and you’re allowed to elect city, state and national leaders at 18 – an awesome responsibility, on both accounts. But on another hand you can’t legally have a glass of wine with your parents at the dinner table. And let’s not even get me started that you can serve and die for your country at 18 (17 with mom and dads permission) and you still can’t sit down with a beer, either in public or at home. The government will train and arm you to go to foreign countries and kill human beings -- one of the most sacred responsibilities known to man.  And yet when you return home you can’t have a beer with your dad on your own back patio – is that freedom?

Doesn’t make sense to me. You?

Not allowing people to drink until they are 21 makes it seem like it’s this “big” thing when they are finally allowed to drink. Well, they don’t know it yet, but it’s not a “big” thing, it’s just an enjoyable thing. Here is something that history has proven time and time again – if you make something taboo, you’ll make people curious. And curious people do curious things.

When I was in the Army and in training at Fort Bliss in El Paso we were allowed to drink on base at 18 because they didn’t want soldiers going to Ciudad Juárez to drink (I call this being realistic). To me it wasn’t a big deal; I had done my fair share of weekend boozing by then, I’d lived on my own, I had what they called in the Army; “life experience”. I just wanted to focus on the Army and my task at hand and it paid off in dividends for me. However for the young soldiers who’d never been exposed to alcohol, well they went bat shit crazy with it – which invariably led to disciplinary problems. I’m sure you can take this same example and apply it to colleges across the country. There is nothing more degenerate than a sheltered kid who is finally beyond the grasp of their overbearing parents.

People think that if they shelter their children from alcohol and not teach them about it, that they won’t ever drink. Mom and dad do it, the media talks about it, their friends talk about it, and frankly it is a part of our society. And if parents they think their precious little snowflakes aren’t going to throw down at a kegger when mommy and daddy aren’t looking – well, they’re crazy.

One thing I’ve never understood about a great deal of Americans is their fascination with punishment over preventive education. Not only is it more cost effective to educate instead of punish but it makes logical sense. You can’t tell kids that no, alcohol is bad, bad, bad, but then turn around and drink yourself. They’re only going to wonder what you’re trying to hide from them -- thus experiment on their own, which in turn leads them to not experiment responsibly in a controlled environment.

We don’t teach our kids how to drive without allowing them to physically drive so why would we do it any different with alcohol? Granted this is something that should be the parents’ responsibility; I’m not advocating a booze class as an elective for your senior year. Parents should have the right to allow their children to drink in their homes and be allowed to teach the negatives and positives of alcoholic beverages. And frankly, once a kid turns 18 and the government treats them as an adult in both privilege and punishment; they should be able to drink as well.

MEDIA: NYtimes

BLOGS: Left Side of the Moon on de Weerd

Just what Idaho needs

We've been trying to clean up our image for the last couple of years but then something like this comes along which could set us back another 25 years.

Idaho Press-Tribune:

ANDERSON, S.C. — A Christian group pledging heavy involvement in government could make an “exodus” to Idaho rather than South Carolina.

According to the most recent issue of the Christian Exodus newsletter, the group’s new target may be Idaho.

“Several Christian Exodus members realize that due to commitments to extended family or other reasons, they will not be moving to South Carolina,” the newsletter stated.

Instead, they may be moving to Gem County in Southwest Idaho.

Christian Exodus, a group of individuals who believe in a literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, tempered with a devout Christian faith, had previously called for thousands of similar Christians to move to South Carolina one county at a time, starting with Anderson County. Their goal was to move enough people into the area to influence local elections, and in turn affect state elected officials.

With those key elements in place, the group hoped to either influence national legislation to return to a policy of limited federal government and increased states’ rights, or to secede from the Union of States.

Kind of makes ya wonder why 'Thayne' chose Emmett, huh?

Man, just check out their newsletter (pdf), it is full of classic nutball goodness. There is mention of secession, the establishment in D.C. assassinating Ron Paul if he's elected, a mention of Idaho's own Mr. Pro-Life (you know, the guy that literally changed his name to Marvin Pro-Life -- only in Idaho, sheesh) and other assorted gems.

These are the kind of people that just amaze me. How in this day in age do we have people that are this oblivious to the real world? And we wonder why the rest of the civilized world looks over at us and just giggles under their collective breath when ever the fringe opens their mouth.

Sometimes the thought of just moving away and becoming an audience for the spectacle that is American citizenry seems more and more like a good idea.

Just a tad disturbing

Some things you read and they just don't surprise you anymore.

Poll: Most Republicans Reject Evolution
Gallup Survey Finds 68% Of Republicans Disbelieve Scientific Explanation Of Creation

AP) The three Republican presidential candidates who indicated last month that they do not believe in evolution may have been taking a safe stance on the issue when it comes to appealing to GOP voters.

A Gallup poll released Monday said that while the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true, Republicans disbelieve it by more than 2-to-1.

Republicans saying they don't believe in evolution outnumbered those who do by 68 percent to 30 percent in the survey. Democrats believe in evolution by 57 percent to 40 percent, as do independents by a 61 percent to 37 percent margin.

Oy vey. And we wonder why they are so good at running ruining government.

A Conservatives revelation

Via 43rd State Blues.

This is really quite interesting, for being such a small post the relevance is actually quite fascinating.

Yes, this is in America

I couldn't help but be immensely disturbed tonight as I watched Primetime: The Outsiders on ABC, an expose into Centennial Park, a sect of polygamist Mormons living in Utah. Although I didn't really learn anything new tonight that I didn't already know it was a stark reminder that this form of thinking is still alive today in America.

For one, I can't help but be blown away when I hear a teenage girl say this:

"If he has six or seven wives, I'd accept that," she says. "The man is not ours. We are given to the man but we can't claim him. So as many wives as he would want, he can have. As long as it's what God wants."

This has to be some form of child abuse in one way or another. It's delusional, scary and primitive all at the same time. I've never understood women who for some reason or another think that they are inferior to their husbands or men at large. This of course applies to the women who hold onto to this thought after the truth is evident, not the ones who've been so sheltered that they don't know that they are allowed to know better.

I'm not one to say whether one argument or another argument is right, but I can say that these enclosures foster sexism, sexual abuse and a myriad of other human rights abuses. It's something that we need to address here in America before (or while) we go telling other religions and cultures around the world that they treat their women wrong.