Since the days of Alexander the Great, binge drinking has been a very popular past time - leading to him apparently killing a friend and burning down Persepolis while drunk.

Those are some Great shoes to fill.

Yet, governments, schools and the media have repeatedly tried to teach us of binge drinking's dangers. 

Dartmouth University has taken the lead, instigating a new nationwide policy to curb heavy drinking by their students.

Pour me another glass.

Binge drinking is defined as "the consumption of five or more drinks in a row by men — or four or more drinks in a row by women — at least once in the previous 2 weeks. Heavy binge drinking includes three or more such episodes in 2 weeks."

Seems I don't know anyone who isn't a heavy binge drinker.

Do you think this definition should be changed or should we change people's attitudes? Or should you follow HPD's no fools guide to drinking a lot but not dying?  . . read more

On the up side, with Democrats one or two votes away from the 60 they need to stop Republican filibusters in the Senate, moderate Republicans will be heavily courted during close votes. But the down side is what happens during the next election. If a moderate Republican votes against the Democrats, they will be viewed as obstructionist by the voters and might get voted out by an increasingly democratic constituency. But if they stick with the Republicans, they face being defeated by conservative Republicans during the primary.

Thus we have the ironic situation where two consecutive election routs for the Republicans, instead of driving them toward more popular positions, has made moderates (like former Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon or Chris Shays, the formerly last remaining Republican congressman from New England) easy targets for defeat. Republican Senator Susan Collins puts it bluntly:

I would hope that the more conservative members of our caucus would take a look at these election results. It's difficult to make the argument that our candidates lost because they were not conservative enough.

But ironically, the Republican party is swinging more conservative, despite the fact that this will likely lead to more defeat.

Take the case of Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a well respected moderate Republican who is up for reelection in 2010. Pennsylvania is a state where the electorate is becoming increasingly Democratic and the unions are gaining power. The last time a pro-labor bill came up in the Senate, Specter was the only Republican who voted to bring the bill up for a vote. If he votes to end a filibuster on a future labor bill, he will hand his expected primary challenger, Pat Toomey, a powerful weapon.

Because Pennsylvania holds closed primaries, only Republicans, who are becoming more conservative, can vote during the primary. This make it harder for moderates like Specter to win Republican primaries. But since the country as a whole is swinging liberal, these more conservative Republican candidates will have a harder time in the general election.

The last presidential election made things even more difficult for the Republicans, since the drawn out Democratic primary caused many moderates to switch their registration from Republican to Democratic, in order to vote in the primary. Many of these moderates won't bother to switch back, making it even harder for moderate Republicans.

Personally, given the problem moderate Republicans will have getting reelected, and the attention that Republican Senators will get during close votes, I wouldn't be surprised if a few moderate Republicans decide that they are better off switching sides. And this will continue the vicious cycle, pushing Republicans into becoming an even more fringe party.

Political Irony is a blog for Humor and Hypocrisy from the World of Politics . . read more

For John Warlover McCain to campaign for the highest office in the land while standing where Dr. King, the preeminent messenger for peace, was shot is hypocrisy of the vilest order and underlines the depths to which this psycho manipulator will travel for opportunity and power. After all, in 1983, McCain voted against creating a Martin Luther King federal holiday. To put it eloquently, John McChicanery sucks.

As the presidential hopeful told the booing crowd at the Lorraine Motel on Friday, "We can all be a little late sometimes in doing the right thing," I wondered how often McCain has been anywhere near early or prompt in doing something other than the wrong thing. I think of the children of Vietnam who were melted beyond recognition by the flip of a switch, controlled by the bomber-pilot McCain.

Many who consider him a hero will say that this status is forever carved in history because when offered release from captivity, he allowed someone who'd been there longer to leave. I disagree vehemently. Certainly, it was decent of McCain to wait his turn, however this act doesn't grant him a lifetime "get outta jail free card". That was then and there have been plenty of occasions between that time and now for him to step up. McCain says he's evolved, but his evolution has an aroma of politics. [More] . . read more

The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery. Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth — in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated. [More] . . read more

How can we expect the exercise of our freedom to assemble to have any value if the assembled masses are doing little more than throwing temper tantrums at not being in control? How can we expect fair treatment in a court of law if we are not willing to respect the laws in our own actions of living? How can we expect our vote to matter if we do not hold those we elect accountable to their promises and our expectations?...

If we are in danger of losing our freedom of religion, isn’t it because we have not practiced what we have preached? If we are in danger of losing integrity in our news reporting, isn’t because we have not asserted our right to know and understand the truth? If we are in danger of losing our freedom of speech, isn’t it because we have chosen to remain silent? If we are in danger of losing our right to assemble, isn’t it because we have wasted the effort when assembled together? If we are in danger of being treated unjustly, isn’t it because we have chosen to disregard justice? [More] . . read more

In any event, now we know what Obama was talking about when he preached his daily sermon on “hope” and “change.” You thought he was talking about peace in Iraq, health care for everyone, and other leftist nonsense. In reality, Brother Obama hopes to change all of you into evangelicals. He and George Bush are old pals. God told George to invade Iraq. What will God tell Brother Obama?...

I wonder if Brother Obama has forgotten a theological issue that led Protestants and Catholics to slaughter each other with astonishing efficiency during Europe’s religious wars, which occurred a relatively short time ago. Are we saved by our faith or by our faith and works? The opposing answers to that question provided a convenient excuse for carnage. The underlying motives for the carnage were, of course, what they always are — wealth and power. Today, a new Thirty Years’ War, or maybe longer, seems well underway in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Brother Obama, we’ve had enough presidential theology. Feed the hungry. End the war. [More] . . read more

Bob Herbert shocked even me by quoting Andrew Young, who said that his pal Clinton was “every bit as black as Barack” because he’d screwed more black chicks. How is Hillary Clinton, or Chelsea Clinton, supposed to feel on hearing that little endorsement? One gets the impression, though, at least from the wife, that anything is OK as long as it works, or even has a chance of working.

Say what you will about Sen. Obama (and I say that he’s got much more charisma than guts), he is miles above this sort of squalor and has decent manners. Say what you will about the Clintons, you cannot acquit them of having played the race card several times in both directions and of having done so in the most vulgar and unscrupulous fashion. Anyone who thinks that this equals “change” is a fool, and an easily fooled fool at that.  . . read more