Rodricks a waste of printable space

Dan Rodricks, as usual, proved he's not that smart today with his column regarding Michael Phelps and the drinking age.

Rodricks tries to make the argument that because Michael Phelps was arrested for drunk driving at 19, clearly it proves that the drinking age should not be lowered from 21 to 18.

That's his entire argument. As illogical as it is. Never mind the fact that drunk driving is a crime separate from that of underage drinking. Never mind the fact that he makes no other connection between Phelps' arrest and the drinking age. Rodricks just wants the reader to make some sort of unspoken, innate connection between drunk driving and lowering the drinking age.

It is reasonable to believe that the drinking age should remain 21. Rodricks argument, however, is somewhere between ridiculous and nonexistent.

Maybe if the Sun really wanted to attract readers, they would stop redesigning the paper every six months and instead replace columnists like Rodricks with reasonably talented, reasonably intelligent writers who can defend their positions in a logical, reasonable manner. Because let's face it, printing a Rodricks column is little more than a waste of paper and ink.