A risqué Bud Light campaign that critics said encouraged a culture of rape is not prompting the National Park Service or National Park Foundation to reconsider their centennial partnership with Anheuser-Busch.
The campaign, #Upforwhatever,” employed dozens of slogans intended to get drinkers to enjoy life while drinking Bud Light. One of the slogans called Bud Light "the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.”
On Wednesday, stories in the New York Times and Washington Post as well as other outlets reported on it, along with apologies from Bud for the insensitivity of that particular slogan. Critics on social media said the slogan was promoting rape.
In email responses to the Traveler about the impact of that issue on the Budweiser partnership, officials for the Park Service and Park Foundation said they were unconcerned about any fallout on their relationship with the beermaker.
"The Bud Light campaign is not connected to Find Your Park in any way. The Find Your Park campaign is well-aligned with Anheuser-Busch's charitable focus on education, the environment, economic development, disaster relief and military personnel," Park Service spokeswoman April Slayton said.
At the Park Foundation, interim President Dan Wenk said there were no plans to review the partnership, which required a waiver of Park Service regulations prohibiting campaigns that took donations from alcoholic beverage companies to execute.
"As with all corporate partnerships entered into by the National Park Foundation, identifying partners for the Find Your Park public engagement and education campaign was a thoughtful process executed jointly by NPF and NPS," Mr. Wenk said in an email late Wednesday evening. "In the consideration process, Budweiser’s commitment to corporate social responsibility was very apparent. They have done ample work preserving and protecting the environment and supporting local communities, and their philanthropic focus aligned well with the current needs of the national parks. As with any partnership, the relationship will be evaluated by all involved parties at the end of the contract terms."
Budweiser officials did not respond to Traveler inquiries.
The Budweiser partnership, which is expected to feature outdoor concerts at the Statue of Liberty National Monument in New Jersey and Golden Gate National Recreation Area in California and possibly the National Mall in Washington, generated dozens of comments on Traveler's Facebook page, many of them opposing the deal.
"Really bad idea for an agency promoting healthy enjoyment of the outdoors. There should be no promotion of drinking alcohol when hazardous environments are involved. I would hate to think of what may have happened to the rock climbers we watched in Black Canyon of the Gunnison last fall had they stopped for a Bud! Or to those foolish enough to think they can do a Grand Canyon rim to rim hike in a day with a Bud break at the bottom," wrote Karen Carney. "From a pragmatic standpoint I can understand why NPS/NPF would be tempted to accept large sums from AB, but allowing them to use the National Parks in branding in promotion is a BIG mistake IMHO."
Ms. Carney also pointed to the Bud Light slogan and the bad image is created.
"Great idea!," added Ian Billings. "How about a big Bud Light billboard at Old Faithful! Or maybe a McDonald's drive-thru window under Delicate Arch! Ohhh, ohhhh, and am I the only one who wants a Walmart Supercenter in the Redwood Forest?! Didn't think so! More corporate sponsors, please!"
But others pointed to the financial needs of the Park Service and doubted that all of a sudden Budweiser banners would proliferate in the parks. (However, there are expected to be banners that carry the logos of the main corporate sponsors of the centennial -- Budweiser, American Express, REI, Subaru, and Humana.)
"Why not? I'm not going to walk in Yosemite Valley and think 'this is brought to me by Budweiser'!," said David Bristow. "It also isn't going to get me to buy their product. But maybe with the funds they give to our national parks, those treasures can be better maintained and preserved, as well as enjoyed by more people."
At Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, officials called the partnership " a misguided means of reaching out to youth and broadening public support for parks."
“Once it has gotten into bed with its corporate partner, the Park Service cannot pick and choose which market messaging it will embrace and which it will ignore,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the agreement is part of an effort by NPS to raise a $1 billion corporate endowment by its upcoming 2016 centennial. “It is both telling and troubling that the current Park Service leadership sees its core values best reflected in beer ads.”
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
I'm afraid we are already sliding rapidly down that infamous slippery slope of lubricated money. When dollars take priority over other values, we all lose.
Removing "NO" from the vocabulary for the night doesn't only include rape. There's drunk driving among just a few thousand other possible bits of alcohol enhanced stupidity.
But of course, none of this will influence the National Park Foundation where one of their directors is a bigwig in the AB beverage business.
That's why I believe the National Parks Conservation Association is the best choice of major NPS partners and why all of my financial support goes to them. How about others among us contacting NPF with some loud objections? If they receive enough backlash, they might reconsider. (But based on past experiences, I doubt it.)
Thank you for your reporting Traveler and thank you Lee, I could not agree more. I attended a function where the issue of the Bud advertising slogan on this National Park F a oundation campaign was raised, very negative reaction to it. "PEER" laid it out very well.
As long as we keep electing representatives that would rather spend money on wars than parks, the park service is going to have to continue to accept grants wherever they can get them.
I serously doubt that anyone is going to skip going to a National Park over this. There may be a bunch of yelling and screeming and appoligies from AB but in the end it probably won't affect the park much and certainly won't affect it as much as turning down the money would.
"A risqué Bud Light campaign that critics said encouraged a culture of rape "
It is hard for me to get past rediculous aqusations like this and while it may serve the purpose of getting a headline, it distracts from the real issues and for me greatly diminishes any arguments used after that.
Speaking as a former nurse who has had to care for rape victims, I don't find calling an alcohol campaign that promises to ignore no to be 'encouraging a culture of rape' to be a 'rediculous' [sic] 'aqusation' [sic].
"The perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.”
Removing "no" from too many individual's vocabulary is, of course, at the root of many problems today, and that includes doing something stupid during a park trip due to the influence of alcohol. It's always sad to read about a serious incident or death in a park, when the commentary includes the words, "alcohol was believed to be a factor..."
Perhaps AB needs to modify their "drink responsibly" pitch to "advertise responsibly."
If rape is too offensive then you may want to cover your ears. Because that is precisely what Jarvis is doing with public lands. Whoring them out to the highest bidder. Morals are great, unless they apply to the beloved NPS. Hypocrites.
I enjoy venting as much as the next person, but the deeper issue still remains: This is our culture. This is what we have become. If you don't want your Park Service "selling out," how might you better--and far more effectively --get your message across?
By now, everyone should be writing his or her representatives in the U.S. Congress. To be effective, every letter should begin with the proper heading: "The Honorable Patty Murray." Then keep it short. "Dear Senator Murray: Have you watched what is going on at the National Park Service, in conjunction with the National Park Foundation and Budweiser? Are you aware that our appointed officials are promoting alcohol consumption--using our parks? As my elected official, I take exception to that, and expect you to take exception, too. I would even support abolishing the National Park Foundation if that is the best the foundation can do. Thank you for attention to this matter. Sincerely, Your Constituent."
Make it a letter--and send it snail mail. E-mail is answered by clerks. Letters get read--and passed along. There is nothing more powerful than paper.
Here is another secret. Every letter INDIVIDUALLY written is considered the equivalent of 2,000 opinions. A letter-writing campaign is a waste, but yes, a letter from you--speaking from the heart--will be viewed by your senator and/or representative as the equivalent of 2,000 voters.
That is what the Foundation and the Park Service hope you will not get around to do. They hope you will just vent on these pages, and the problem will blow away. In the past, you have spoken out against the Koch Brothers--and their alleged control of Congress--but YOU are the one in real control. You just don't know it, because they don't want you to do anything. That is what they are spending their money on, as will others be betting that their umpteen millions will be able to "buy" your vote next year.
Prove them wrong and write your letter. And don't worry about the "reply" you get. It will be noncommittal. "Dear Mr. Smith, Thank you for writing. The senator always loves hearing from you!" No, she doesn't. She really dreads it, because now you the voter have taken a stand. I want my national parks this way, not "their" way. And I want them protecting the best of America from now on.
Meanwhile, I just love what Dan Wenk says about the "thoughtful process executed jointly by NPF and NPS." Here again, we see an adjective, in this case "thoughful," intended to mask a decision that was anything but. People with nothing to hide never have to resort to adjectives. That Mr. Wenk is using a ton of them tells us everything we need to know. Now, write your letter and don't forget the stamp.
Thank you Dr. Runte. Right on. Interesting enough, people are taking notice, received a call from the local newspaper on this issue, other friends have as well. Alfred, I would like to see your post in letter form. Thinking back on my own 37 year tenure as a Park Ranger, I was discussing this with a friend who did a workup one time on all the LE incidents s/he responded to and what was the root cause of the issue, believe it or not, 75% were related to alcohol or drugs. In my case I would say it was closer to 80%.
Not too disagree with Dr. Runte's fine post, but be aware that delays of several weeks or even months are common before letters reach Congress-critters in DC. This is a hangover from the anthrax attacks years ago. This article suggests that if you must, write to the official's office in your state:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1143878
Smokies Backpacker - my very sincere wish is that no female relative or friend of yours experiences the very real tragedy of rape, which is such a different reality from your use of the word to describe policies you disagree with that there is really no comparison. Don't let your passion for your issues belittle by comparison what women experience in these crimes.
And what percentage of those that consumed alcohol didn't result in an incident? What percentage of those that drink don't rape? What percentage don't drive under the influence? You are painting an entire legal industry and nearly ubiquitous practice with an evil brush due to the despicable behavoir of a few. Once again its an attitude of punish/shun everyone rather than just the perpetrators.
Do I want beer banners hanging in my parks? No but I don't want any other corporate logos either. However, I am not so pollyannish as to turn down monies the park sorely needs just because the product is alcohol.
Actually, EC, all of the statistics here are very compelling. An estimated one half of all automobile fatalities are due to drugs and alcohol. For young people under age 24, the primary cause of death is auto accident. So, where does that leave us in the parks? As I recall the Walt Disney movie, Pollyanna fell out of a tree. In the real world, the one in which my ranger friend lost his 18-year old son 25 years ago, the cause of death was a drunken driver who took Chad out at 65 mph. Chad never had a chance.
I just don't like the odds, nor were those odds ever meant for our national parks. But there you have it--what the widening and straightening of park roads portend, especially with alcohol in the mix.
The parks don't "sorely need" a thing, other than a moral compass. They are supposed to be different; they were always meant to be different. That is why we call them national parks. The Park Service no longer sees that because we no longer insist on it. Got money? Do whatever you want.
I will tell you this as a historian. This current crew managing the parks is digging themselves a hole no historian will ever let them crawl out of. Unless, of course, the public allows it. So yes, they are counting on you, EC. Look the other way and take the check. And when another kid dies in a park (although Chad happened to die outside one), shed a tear, do a news release, and get everything back to normal as quickly as possible.
Fate I can understand. The ancient Greeks taught us about the power of fate. But encouraging fate is something else again--like walking against the light in the middle of the street. We shouldn't want to encourage fate in our national parks, nor in any way suggest that we do. If a bear gets you, that is fate. If a drunk gets you, should we now call it being Budweisered?
I agree Alfred (thank you again), the numbers are quite compelling and take up a huge amount of time for the park protection staff. Not only tragic accidents, severe disruptions to other visitors, time consuming litigation and court time, it is the single most time consuming duty I had on the night shift in Yosemite. No one here is suggesting banning all alcohol sales in the parks, but that might be a good idea, the issue is displaying the logo of a beer company in our park visitor centers. If that is the only way we can get philanthropic assistance or get the youth of the country interested in our national ecological, historic and cultural heritage, we are in trouble. Excessive alcohol consumption on college campus, in our parks, in our neighborhoods is a serious issue, anyone that has not experienced that is living a sheltered life or blind to what is happening. Thank you Harry for an excellent letter, RickB, Jim, all of you have hit the nail on the head in my own opinion.
According to the CDC, injuries, deaths and serious impacts on the nation's economy due to excessive alcohol use involved a lot more people than "a few."
That agency notes, "Excessive alcohol use ... accounted for approximately 88,000 deaths per year from 2006–2010, and accounted for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20–64 years. Excessive alcohol use shortened the lives of those who died by about 30 years."
"A study found that nearly 70% of deaths due to excessive drinking involved working-age adults, and about 70% of the deaths involved males. The study also found that about 5% of the deaths involved people younger than age 21."
"The impact of these deaths affects the nation's economy and the sustainability of families. Excessive drinking cost the United States about $224 billion ...in 2006, and about 40% of these costs were paid by government."
Am I suggesting we go back to prohibition? Of course not, but I am saying irresponsible ads by the industry such as the one mentioned in this story make a joke of their "drink responsibly" PR efforts, and using national parks to promote products that cause this amount of harm to society is not acceptable.
Does anyone really believe the industry doesn't expect an improved bottom line and image as a result of ads linking their products to iconic places in our parks? If so, you'll likely be a candidate for some Florida real estate that's only underwater part of the year.
Not as a percent of the total. You (and Alfred) have to keep things in perspective. What percent of the population indulges in "excessive alcohol use" and then creates injuries deaths and serious impacts. It is a minor portion of the population. Should we really base policy on the bad acts of a minor portion of the population?
Of course not. If they weren't getting an improved bottem line I would think they would be acting contrary to the interest of their shareholders. But whether they are improving their bottom line or not is irrelevant unless you concern is successful companies rather than healthy parks.
Not to be overly argumentative, EC, but your stating that it is a minor portion of the population doesn't make it so. Some of us who have had to sweep up after the parade, so to speak, would offer a different opinion, based on hard won experience.
Fine Rick - what percentage of the population engages in rapes, drunken driving incidents, deaths and serious impacts due to alcohol? Please document.
Mr. Dan Wenk
First of all let me say that I think many of us who support and are concerned about the future and wellbeing of our National Parks do appreciate that you took the time to respond to the growing chorus of criticism concerning the partnership between the Park Service and Budweiser.
However we are astounded that you have no plans to review this matter and that “As with all corporate partnerships entered into by the National Park Foundation, identifying partners for the Find Your Park public engagement and education campaign was a thoughtful process executed jointly by NPF and NPS." Surely you jest and cannot really mean this.
You further state that "In the consideration process, Budweiser’s commitment to corporate social responsibility was very apparent. They have done ample work preserving and protecting the environment and supporting local communities, and their philanthropic focus aligned well with the current needs of the national parks. As with any partnership, the relationship will be evaluated by all involved parties at the end of the contract terms."
I must say that if you did not realize this involvement with Budweiser was a bad idea before last week you must know it now. Just read the dozens of posts on National Parks Traveler, Facebook and other social media. The message from your public is clear. We do not like the association of the Park Service with Budweiser and their "the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.”slogan. This is not funny. This is really bad idea.
Your statement exhibits hubris, arrogance and if I may say a “tin ear.” Just listen to the outrage that this proposal is generating. Do you not care? Do you not understand the damage you have done to the National Park Foundation and the National Park Service by continuing to follow this course. Just admit that this was a mistake. Stop the “partnership” and cut your losses now. The Foundation and the National Park Service made a mistake-a really bad mistake.
Is it really worth the $2.5 million Budweiser will give to the foundation to continue? Budweiser will spend 100 times that amount just on adds celebrating its association with our parks. What does the Park Service get in return? Fleas, just fleas and that is all.
Does someone commenting here have large stockholdings in Budweiser?
Thank you, Dr. Runte, Ron, Rick and others. To add a little to Tahoma's tip to send the letter to the Congresscritter's state office, if you live close enough, drop the letter off in person and ask to speak to the senior staffer when you do. I've found that to be very effective -- except with Rob Bishop. I even received two personal phone calls from Orrin Hatch and one from Bob Bennett when he was in office.
Give it a shot. You might be surprised at the results.
In the meantime, when money speaks, it often overwhelms reason.
I don't know Lee. Who would you suggest? Do you have any knowledge that someone posting here as a large holding in AB? Or, is this just one of your typical unsubstantiated ad hominen attacks?
Sorry, Eric. Not going there.
I gave you my professional opinion based on close to 30 years in the business. And that's as far as I'm going. Have a nice day.
Of course you aren't because the number wouldn't support your position. Yes, people abuse alcohol. People are hurt by alcohol. But then people are hurt by many items that the vast majority of people use and enjoy responsibly every day. We don't "outlaw" those items because a few are hurt. We don't punish responsible users for the misdeeds of a few. We don't judge hundreds of millions based on the relatively few that you may have been exposed to.
Some will shrug off 88,000 deaths a year and an estimated annual cost to the nation's economy of $224 billion as a result of alcohol misuse as "minor," ... but others of us put a different value on those individual lives that were wasted.
As a couple of others have noted, those of us who have loaded some mangled bodies into rubber bags, or knocked on a front door to deliver some terrible news to a parent or or spouse, tend to have a different view of "minor percentages" as they relate to alcohol-related mayhem.
I, for one, am opposed to any advertising that seeks to promote or encourage increased use of these products in parks - or to associate them in any way with those special areas. Just my opinion, and others are clearly welcome to adhere to a different standard.
Assuming that number is true it is less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the population. Tragic for them - yes. But are we to base national policy on that?
PS Do you have a source for "$224 billion as a result of alcohol misuse"?
If that is "the issue", I am in 100% agreement. No, and not the logo of any other corporation either.
In response to a question above, CDC link for economic costs of alcohol use was provided above, and here's some more related directly to the current pitch by the industry to connect a "new generation of beer drinkers" with national parks.
"[In 2013] 696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 were assaulted by another student who has been drinking, and 97,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 report experiencing alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape."
The American College of Surgeons says there are "37 million emergency department visits from trauma" and "Alcohol is responsible for approximately half of all trauma deaths and nonfatal injuries in the United States."
Yes, some people can use alcohol "responsibly," but stats confirm plenty of them don't. The American College of Surgeons says, "Even those who drink 'relatively low levels,' in other words, less than one drink per day, are at a greater risk of getting injured."
Natural areas such as national parks have enough inherent hazards that anything that impairs visitors either mentally or physically is undersirable. Just one example: Alcohol is a major factor in the number of deaths at Lake Mead each year, as it is for boating accidents nationwide.
The beer industry is selling plenty of their products without any help from the NPS, and the agency certainly doesn't need to be any part of the industry's desire to "introduce a new generation of beer drinkers"... to national parks.
Let's reduce the advertising phrase "introduce a new generation of beer drinkers to the national parks" to its real meaning. What it really means is "to entice a new generation into the world of alcoholic irresponsibility and potential addiction."
All in the name of money.
How anyone can support the alcohol industry with a clear conscience is beyond me. But experience has shown time and time again that dollars can dull the conscience of almost anyone if they allow it.
It would be very interesting to learn if the recent falling death at Grand Canyon was in any way connected with consumption of alcohol.
Thank you, Jim, for posting those links.
Director Jarvis. I think we would like to hear from you on this issue. Do you still think associating the Park Service with Budweiser represents a positive message to young generations of Americans. Do you really want this to be part of your legacy as Director?
You really need to respond to all of the concerns voiced by those of us who love our wonderful system on National Parks. We are your allies and we want to hear you address this matter. If you do not respond history will judge you and your legacy and you may not like what history will say
Sorry Jim, can't buy the $224 billion number. "lost productivity'? Well then, I guess laziness cost the economy $1 trillion. Let's outlaw laziness. And of course that number isn't net of the contribution that alcohol makes to the economy in the form of sales, jobs, taxes etc. BTW - how does the government pay for "lost productivity'? Are these mostly government workers?
Are there some that use it irresponsibly - yes. But then there are some that drive irresponsibly but we don't ban cars we punish the people that use them irresponsibly. Lee can't see how anyone can support the alcohol industry. Just shows how out of touch he is as the vast majority of adult Americans do that responsibly on a regular basis.
But we are off topic. I say take the money but keep the logos out.
A fine idea, Harryb. Before the day is over I will have mailed a paper letter to Director Jarvis. On Monday I'll be at the door of Senator Hatch's local office with a letter to him. Let's try to start a movement here. What might happen if there was a deluge of letters to people who might be in positions to act?
Okay, here is the text of my letter to Director Jarvis:
Mr. Jon Jarvis
Director, National Park Service
National Park Service
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Director Jarvis:
I am a former national park ranger. I am extremely disturbed about news that the Park Service is entering an agreement to allow Budweiser beer to use the parks in advertising in exchange for some money.
During my years in the service, I had the awful task of recovering several bodies following accidents of various kinds. I don’t know if you’ve ever had to bag a decomposing park visitor, but any of us who have cannot easily forget the experience. In almost every case, alcohol was a contributing – if not direct – cause of the person’s death. In some cases, the deceased was an innocent victim of another who had been drinking.
Most of my law enforcement actions in the parks were alcohol fueled. Now, to think of the service joining in a campaign to actually encourage more use of beer by young people in our parks is simply disgusting. The wild nature of many of our parks means there are hazards to visitors as they hike, climb and simply drive. To partner with a campaign that encourages use of a substance that “provides the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary,” is something our parks do not need no matter how much money may be paid for the privilege.
I ask you to please stop this blatant misuse of our parks as an advertising gimmick.
Respectfully,
Luke E. Dalton
I hope every other TRAVELER reader who cares about this will send a similar letter.
Wonderful letter Lee. I could not have said this any better. Thank you so much. I will send a similiar letter to Director Jarvis but based on past experience I will not expect a reply.
During my years as an ER nurse we had a term for a large class of assault victims - a "2-5-I". It came from the standard "explanation" --- "I only had two beers" ..."there were about five guys there" ... "and I was just standing there!"
A few weeks ago, a plane went down in France. Horrified, we learned that the co-pilot deliberately crashed it. How many people were killed? "Relative" to the population of Europe, not many. But what if YOU or a loved one had been on that plane?
That is how we properly look at statistics. In the airline industry, passengers are referred to as "souls." When our National Park Service starts referring to visitors as anything less than that, you know there is a problem. Every "soul" in the national parks is important. That they perhaps die in "predictable" numbers is not to say we should want any to die.
We have no "official" firearm of the national parks, do we? Official car or motor home? Official potato chip? Official salsa? Official (put your product name here)? Then why are we suddenly allowing alcohol "official" status? It absolutely makes no sense.
EC is right, of course. We don't penalize the responsible users of any product, provided it is legal. But where he misses the boat--and where the Park Service goes down with the ship--is in the suggestion that legal makes everything right. My mother made the point with the expression "dead right." "Al, the speed limit may say 70, but if it is raining or snowing, going 70 may make you dead right."
Once again, the Park Service has proved itself "dead right." It went the speed limit and crashed into the wall. It made light--in this case Bud Light--of what we expect our government to do. It did the legal thing, but it forgot to do the right thing. And is that not the common tragedy of our times?
No it is not. If it were, we wouldn't be driving cars, we wouldn't be riding in planes, we wouldn't bicycle, swim, ski, ....... We educate and try to economicily reduce the risk but we don't avoid the behavior. Who are you (generic you) to say living to 80 without drinking is a better life than enjoying alcohol and dying at 70 with liver failure? You can make that choice and I won't interfere but I would rather die early enjoying life than live forever in a bubble.
I have made the point several times that is not the case and certainly haven't made that the basis of my justification here.
Associating the parks with really crappy beer is the true crime here, especially when we have so many good craft beers. ;)