The following is a transcript of this video.

Politicians and public interest groups are always looking to protect youth. They have a long list of so-called bad guys that they believe are a danger to young people. Even if in all this, they ignore the very many actual dangers youth face every day. Maybe there are things they find much more important than the well-being of young citizens. But then, who’s going to help young people? Who really cares about them? I’ll tell you who.

That’s us! We’re the National Youth Rights Association, or NYRA for short. I’m Katrina Moncure, secretary of NYRA and board member. There I am holding my cat, Midnight.

Anyway, NYRA has many goals. We want to lower the voting age to 16. We want to lower the drinking age to 18. We want all youth curfew laws abolished. Those are our major goals, but we have lots of others, too.
(more…)

Comments(0)

Tom from SSDP gave me a head’s up about an excellent op-ed in the New York Times today written by Anya Kamenetz.  She basically makes the Epstein argument that we should create competency tests to grant rights to youth younger and in a more flexible fashion.  Specifically she mentions voting, drinking, and credit card ownership, but it seems she is interested in the whole list of adult rights that youth are currently denied.  I am very intrigued and supportive.

A snippet:

We should hasten the enfranchisement of this generation, born between 1980 and 1995, by lowering the voting age to 16.

Age thresholds are meant to bring an impartial data point to bear on insoluble moral questions: who can be legally executed, who can die in Iraq, who can operate the meat cutter at the local sub shop. But in a time when both youth and age are being extended, these dividing lines are increasingly inadequate.

Legal age requirements should never stand alone. They should be flexible and pragmatic and paired with educational and cognitive requirements for the exercise of legal maturity.

Great to see youth rights again splash across the NY Times editorial page.  We were last there (unless I missed something) in September with Mike Male’s great op-ed about adult drug use.  Ironically, Mike might have a problem with Anya’s op-ed actually.  Beyond his general skepticism about competency tests in general (NYRA is neutral on them) I’m sure he’ll take issue with this bit:

Driving laws provide the best model for combining early beginnings and mandatory education. Many states have had success with a gradual phasing in of driving rights over a year or more, starting with a learner’s permit at age 16. The most restrictive of these programs are associated with a 38 percent reduction in fatal crashes among the youngest drivers, according to a study conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

According to Mike’s own study into the effectiveness of the graduated drivers licensing program in California he found that it actually hurt overall traffic safety.  Most studies that rate the effectiveness of graduated driver’s license programs (and most all teen related stats) look only at teens and forget that teens are not an insular demographic.  These studies focus exclusively on whether 16 and 17 year olds are helped by graduated driver’s licenses.  Males was curious whether going through such a program actually made people better drivers once they exit the program and turn 18.  What he found is quite interesting:

Is California’s teen-driver law — the nation’s strictest and touted by safety experts as a national model — really hazardous for the state’s teen drivers?

A study I conducted raises that possibility. Published in the National Safety Council’s Journal of Safety Research, it found, as did previous researchers, that California’s graduated licensing law was associated with fewer fatalities among 16-year-old drivers (down 20% through 2005). But that reduction was more than offset by the increased death rate — up 24% — of 18-year-olds, whose driving records researchers have neglected to study. The latest figures also indicate higher-than-expected fatalities among drivers aged 19, 20 and 21 who were licensed under the new law. The death rates of 17-year-olds changed little.

I e-mailed Males about Kamenetz’s op-ed, so I’m sure he’ll go educate her.

Kamenetz seems like a good ally to have though.  I’ll be sure to add a link to Anya’s blog from One and Four and Age of Reason.  Jason is putting together a youth rights meet up in NYC next month, maybe we can convince her to show up.  I’ll open communications with her in a bit.  Just need to find her e-mail.

Yay youth rights!

Comments(0)

First, look at this news story.

It was early last month when Jane Hambleton of Fort Dodge found the bottle under the front seat of her 19-year-old son’s pride and joy.

Her next move was a call to The Des Moines Register’s classified advertising department:

OLDS 1999 Intrigue

“Totally uncool parents who obviously don’t love teenage son, selling his car. Only driven for 3 weeks before snoopy mom who needs to get a life found booze under front seat. $3,700/offer. Call meanest mom on the planet.”

The son soon found himself on foot. And the meanest mom on the planet became the target of accolades from across Iowa and beyond.

Hambleton, 48, a disc jockey, said she has fielded more than 70 telephone calls from emergency room technicians, nurses, school counselors and even a Georgia man, who wanted to congratulate her.

“The ad cost a fortune, but you know what? I’m telling people what happened here. I’m not just going to put the car for resale when there’s nothing wrong with it, except the driver made a dumb decision,” Hambleton said. “It’s overwhelming, the number of calls I’ve gotten from people saying, ‘Thank you, it’s nice to see a responsible parent.’ So far, there are no calls from anyone saying, ‘You’re really strict. You’re real overboard, lady.’ ”

Steven Hambleton, a freshman business major at Briar Cliff University in Sioux City, obviously was not one of the callers. And he didn’t feel much like talking when contacted Tuesday.

“I don’t think you can print” his response to the ad, his mother said. “He’s very, very unhappy.”

Jane Hambleton described her son as a great kid who does excellently in college and is active in church. But she’ll stick to her guns, even though Steven Hambleton said that the bottle of alcohol wasn’t his, and that someone else had left it in his (former) car.

For the record, Mom believes him.

But she and her husband set two rules when they bought the car at Thanksgiving: No booze, and always keep the car locked. The car sold within two weeks, but Hambleton said she will continue the ad for another week - just for the feedback.

“A couple in Hubbard bought it for their 19-year-old son,” she said. “I told the kid when they were leaving, ‘Do not have any booze in that car. And if you do, don’t hide it under the front seat.’ “

When you are finished vomiting, come on back here for commentary.

Basically some self-righteous mother decided to sell her 19-year-old son’s car because she found an alcohol bottle in it. If that weren’t enough, the ad she put in the newspaper to sell the car explicitly stated she was doing this to get back at him, that he had “violated her car rules” so she was punishing him.

So let’s review. No indication that he was actually drinking and driving. She saw something in his car she didn’t like and decided he wasn’t allowed to have it anymore, so she sold it, something he loves (and who can blame him, I love my car, too!) behind his back and without his consent. She found an alcohol bottle, so she decided to make his life hell.

If only it stopped there! Because of the little ad she put, explaining what she was doing and why, a lot of people decided to call her up and congratulate her! She was being this big bad “tough disciplinarian” on her (adult) son, so everyone thinks she’s some kind of hero. At first, I thought this was just a lot of media exaggeration, until I went to the article itself and saw the comments. I’m still having trouble keeping my lunch down after reading that.

So what does this mean? It means it is socially acceptable to publicly humiliate a teenager. I mean, what if this woman had done this to her husband instead of her son? Would you be congratulating her? Might be some, but there’d be a lot more people probably complaining to her that she had no right to do something like that to a “grown man”. That would probably not even be newsworthy. But humiliating your son gets you national commendations.

I mean, I can’t imagine how he feels right now. His mother betrayed him, stole and sold something he loved, and now the whole state and beyond is laughing at him and saying he deserved it, that his mother needed to be strict with him. Betrayed by a loved one, lost a major cherished possession, and publicly humiliated and called out.

And what for? Because there was a beer bottle in his car and he’s under 21? Has our society gotten so hysterical over the thought of anyone under 21 even being near alcohol that this sort of widespread mocking is called for? I mean, if he was actually drinking and driving, maybe, but it was not stated if he was in the article, and it would have said if he had, so I’m going to assume he is innocent of that.

This is the power parents have over their children, even ones over age of adulthood. It is appalling. It is inhuman. Worst of all, it is a disgusting perversion of the concept of love in our society. To love is to make someone miserable based on your own personal morals? Well, if that someone is under 21, then yes, I guess it is.

Comments(2)

This blog entry is partially a response to the e-mail below, and partially a general comment, so not everything is gonna be directly related to or in response to this quoted bit:

The Patriot Act is extremely mild compared to the many infringements on privacy that young people are subjected to. If you care about the right to privacy, consider the following.

The Patriot Act doesn’t require that individuals submit to random, suspicionless drug testing as many schools and indeed some parents are now requiring. Unlike drug testing at work, youth usually don’t have any choice whether to be at school or live with their parents.

The Patriot Act doesn’t allow authorities to search through an individual’s property without probable cause like schools do with lockers and parents do with everything.

The Patriot Act allows for increased use of wiretaps and monitoring of e-mail but nothing close to the kind of tracking software parents regularly place on their kid’s computers that tracks and records every keystroke and action taken with the computer. Every website, every word typed, every program used is recorded and sent to parents.

The Patriot Act may allow the government, in some cases, to look at what books you are checking out, but it doesn’t outright ban you from looking at or listening to certain books, movies, websites, magazines and music like age restrictions do.

While not part of the Patriot Act, no doubt you are alarmed by the increasing use of security cameras in public places watching our every move. That pales in comparison to the ways teens are tracked. Parents have taken to putting GPS tracking devices into backpacks and cars. Plus many cell phones now have GPS enabled on them and parents use those to track their kid’s movements. Furthermore there are computers parents install in cars that record every turn you make, how fast you go, how complete a stop you make, etc.

More directly, parents are even installing cameras in their kid’s bedrooms to monitor them at all times. Or removing their bedroom doors so they have no privacy whatsoever. This is all perfectly legal and happens all across the country.

As you of course know, the government (via schools) controls what clothes you wear, how you style your hair, whether you can have a cell phone or other electronic device, and what you can say or write in school. The Patriot Act doesn’t come close to that.

The war is indeed an important issue. But who is it that we are sending overseas to fight and die in that war? Young people. Young people who probably weren’t old enough to vote for the politicians that sent them to that war. Young people who risk their lives in the desert and are not treated as equals in this country or given the respect they deserve for making such a sacrifice. They return home and unlike most Americans can’t open a can of beer while watching a football game, or go out to a bar with a few buddies, or even attend many concerts. Over 645 young Americans have died in the desert while never being respected as equals in the nation that sent them there.

The infringements on the privacy of youth are more extreme than the Patriot Act ever was or will be, and affect far more people on a daily basis. After being raised as youth with no expectation of privacy is it any wonder people don’t value privacy as much when they get older and get into power? And while I’m not going to say that the drinking age is more important than the war, it directly relates to the war and is another injustice heaped upon young people that absolutely needs to be addressed.

Youth rights isn’t just some side project or a somehow a selfish, small issue that distracts from ‘bigger’ issues out in the world. I know you didn’t say that, and I’m not saying people should vote only on the basis of youth rights, but youth rights is a HUGE issue that deserves a lot more attention and respect than it currently gets - even from NYRA members. Cause if we don’t put youth rights first, who will?

Finally, if you (and this isn’t just directed to you) oppose the Patriot Act and the War and invasions on privacy and everything else, did you vote for candidates who opposed those policies? Were you able to or were you prevented from voting by the voting age? Who knows how different the country would be today if you and your peers were able to vote.

Youth rights is directly intertwined with all other issues you care about in society. It should never be put on the backburner, even in an election year.

If youth are free, then we all will be free.

Comments(0)

Okay, well, first things first. Alex Koroknay-Palicz, our executive director, got profiled in the Washington Post, for those interested in the article (its quite decent) it can be found here. Now, having been here while the article was written, we were actually expecting something more about the organization and less about him, but hey, it was a pretty friendly write up.

The response to the article has been much less than friendly. For a good laugh at how ridiculous some people can be, I recommend viewing the comments. They can be found on the main website for the Washington Post, found here. And my god, they’re pretty nasty. They range in their virulence from accusing Alex of being a child molester, to calling him a grown up adolescent (isn’t that commonly known as an “adult” in most circles?) to just creating the most transparent of straw-man arguments. It’s pretty obvious that the vast majority of these people aren’t that bright, and in fact, some of their posts prove that in fact, people who are only 18 can write more coherently than people twice that age. But don’t take my word for it. I ask you all to join me on a wonderful odyssey of discovery, where really foolish people get to stick their foot in their mouths and we all get to mock them, I hope you enjoy it.

The first comment has some really bad attempts at sarcasm that come across as just heavy handed and inane:

“Now we could see 14-year olds puking their guts out into the fountain after a few hours of social drinking at one of the many pubs in [Dupont Circle], skeezy old men hitting on pubescent nymphets, and the entertaining sight of a 16-year old wrapping the family Lexus around a light pole every few nights. Groovy, man. Just like the 70’s…and that worked so well!”

Where to begin, where to begin? I don’t think we’ve ever advocated letting 14 year olds into bars, but don’t let stupid things like facts stand in the way of making a piss poor arguement! And skeezy men hitting on young “nymphets?” I didn’t know we issued a “pro-child molestation” position paper, but I guess I don’t know our positions as well as “tdiaz” the distinguished author of this mindless rant. And 16 year olds can already drive the family car, and if they do wrap it around a lightpost that’s like due more to inexperience behind the wheel than it is from being an idiot teenager (I know I personally was scared witless of banging up the family car and drove extra carefully, but experience helps a great deal). Either way, lowering the voting and drinking age and enfranchising youth is not going to open the flood-gates of hell and fill the streets with an army of young, drug-addled youth just waiting to bring society to its knees. A complete and utter strawman arguement, based on no logic, no evidence, and no thought.

Next:

“I am certain most of the young people contributing an exorbitant $10.00 monthly to the National Youth Rights Association are doing so because they think it will allow them to legally purchase alcohol, and they stop contributing when they realize it doesn’t…

When the drinking age was lowered to 18 in the 70s, the teen drunk driving rate got out of hand, 18-yr-olds were buying beer for 14-yr-olds, and the politicians noticed that 18- to 21-yr-olds were drinking but not voting.
Almost everyone I ever knew who agitated for underage drinking stopped caring when they turned 21.
Alex Koroknay-Palicz wanted to be emancipated from his parents when he was 14 because they wouldn’t let him have a refrigerator in his bedroom. Some day when he overhears a 17 year old girl whisper to her girlfriend that he’s a “creepy old guy,” I suspect Alex will give up on the NYRA and get a real job. I just hope he dates within his age range.”

Yeah, that’s it, we’re just doing it to get booze. In fact, check our store section, we also ship out bottles of cheap vodka and absinthe if you donate over $50 a year. Oh, and The Post got the dues wrong, it’s $10 a year, and that’s hardly exorbitant. It’s also voluntary, most of our members don’t pay it, not because they don’t care, but because even responsible youth have lots of bills to pay, especially if they’re paying their own car-insurance, or tuition, as many do (contrary to the stereo-type). Now, a fact check. Teen drunk driving has never just gone away due to a law. In fact, examining the data reveals that it did nothing but shift the drunk driving fatalities to another age demographic, instead of reduce them overall. In fact, it’s possible the amount of drunk driving over all increased.I Oh boy! Lots of lives saved by that measure huh? (this was published in a study that we link to in the downloads section of our website, feel free to read the whole thing, quite a revealing bit of research) Oh, and while we don’t advocate for a mini-fridge for all our members, it seems kinda silly that a parent would deny that to their child if he was willing to pay for it himself. And as for getting a real job? Alex seems to enjoy himself greatly, finds his job rewarding, and spends his free time with his friends, (who are, shockingly, around 23-25).

Next:

“Explain in further detail why this is a civil rights issue. Responsibility and wisdom only can come with age, time, and experience. Society the world over has decided that as parents, we decide what is in the best interest of our kids, and that they don’t know it all and haven’t lived long enough to make tough decisions. Simply put, this is YOUR personal crusade, Koroknay-Palicz, and you ought to come to terms with it.”

Why this is a civil rights issue? Seriously? Have you even read a history book? How is a subset of the population being denied basic rights on account of an arbitrary standard that has no basis in fact or logic not a civil rights issue? Wisdom comes with age? Come now, I would say wisdom comes with experience and further knowledge and understanding of self, but while that is generally coorelated to age, there is no causal relationship. A person who leads an unexamined life will be every bit as vapid and shallow at 35 as they were at 15. It’s only through introspection and a desire for growth that people change and mature. That often comes with time, but just as often does not. Why in the world should a mature 18 year old be denied basic rights if he’s more mature and responsible than someone twice his age? Why is he penalized. And how in the nine hells can you say a 20 year old who’s served in Iraq hasn’t “lived long enough to make tough decisions?” I suppose you could make the argument that an Army Corporal just isn’t mature enough to drink - just kill people and watch out for the well being of his fire team. But then you’d be a moron, which I suppose makes sense.

It Gets Better:

“Ageism against 18 year olds? Quel horreur! At least discrimination against the young goes away as they get older . Just wait until this young man turns 45 and faces ageism that doesn’t go away for the rest of your life no matter what he has accomplished or is capable of accomplishing just because he has a little gray hair. Now that’s something to worry about!”

YAY! More bad logic! This just gets better and better. First of all, age discrimination in the work force is bad. My father actually experiences this now as he is over 50, trying to find a job that pays well and rewards his experience. I can certainly say, without any reservation, that this practice of corporations is twisted, and honestly not in their best interest. BUT, and this is a large but, comparing that to stripping away the ability to make medical decisions, ability to control one’s body, ability to vote in elections, ability to decide if they want to be sent to a gulag for “re-education,” does not compare to my father not being able to change jobs whenever he wants to. If you turned 45 and the government took away your ability to vote and to choose medical treatment, I’d certainly be willing to listen to your complaints. Since the government does not do that, I have little sympathy for you. That and I dislike faulty comparisons, though it does make my job easier, for which I thank you.

Oh boy:

“This pied-piper needs a job and a more realistic cause.

Even where the kids have maturity, some of these rules are to protect you from the sleazy adults (Koroknay-Palicz). Just ran into too many of your kind before, I have a hard time believing this is anything more than your old self trying to hold onto childhood, not move the kids into adulthood…. “

Oh for crying out loud. Seriously? Are we really going the pedophile route? Aren’t we better than this? I guess not. Alright then, you sling mud, I’ll sling mud, sorry buddy, you brought this on yourself. The rules that protect kids from “sleazy adults” generally don’t deal with the people most likely to abuse them sexually. Do you know who those people are? Seeing as your ability to use the written word to communicate is a testament to the failings of the American education system, I will assume you don’t. The person most likely is that child’s mother. Second most likely? The father. Guess who else makes the top ten? That’s right! Blood relatives! And do laws protect children from these people? NO! They give these people almost complete control over youth thus making further victimization possible. Do you have kids buddy? If so, you’re infinitely more likely to be molesting them than Alex is. Hopefully child services will come by and take these poor, unfortunate souls away from you. Oh wait, you say you don’t? That I’m making claims on no evidence? That I’m just using statistics to extrapolate a likely, but theoretically untrue, statement? But wait… didn’t you just do that? Oh wait! You did! Only you didn’t have statistics on your side like I do. Heh, funny that. Idiot.

As much as I enjoy this, and I do. I really can’t get this indignant forever. There are a lot of really stupid people, who make incredibly ignorant arguments, and think they are the height of logical brilliance. They are not. And a casual appeal to rationality in a marginally mature individual reveals that quickly. I just hate how they’re allowed to make straw-man arguements and talk out of their asses with stereo-types and people don’t call them on it, while NYRA has to back everything up with 3 studies and a signed statement from Jesus Christ himself. Ageism much?

Comments(2)

First, I’d just like to introduce myself, my name is Bryan Jennings and I’m an intern at NYRA’s National Office, cozy little place that it is, here in Washington DC. I’m at American University for the Semester, but I usually go to Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster Pennsylvania. Those interested in knowing more are free to ask.

Anyway, I watched parts of the Democratic debate last night in between writing a paper for homework and doing my assigned readings and I have to say I was disappointed. Hillary really dodged a lot of questions that should have warranted honest and straight forward answers. What is more sad is that this evasion and obfuscation is seen as a demonstration of skilled statesmanship. To think, not answering a direct question is seen as a quality that makes for a great leader. If it wasn’t so ridiculous I’d call it amusing.

I was also underwhelmed by the perennial favorite of the youth, Barrack Obama. I’ve said it for some time, but I feel that man has very little in terms of policy ideas or true vision for the country and more of a nebulous view that something is wrong, but he’s cautiously optimistic things can all be put right. That’s what gets me about Obama, the cautious optimism. Not that optimism is bad, Winston Churchill, the best Briton since… well… anyone, said that he’s an optimist since he didn’t see the point to being anything else. But Churchill had passion and bold ideas, the “Blood, Sweat, Toil and Tears” speech was not one of cautious optimism, but of a man that honestly knew how to lead. Obama’s answers to questions were… luke warm at best, and when he could have gone after Hillary for dodging questions, he refused to make it confrontational. While I applaud the idea of backing off bitter political infighting there are times when you just need to call people on their BS.

My favorite point in the evening though only lasted a few minutes. A mother of two teenage boys asked the candidates, starting with Joe Biden, if they would support the government no longer strong arming states with highway funds to adopt the 21 year old drinking age. Not the usual sort of question asked in a presidential debate, and one that I thought was interesting, being a 20 year old and living on a dry campus. Biden, to his credit, didn’t pull any punches and attempt to placate people who might disagree. However, his position was one of adamant opposition to lowering the drinking age, on the grounds that alcoholism is a problem in this country. He made some comment about 300,000 children being born deformed by alcohol.

I’ll give Biden the benefit of the doubt on the numbers, though 300,000 seems incredibly high considering the national population of 300 million (that would mean that roughly .1% of the population of America is born deformed by alcohol every year). However, how many of those births are happening because of people drinking under 21? Does the drinking age prevent alcoholism? Isn’t alcoholism a problem of alcohol abuse instead of alcohol use? He also says that drinking leads to many cases of drunk driving. But again, numbers show that more drunk driving happens with people over 40 (Something I didn’t know until I worked here). Also, in a related study, it was shown that most house fires are caused by fire! I wonder when they’ll set a “fire-starting age” to regulate our nation’s fireplaces and wood stoves? He then talked about negotiating health care prices or something? I didn’t really follow it. Astonishingly, Biden’s response received no applause. That’s right. None.
We then move on to another of the Democratic longshots who still remains a very prominent Senator, Chris Dodd. I really like Dodd, I interned with him over the summer. I think he’d make a good president, but his view on alcohol is, like many politicians, backwards. He said that the evidence is “overwhelming.” Indeed it is Senator, but not in the way you think. After we raised the drinking age drunk driving was reduced in the 18-21 year old age bracket. The problem is, it went up, by a nearly identical number in the 21-24 year old age bracket. What more, it didn’t change at all in those areas that already have a 21 year old drinking age before the law went into effect. Oh, and I forgot to mention, 40 year olds still cause more drunk driving accidents than both those age groups put together. The evidence, as the good Senator says, is overwhelming. Dodd also received no applause.

Richardson was up next and he too was opposed to lowering the drinking age back to a reasonable level. He did say how the focus should be on rehabilitating those who abuse alcohol and putting money into medical research in general, he also talked about the importance of educating people about alcohol which is not a horrible answer. Sensing something of a pattern, the moderator, Tim Russert, asked if any candidates supported the drinking age being lowered. I was pessimistic, perhaps I should take lessons from Obama, but to my general astonishment, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich were the voices of reason. Gravel, in his usual tone of “Angry Man Scaring Teenagers Off His Lawn” had this to say:

“I think we should lower it so that anyone who can fight and die for this country can have a drink!” and finished by pointing accusingly at the camera.

The audience went wild, apparently Gravel said something that resonated with voters. Who’d have thought? Not to be outdone, Dennis Kucinich put forth an even more bold proposal:

“I think that not only about service, but we have to have confidence in young Americans and a president who reaches out to them and talks to them about drinking responsibly is much better than a president who tells them ‘Thall Shalt Not’ because young people will do what they do. But they’re looking for leadership from a president, I’m ready to provide that. Of course they should be able to drink at age 18 and they should be able to vote at age 16.”

That got more applause and a bit of laughter, my guess would be on the comment on voting. Putting aside his cute little bit of self-aggrandizement on leadership, Kucinich basically said what NYRA has believed all along: that we need to have faith in young people and that if you give them responsibility, they’ll respond positively. The comment about the voting age was really the most shocking thing to me, and apparently to Kucinich’s campaign as well. According to a NYRA member that actually works in his campaign, no one in the campaign expected him to say that.

I’m glad he did though. Kucinich and Gravel are both seen as longshots, no question, and I don’t realistically see any of them capturing the general election if they somehow manage to make the primary, but having politicians, elected officials, officially endorse what is easily one of the most common sense policy ideas NYRA has is very encouraging. I wished someone of the stature of a Dodd or a Biden had said the same, but I didn’t expect much less, they’re Senators, they’re used to not causing controversy unless it’s very well staged on their terms. (Well, except for Biden, the man knows how to run his mouth, but he’s certainly gotten better).

I also wonder how much of politician’s opposition to lowering the drinking age comes from the remarkably powerful lobby MADD has. They have a multi-million dollar budget, and are strong political advocates, and it’s tough not to sympathize with their position. I think drunk driving is awful too, I just completely disagree with how they approach it. Who knows, maybe one day someone over there will actually agree their approach isn’t working and start playing for the good guys. Until then, we’ll have Kucinich and our friend from Alaska to carry on the fight. And us of course

Comments(1)

MADD is taking notice of our actions to lower the drinking age. If MADD is getting nervous we must be on the right track. Write letters to the editor of your local paper supporting a lower drinking age. We have to keep the pressure on and not wither under a MADD counter-attack.

Lets keep making them sweat!

The e-mail they sent out to their list:

One of the most studied, most effective anti-drunk driving laws ever the 21 minimum drinking age is under attack. Opponents of the law have been appearing in Parade magazine, on MSNBC and Fox News, and in newspapers trying to discredit the law and its effectiveness.MADD is fighting opinion back with the facts. The facts are:

* Almost 50 high-quality studies have found conclusively that the 21 minimum drinking age decreases alcohol-related fatalities by 16 percent

* The brain continues to grow into the early/mid-20s and that drinking before this can damage the brain

* In most countries with lower drinking ages, intoxication is much more common among young people than in the United States

To let people know about these and other facts, we’ve just launched a new Web site at why21.org that provides the truth about underage drinking to all age groups, including information for parents about how to talk to your teens about alcohol. We’re also
focused on educating young people through our elementary school curriculum, middle and high school-based presentations, high school advocacy groups, and college organizations.

We’re trying to get the word out about underage drinking and we’d appreciate your help. Please:
* Let your friends and family know about this important information
* Let your legislators know you want to keep a 21 minimum drinking age

Donate
* Help support MADD’s efforts to stop underage drinking and drunk driving - we need the financial support of people like you to keep delivering high-quality information to young people and adults.

With your support, we can stop the misinformation about underage drinking and help our youth stay alcohol free until the age of 21.

Thank you,
Glynn Birch
MADD National President

Get the REAL truth on the drinking age here. 

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. They are starting to fight! I say, bring it on.

Comments(0)