Saturday, April 23, 2005

American Taliban Morons Are Trying to Tell ME how to Raise MY Children

Does anybody remember when the Republicans were a party of smaller, less-intrusive government? Umm, seeing no hands, I guess the answer is no.

The freshest assault on my freedom by the American Taliban Republicans is a Jefferson City intrusion on teens and alcohol. I happen to be the proud parent of a wonderful pair of teenagers - a nineteen year-old son and an eighteen year-old daughter. They are bright, wonderful kids who are going to make a difference in this world.

Guess what? I don't have a huge problem if they violate aspects of the state liquor laws. It would not shock or offend me if either of them has a drink or two in a safe environment, with adults present, so long as they are not driving. I know that my son has been at parties in college with alcohol, and I am absolutely fine with it. If they're not driving and endangering themselves or other people, then I like to think that I am in a better position to help them make decisions than the wildly immature Jason Crowell, or any of the other hypocrites in Jefferson City.

A St. Louis County republican by the name of Mike Gibbons has declared that There is no acceptable level of alcohol consumption for teenagers." Well, Mike, that's your opinion, and you are welcome to live in a world where your kids never take a sip of alcohol. But the rest of us don't happen to live in your world, nor do we want to.

People, the republicans are here to impose their rules on you and yours. If you voted for them, you deserve this. I don't.


Anonymous les said...

I see that; and raise you the Ks. Board of Education moving to teach my kids religion in their science classes. Sorry, but I hate these ignorant fascist bastards.

4/25/2005 2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Time to check under the hood and see if the vitriol level in your blood is high enough to affect your vision and your memory. Last I checked, its been illegal to serve alcohol to minors for well over 25 years in Missouri and probably much longer.

I'm glad you don't care if your children violate some of the liquor laws. They'll probably survive just fine because you're probably a fine parent and they are probably fine young adults and they probably have no genetic predisposition to alcohol addiction. On the other hand, even with all of the factors working in their favor, they may have problems. But, I'll agree that's your choice and theirs.

Just remember, though, when you are serving your underage offspring a cold one that you don't have any right to make that decision for my children, your friends' children or your children's friends. I don't disagree that you are in a better place to evaluate your children's relative maturity than the folks in Jeff City. You are not in that position with respect to other people's children.

The legislators are not necessarily "American Taliban" because they don't let well-meaning adults make decisions about drinking for folks who haven't reached the legal drinking age.

Get a grip. I'm sure you'd be upset with those radical Repubs if they raised the penalty for premeditated murder.

4/25/2005 8:42 PM  
Anonymous Brad Spangler said...

Anonymous seems to be looking at things completely backwards. The poster wasn't proposing mandatory consumption.

4/26/2005 1:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I do not think the mild one was proposing mandatory consumption. I was pointing out that under 21 consumption has been illegal for many years. While our gracious host proudly serves his children illegally, it is not unreasonable for the legislature to impose significant penalties on minors who break the law. More importantly, the legislature is entirely reasonable in imposing severe penalties on adults who provide alcohol to those under 21 - particularly those who are NOT their own children.

Mr. Mild has his panties in a wad about a non-issue. There are an awful lot of things that it is illegal for adults to do with or provide to children. While that may be viewed as paternalistic, it protects the individual until they are mature enough to make intelligent decisions. Any age cut-off is somewhat arbitrary as children mature at different rates.

4/26/2005 7:36 PM  
Blogger Geoff Egan said...

"anonymous" is somewhat clueless here. Does anyone else really think that somehow agents of the state have the right to rush into peoples' homes and check what people are feeding their children.
I guess I was lucky, being Canadian, and growing up in Montreal. From about the age of 12 or so, my parents made a point of pouring a small glass of wine with Sunday dinner. The variety would change from week to week, and I learned to tell the differences between various (mostly red) wines.
By 15 my Dad would tell me to get "one" beer while we watched football or baseball games on the TV (Lord I miss the Expos). By 17 maybe two beers over a three hour game.
I hardly think I was the victim of child abuse by my parents using their discretion in introducing me to moderate use of alcohol even before I could be served in a bar (18 in Quebec incidentally). I was taught how to handle it, and unlike many of the children of the self-proclaimed righteous in the southern USA, I've never been charged, or convicted, of drunk driving, because I was taught never to drink and drive. Unlike, say, the evangelical occupant of your white house, or his daughters.

4/29/2005 9:55 PM  
Anonymous Dolphin said...

Anonymous posted anonymously. Nuff said.
Where the Dolphins Play

5/01/2005 2:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home