Raise "tuition" without raising tuition--just don't mention the acetaldehyde

Actually, now that I think about it, if the acetaldehyde is mentioned it'll be lost on the victims of my scheme, anyway.

The Desert Lamp has resumed, perhaps with the application of a bit of tequila to the flickering wick; among the several topics covered are colored beer cans.

Evan Lisull's most recent post discusses a Federal Trade Commission objection to, of all things, colored beer cans. Anheuser Busch/InBev has been packaging Bud Light in cans with color schemes matching those of the U.S.'s biggest party schools state megauniversities.

The FTC and many colleges have objected, claiming that this may somehow encourage more underage drinking to take place--as though an 18 year old will think harder before he has the regular Bud Light than the one in University of Arizona blue and red--and might be construed as University endorsement of the product. The University of Arizona has been silent on the matter.

They should embrace it and even go one farther: license the "A" logo or the silly Wildcat thing, and charge a per-can royalty.

I'm guessing that the Bud Light drinkers, especially the ones who'd be more inclined to drink it because of the logo, overlap considerably with those who moan--and hop buses to the Capitol en masse to moan--about tuition fee increases (how dare they charge me more for this private good?) even as the State faces extreme shortfalls. I'm fairly certain they're also the ones who shout "ow!" at random on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights, who blast stereos from their cars, who pile five at a time into trucks and harass pedestrians, and who generally lower both the University's prestige and, more importantly, the quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood by others.

Bud Light licensing, like a surcharge for the most obnoxious students. Fair enough, right?