Idiot of the Day

[Anthony Edward Stark]

The drinking age over here is 6. Age to buy alcohol is 18, though, and that's essentially causing the same problems - people see drinking as this big deal because you can't do it (easily) until 18 and so teenagers are making an effort to get alcohol earlier.

For a more normal example, let's look at somewhere like Germany. I know their legal drinking age is a lot lower (14, IIRC?), but no idea what the figures are like on alcoholism over there.

There's so many factors involved in alcoholism that you can't pin it on just a drinking age. There's a lot of factors with regards to population too. Places with high Native American populations, for example, will have higher alcoholism rates, because a fairly common gene in that population makes you predisposed to it.

[metroid composite]

Hm.  maybe the US 21 drinking age DOES make sense.  We save most of our underage drinking for after high school.

The flip side is that high schoolers end up doing illegal drugs since they are easier to purchase than alcohol.

Between alcohol and meth for high schoolers, I'd much prefer alcohol.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Im highly skeptical that lower alcohol availability leads to significantly higher usage rates of meth, or other drugs (many of which are less harmful than alcohol in the hands of young drivers anyway!). That strikes me as an incredibly poor argument for lowering the drinking age.

[metroid composite]

Im highly skeptical that lower alcohol availability leads to significantly higher usage rates of meth, or other drugs (many of which are less harmful than alcohol in the hands of young drivers anyway!). That strikes me as an incredibly poor argument for lowering the drinking age.

I know I've seen a study on this; let's see what google finds...

http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/ 

Hm, ok yeah, pot's pretty harmless compared to...everything else.  Not sure how easy it is for teens to get meth.  I just had the impression meth was inexpensive, so I presume therefore easy to obtain.  Hold on...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20842489/ns/health-addictions/

So...somewhat easy, but use is dropping due to anti-meth campaigns.

[Magetastic]

Meth has also been around long enough that teens will probably have some casual way of getting access to the information of what doing a hard drug like that will do to you. Whether it be from informational ads, popping up somewhere online, or just having a friend who does the stuff. Culture does play a tremendous part in these kinds of things, however.

[NotMiki]

http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Court_Orders/Baby%20Continuance%20Granted.pdf

warning: lawyers.

[Lady Door]

http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Court_Orders/Baby%20Continuance%20Granted.pdf

warning: lawyers.

The Ermans are CONGRATULATED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

For some reason, there are a lot more cool judges than cool lawyers.

Definite sigh on the part of the Plaintiffs' attorneys.

[SnowFire]

http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/arts/television/game-of-thrones-begins-sunday-on-hbo-review.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

Fantasy is icky and only boys like it.  Luckily women like lots of sex so that's clearly why the TV show has sex in it (never mind that it's, uh, based on a pre-existing book.).  This is theoretically a "review" of A Game of Thrones but it doesn't actually review anything or say anything relevant to the show.

[Shale]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-13-2011/toemageddon-2011---this-little-piggy-went-to-hell

Right wing to parents: If your sons like anything less manly than watching football while drinking beer and firing assault weapons, supporting their interests is tantamount to child abuse.

(Okay, slightly exaggerated for effect.)

[metroid composite]

http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/arts/television/game-of-thrones-begins-sunday-on-hbo-review.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

Fantasy is icky and only boys like it.  Luckily women like lots of sex so that's clearly why the TV show has sex in it (never mind that it's, uh, based on a pre-existing book.).  This is theoretically a "review" of A Game of Thrones but it doesn't actually review anything or say anything relevant to the show.

Yeah, saw that a few days ago.  Response article!  "Why would men ever want to watch game of thrones"


Also: Martin himself was kinda like "wait, really?": http://grrm.livejournal.com/210874.html

[NotMiki]

Yeah, saw that a few days ago.  Response article!  "Why would men ever want to watch game of thrones"

That was just the right level of snark.

[SnowFire]

Also, response from the author.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/pull-up-a-throne-and-lets-talk/

Who still doesn't get it.  If she'd written a negative review that included a "blargh I don't get fantasy" it'd be annoying but whatever.  It's that she wrote a terrible incoherent non-review.  With blatant misunderstandings of what the plot was even trying to do in the brief sections she addressed the plot, like, for example, mentioning "dwarves" off hand as if these were drinking and mining dwarves rather than, uh, actual dwarves.  Who exist and are not fantasy creatures.

[Crystalgate]

http://www.clickorlando.com/family/27381829/detail.html

All in the name of protecting the children.

[superaielman]

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2011/05/opinions-of-pencil-necked-weasel-thief.html

Gaiman gets paid to speak at a library in Minnesota, donates the money to charity after. A Minnesota politican goes and calls him.. .well, see the title. Gaiman then promptly shreds his arguments without saying a single negative word about Matt Dean, noted moron.

Seriously, what the fuck to this.

BONUS! http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2011/05/dean_apologizes.shtml Dean apologies because mommy told him to do so! Sort of.

[Lady Door]

BONUS! http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2011/05/dean_apologizes.shtml Dean apologies because mommy told him to do so! Sort of.

My favorite part is the implication: Dean should not be left unsupervised.

[Grefter]

That or he has to get his poon from somewhere.

[Shale]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

Illinois Supreme Court rules that the fourth amendment doesn't entitle you to physically resist if police try to enter your home illegally.

On the one hand, this doesn't change much practically; trying to physically hold off police officers has never been a good way to stay healthy and/or alive. On the other hand, what the fuck?

[NotMiki]

Here's some of the choice bits of argument:

http://volokh.com/2011/05/13/no-right-to-assault-police-officer-entering-home-even-if-entrance-is-unlawful-indiana-supreme-court-holds/

Basically they're saying that because any evidence found during an unlawful entry is going to be suppressed, and because people have the right to sue police officers who violate their civil rights already, that there's no reason to allow people to do something that is normally illegal (assaulting a police officer) just because the police officer happens to be violating the law.  They're not saying it's now legal for police to bust into people's houses.  They're saying the remedy for that unlawful act shouldn't include a defense to violence.  That makes sense to me when you're talking about police actions in public and a civilian's rights to the space around them are on equal footing to a police officer's, but it doesn't make sense when you talk about a place, the home, where the civilian holds the lawful authority to determine who has a right to be there.

Strange case for such a rule to come out of, because the police entry in the case doesn't seem to have been unlawful (though it's on the borderline).  Police responded to a domestic violence call, the guy involved met them outside his house.  When the woman showed up at the door, the guy slammed the door on them and refused to let them in, but they could hear her through the door screaming at him to let them in.  So they busted the door down and tased him when he attacked them.  Police can lawfully enter if they have probable cause to believe that something dangerous is happening, and it seems like there was enough there for their entry to be legal in the first place.  (The trial court jury bought that argument and convicted him, incidentally.)

I wouldn't be surprised if the supreme court heard the case and overturned it.  The conservatives on the court are quite protective of peoples' right against police intrusion into their home.

[Shale]

Or named Scalia.

But yeah, they could easily have ruled that there were prima facie exigent circumstances and left it at that. It's just a weird time to make a weirder decision.

[NotMiki]

Reading up a bit, the Indiana Supreme Court was ruling on the jury instructions, so I don't think they would have considered anything but whether, assuming police were there illegally, that was relevant to a potential defense.

I don't think they would necessarily have wanted to make a blanket rule about whether exigent circumstances existed in a case like this in any case, because whether two people arguing rises to the level of something dangerous going on is something it's tough to generalize about.

[Shale]

What I meant to write before I left for dinner but didn't have time to type:

In general, if somebody breaks into your home, you can still seek a remedy in court and get them penalized and your property put back - but that doesn't mean you can't also fight back during the commission of the crime. Defending your home against intruders is such an accepted defense against assault that the principle is only controversial when deadly force is involved. But if police officers are doing the breaking-and-entering, this ruling suddenly throws that defense out the window, even if they and the homeowner both know that they're breaking the law. Even if you know that for a fact, you're supposed to either depend on the court taking a defendant's word over police officers' on whatever probable cause/exigent circumstances they claim in order to provide an after-the-fact remedy, or end up convicted of what will doubtless be a felony assault charge.

[Shale]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20063676-503544.html

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum on Tuesday accused Sen. John McCain of not understanding "how enhanced interrogation works," despite the fact that McCain, a former war prisoner in North Vietnam, was repeatedly subjected to torture during his 5 ½ years in captivity.

[Grefter]

I mean, you break somebody, and after they're broken, they become cooperative.

Haha stupid.

According to a first-person account of his experience as a POW in Vietnam, McCain was repeatedly subjected to physical and psychological abuse during his imprisonment, which lasted for more than five years. He has also McCain described giving false information to his interrogators in response to the harsh tactics.

Haha Editors for professional publications..

[DjinnAndTonic]

Fox News attacks the NEA for supporting artistic non-profit video games by showing Call of Duty clips.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e80_1305997846

[metroid composite]

That clip makes me angry for several reasons.  Notably, they're framing it as a funding issue and it's...not.  The NEA has a fixed amount of funding to divvy up how they see fit.  They have now added games to the list of art mediums that could apply for (not "will receive") a grant.  It's quite probable that no game will get past the grant application process this year, and thus no game will get funding.