I thought the French had the model to prevent underage binge drinking.

I have heard before that the French had less problems associated with alcohol because kids are allowed to drink from a young age and therefore they do not react like Americans who are prohibited from drinking until age 21.  I guess that theory is dead:

---

France mulls happy-hour ban to curb youth drinking
PARIS, May 19 (Reuters) - France is considering a ban on happy hours in bars and on the sale of bottles of vodka and other strong liquor in nightclubs as part of efforts to curb binge drinking among young people, an official said on Monday.

The proposed measures are being discussed with producers and distributors of alcoholic drinks and decisions are expected within weeks, said Etienne Apaire, head of a government body in charge of the fight against addiction to drugs or alcohol.

"What we have seen in recent years is an increase in alcohol consumption among young people, and in particular an increase in the kinds of behaviour that lead to drunkenness,"

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7525727

 

 

Nuclear Option

Isn’t it time we began satisfying our energy demand with nuclear energy?  We are burning fossil fuels, much of it imported, when we could safely and cleanly generate electricity with nuclear.

 

Of course we have to deal with the waste issue and we have to develop safe reactors. 

 

Imagine electric cars, fueled by domestically generated zero emission power.  In my opinion, the expanded use of nuclear power needs to be part of our energy future. 

 

We can start on this today.

What is wrong with taking care of the homefront first?

I was talking with a friend today with the perception that America is to solve all the world’s problems.  We send foreign aid all around the world, for all sorts of purposes, in amounts that cannot be compared to any other country in the world, yet it is never enough. 

 

Shortly after this conversation I came across this article on MSNBC.com

 

---

A five-year farm bill in Congress this week does little to address the growing global food crisis. Instead, it diverts money that could be spent feeding poor children abroad to give more subsidies for U.S. farmers now enjoying record high crop prices and incomes.

Food experts, international aid groups and the White House all complain that the $300 billion bill crafted by House and Senate negotiators focuses on the wrong priorities. The bill has widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, but President Bush has promised to veto it.

While the legislation does send some food relief abroad, the amount is less than 1 percent of the bill's total cost. At the same time, the measure maintains subsidies to U.S. farmers at levels that hurt poor countries trying to produce food on their own, critics say.

Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said last week the bill is incompatible with the world economy as poor weather, high fuel prices and growing need are contributing to higher food prices and severe hunger in developing nations. Bush contends it's too expensive and too generous to wealthy U.S. farmers.

---

I say cut agree that our silly farm subsidies hurt the international farmer and should be abolished, but the idea that we owe the world the solution to the ‘growing global food crisis’ is ridiculous.  Let’s take care of America’s interests first.  After our problems are solved we can evaluate what we can offer the rest of the world.    

In yesterdays SF Chronicle

Brentwood the poster child for housing bust

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/11/MNGE1095FT.DTL