Keggers, Beer Bongs and A Good Old Fashioned Game Of Thumper

I must admit, I don't even remember the rules to "Thumper" - I was more of a "Quarters" kind of gal, myself, and by the time I went off to college, I had plenty of drinking experience and wasn't at all bothered by the quaint little dormitory rules governing the use of alcohol. Neither was anybody else. To be honest, the number of wild parties kind of dwindled after the first quarter and were replaced by wine-and-Joan-Armatrading "talk-ins". What can I say? I went to UC Santa Cruz.

Now that my daughter is a high school senior, though, I find myself having a rather odd reaction to tales of wild, drunken college parties; I am mildly horrified!

In my youth, such tales would have meant an automatic check in the "plus" column for a school.

(OK, so I was a bit of a dumb-ass - can I help it that movies like Animal House and Fast Times at Ridgemont High came out when they did? I couldn't wait to go to my first Toga Party! TOGA! TOGA! TOGA!)

Now I wonder to myself just how badly I would stick out if I went off to college with my daughter -this time to chaperon, not plan the parties. OK, Scratch that.

A recent article in the LA Times caught my attention: "College leaders hope to renew debate on a lower drinking age" It seems that kids under the age of 21 are drinking alcohol even though they are not supposed to! You don't say! And in order to get away with it, they are doing it on the sly which causes them at times to get really, really drunk. So drunk, in fact, that occasionally one or two drop dead. This upsets the college leaders. It upsets me. It would probably really upset the kids involved were they not dead.

Is lowering the drinking age to 18 the answer? I am not sure how I feel about this myself yet.

On the pro side, dealing with reality is usually better than wishful thinking -the drinking age has been 21 now for eons and the problem does seem to be getting worse.

In Germany you can buy beer and wine at age 16 and the hard stuff at 18 and while it is quite common to have alcohol at parties or a few beers at the disco it is not at all common for kids to get stinking-staggering-fall-down drunk. That is viewed as just plain TACKY. It also strikes me that they are also much less willing to get behind the wheel of a car after drinking - of course they actually have viable alternate means of transportation in the form of subways, street cars, trains, buses and taxis. The US is just not there yet.

On the con side, just because it works for the Germans, though, doesn't mean it'll work for us. (Some) Kids here seem to think drinking till you drop is just fine and dandy - a right of passage even. Making it easier for them to get their grubby little hands on booze will surely lead to more drinking, will it not? More girls than ever will down pitchers of margaritas and then think it is a good idea to flash the dork with the video camera! (A bit of advice - whatever you do when drinking - don't let anybody videotape you! That is really, really, really stupid.)

But then I can't help but thinking that since drinking is such a potentially hazardous endeavor, shouldn't parents be able to legally take a stab at teaching their kids responsible drinking - instead of say, horny frat boy?

Sign me betwixt and between on this one,

RH

September 2008 Update: My daughter tells me that the son of one of her school's beloved teachers nearly died of alcohol poisoning - on his 21st birthday. Seems they found out at 11:00 that morning that his condition had stabilized and that he was expected to live. The doctors were not so optimistic the night before. All the teachers had the same message for the kids: "If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone" - see he's a really good kid - smart - bright future - and absolutely no experience drinking.

Where to Go to College?

Where? No really, I'm asking! My daughter is a junior in high school now; the time when students start weighing their options, researching schools, trying to find the right mix of affordability and quality.

There are the pie in the sky options: Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Columbia...those fine old institutions with excellent reputations for their unyielding devotion to the pursuit of knowledge. Oh yeah, and the piece of paper you get at the end that pretty much guarantees the holder admittance to the good life. (After you pay off the $150,000 in student loans).

A parent can lose sleep at night just thinking about the cost of sending one's offspring off to college. You want only the best for your children, right?

Well cheer up! Recent events have shown that many of those pricey places are full of numskulls, and you can in good conscience tell your child that you are not going to waste your money to have them be taught by idiots.

Who am I to judge you say? Well, here is why I say this. Let's take Stanford as an example. The Hoover Institution has invited Donald Rumsfeld to come hang out for a spell. Many on the faculty at Stanford have signed a petition trying to prevent Mr. Rumsfeld from doing so (students too, but they are young and ignorant so they are excused.)

My point is as follows: This is not about whether you like or dislike, agree or disagree with Donald Rumsfeld. It is about a group of people who are employed by what I used to think was one of the finest universities in the US, who are supposed to be interested in truth and knowledge, categorically refusing to give an opposing viewpoint a forum.

Here is a man who for better or worse has been advising on, shaping, creating and deciding American foreign policy for roughly 40 years and these Brainiacs don't even want to listen to him? Because they somehow know that he is immoral? How do they know that? Does the sun go dark and do flowers wilt when he is near? Because they work at Stanford and therefore know everything? Don't you have to know a few facts to make a judgement like that?

Wouldn't they be just a little curious to hear what a man like Rumsfeld has to say in a non-soundbite environment? Couldn't they entertain the notion that perhaps Mr. Rumsfeld has a few useful things to say just based on his unique perspective? I guarantee you there are things that this man knows that nobody else does. The chances of us learning about them are small, but the chances are ZERO if we refuse to even listen.

What does a math professor and an art history professor know about global politics anyway? Do they really think they know better? How can you be sure you haven't gone off the deep end in your thinking if you are surrounded by people who "think" just like you? Here is their official gripe:

"We view the appointment as fundamentally incompatible with the ethical values of truthfulness, tolerance, disinterested enquiry, respect for national and international laws, and care for the opinions, property and lives of others to which Stanford is inalienably committed."

I mean seriously. How can you write something like that without drowning in the hypocrisy of it?

Cross Columbia off the list too. If the President of the school is such a dope¹, you know the rest of them can't be much better.

Cornell hired one of the 2 professors who were crucifying the 4 Lacrosse players at Duke University, so they must look for only those qualified to "Leap before you Look".

The collective motto of our nation's higher learning institutions seems to be:

"Who Needs Reality? We Have Opinions!"

So I am going to save my money....after all I have my own opinion, and it's FREE!

RH

¹ For not listening to his mother when she told him "There is no excuse for bad manners", for giving our enemies all the more ammunition against us, and for having the audacity to say things like this: "According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executing In Iran so far this year, 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone." US Executions (See: Pot vs. Kettle)