A buddy of mine told me that some college presidents want to lower the drinking age to 18 so there won't be as much binge-drinking on campus. Please tell me exactly when and where this will happen, because I'm a 17-year-old high school senior, and if there's a college out there that will let me drink next year, I want to send out an application.
Billy Sunday Jr.
Dear Billy:
You must be referring to Monday's news flash that presidents from "about 100 of the best-known U.S. universities" are calling for "an informed and dispassionate debate" about lowering the de facto federal drinking age from 21 to 18.
The debate has been heard before, and, at the risk of simplifying a complex issue by breaking it down into two basic arguments (an American pastime, by the way), here are those two arguments:
1) Lowering the drinking age to 18 would cut down on binge drinking because young adults, consuming alcohol legally in public settings rather than getting wasted in dark corners before anyone notices, would learn their own boundaries and limitations in the same way as any adult with legal access to alcohol ....
... and ...
2) Lowering the drinking age to 18 would expand both the roster of functional alcoholics stumbling through society and the armada of drunk drivers slaughtering themselves and others on the nation's roadways.
The Swami is not here to pass moral judgment on this or any such firestorm, but gazing into the crystal ball can instruct us on if and when the United States of America, former home of the Eighteenth Amendment and current home to beer commercials every five minutes during a football game, will allow 18-year-olds to not only vote and not only swear an oath to the military but also purchase and consume alcohol ...
... hmmmm ... it's coming in rather clearly now ...
Your answer: 21 will remain the magic number. And everyone under 18 will still openly go to a house party and tap a keg provided by someone with either a fake I.D. or an older brother -- America's preferred method of developing boundaries.
How bout that Sox fan getting whipped on by a couple of Cub fans -- isn't that story usually the other way around? Should Cub fans be on the lookout for some kind of retaliation?
Mordecai Brown
Dear Three-Finger:
What story could you be referring to? You mean the vicious beating of a Gurnee man at the hands of not one or two but three men? At a toddler's birthday party? Fascinating how this became a Cubs-Sox thing.
But headlines don't lie, do they?
"Cubs Fans Accused of Beating White Sox Fan"
"Cubs-Sox Dispute Turns Ugly, Man Loses Eye"
"White Sox Fan Takes One for the Team; Loses Eye in Rivalry Brawl"
"Rivalry Brawl"? If we were honest about this -- in other words, if the facts got in the way of a good story -- the headlines would read much differently:
"Beer-Muscle Arguments Escalate All Day, End In Felony Charges"
"Trailer-Trash Behavior Glamorized by Media"
"Binge-Drinking Produces the Expected Results"
"Battery Story Moves From Page 18 to Page 1 Thanks to Minor Detail"
As to your question about whether or not this will produce a retaliatory response somewhere south of Madison Street, the crystal ball tells us that ... hmmm ... headline writers are going to be busy before this long, hot summer is over.
I'm planning to head out to the Chain Saturday to check out the Sand Bar Party, because I read where "Girls Gone Wild" is filming out there. Anyways, now my girlfriend is all mad at me. I tried to tell her it's all in fun, but she whipped a plastic cup at me. What should I tell her?
Ducking in Deerfield
Dear Duck:
You seem to have confused The Swami for Miss Lonelyhearts, but your topic is too good to kick aside. When it comes to "Girls Gone Wild," the world seems to be of two minds:
1) There is nothing wrong with a display of the adult female form if it is done willingly,
or 2) People who participate in this stuff are dumbing us down to the Stone Age.
The truth of the matter, as we all must admit, is that this is a classic case of both sides being 100 percent right. As an experiment, run that one past your girlfriend, and see if any more cups get whipped at you.
Tomorrow's news, via the crystal ball of The Swami: Waukegan will be awarded the vacant casino license by the Illinois Gaming Board ... hmmm, let us see ... sometime between Halloween and Thanksgiving.
This forecast is based on, well, the visions seen in the crystal ball. But also on a logical process of eliminating the competition.
Rosemont won't get the license for the same reason it's up for grabs four years after Rosemont was (almost) awarded the license -- everyone from unpopular Gov. Rod Blagojevich to your next U.S. Senator from Illinois, Lisa Madigan, doesn't want Rosemont to get it. If they did, slot jockeys would be bleeding nickels on River Road as of this moment.
Country Club Hills, Summit and everyone else south of the Ike/Ron Reagan won't get a casino for five reasons -- Aurora, East Chicago, Gary, Hammond and Joliet, which between them have seven casinos to serve the Chicago Southland, as they call it down there.
Communities outside the Chicago metropolitan area? Don't even come to the table. The last time the license went up for auction, three companies put up a total of $1.5 billion worth of bids to put a casino north of I-80 and east of the Tri-State. The state is banking on more of the same action.
This brings us to Des Plaines, the sleeper candidate that, technically, finished ahead of Waukegan in the Great Casino License Fiasco of 2004. What will put Waukegan ahead this time around? Two things: First and foremost, Illinois has been leaking gamers into Milwaukee, and the Prairie State power brokers want this to stop.
And two, because this 11-year melodrama -- complete with court battles and multi-million-dollar auctions and allegations of mob ties -- has to have a more exciting ending than Des Plaines.
I read last week where you were picking on Six Flags for putting those $1 lockers at ride entrances, and a little while back you were said the new Six Flags mascot is lame. What is your problem with Six Flags, anyway?
Ashley in Gurnee
Dear Ashley:
Rather than address the big picture here, The Swami is going to focus on a single hidden element in your complaint: your use of the term "Six Flags" to describe the amusement park that is now, always has been and always shall be GREAT AMERICA.
Evidently, seeing that your name is one of the most popular U.S. girl names from the 1990s, you are a member of this younger generation that calls our local theme park "Six Flags," as mandated by Madison Avenue. This is wrong on so many levels, not the least of which is the fact that the history behind the name "Six Flags" has everything to do with Texas (home of the original theme park under that banner) and nothing to do with Illinois, the Chicago Metro Area, Lake County, Warren Township or Gurnee.
Young lady, long before there was a "Six Flags Great America," it was known as "Marriott's Great America," and for a short time it was technically "Bally's Great America." At no time did anyone call the park "Marriott's" or "Bally's." It was simply Great America. That's all you had to say, and no one confused what you were saying with Kiddieland or Old Chicago. Or Six Flags Over Mid-America, as they used to call the one in St. Louis.
So join The Swami in a new and ambitious campaign to educate the current and coming generations on the proper name for that little corner of $54.99 heaven on Grand Avenue. It is called Great America -- just as it will be when, not if, Six Flags sells the naming rights to U.S. Cellular or WaMu.
Did you see where United Airlines is going to start charging $15 for every checked bag? Everyone's got their hands out for more, more, more. Where is the outrage?
Beside Myself in Bannockburn
Dear B.M.:
To answer your first question, yes, of course The Swami saw that United is going to take away a freebie -- The Swami sees all, usually before it happens. That's the definition of being a seer, after all.
As for your second question about The Outrage: there is plenty of it to go around in America, but it is reserved for things like politics, religion and recreational activities played by other people (a.k.a. professional sports). If there is any impotent rage left over for economic issues, it is used on the price of gas ... and, here in Lake County this summer, on the new policy by Six Flags Great America to charge customers $1 every time they want to check a bag, camera or other valuable that can't be brought on a ride.
That's right -- no more sticking that floppy hat or sandals in an open box before jumping on your favorite vomit rocket. Now you have to pay a buck for one of those tiny lockers with the key that works exactly once ... or you don't ride the ride.
Where is the outrage? There is the outrage. The Swami foresees that you will hear an earful about this from everyone you know who goes to Great America this summer.
Dear Swami, I don’t understand the “Profiles in Excellence” event they held this weekend in North Chicago. The lead speaker invents sneakers? Is this really considered being an inventor? Signed, Noogies in North Chicago
Oh, wise Swami, what does the crystal say about this weekend’s Super Bowl? Who wins and will Janet Jackson suffer another wardrobe malfunction? Signed, Hogtied in Hoboken .
Swami, our home town Waukegan baseball hero Gary Bennett admits he used Human Growth Hormone in 2003, used it only once to take care of an injury, admits it was a mistake and didn’t use it again. Do you believe him? Weepy in Waukegan.
Swami: People are always saying we should put Christ back into Christmas, but instead of seeking to put Christ into Christmas, we must acknowledge that He was never there in the first place! Instead of borrowing from the world around us, we ought to take our religious customs and practices directly from the Bible. Then we will be worshiping our Creator in spirit and truth Signed: Ms. Black Ice.
