Parents (and schools) need to chill out.

In 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton proposed codifying videogame ratings and making it illegal for stores to sell M-rated games to people under age 18. Today, some secondary schools ban social networking not only to free up their limited computer resources for more studious activities, but also because they fear that students will post personal information. If they're allowed to create their own content and publish it online with school computers, schools fear that they'll be tricked into meeting or be kidnapped by a child molester.

Some secondary schools even ban Wikipedia because they think that minors take everything at face value and are thus vulnerable to Wikipedia's supposed unreliability. It was feared that a 2006 bill would have required all schools that receive federal funding to prohibit Websites that allow students to publish their own content, like Wikipedia, but the Internet community may have simply overreacted and and overstated the bill's scope.

The thing is, even though schools and helicopter parents often fail to teach kids to not accept everything they learn as fact, kids are pretty sensible and can filter out poor and inaccurate information, and know better than to fall victim to online sexual predators. Though more violent kids may be more drawn to violent videogames than less violent kids, there's no evidence to suggest that kids absorb the violence they're exposed to in fictional videogames and recreate it in the real world. Kids aren't dumb sponges who unquestionably believe everything they're told by their teachers, friends, and parents, and read in Wikipedia, Britannica, and school textbooks.

Fortunately, I think a backlash against overbearing schools and helicopter parenting is just beginning, and it's about time. Moral panics only last for so long.

Five years later, John McCain attempts to rewrite history on his "mission accomplished" statement

I'm not surprised that it took the peace Senator five whole years to do this.

In 2003, during a Fox News interview...
CAVUTO: ... Senator -- after a conflict means after the conflict, and many argue the conflict isn't over.

MCCAIN: Well, then why was there a banner that said 'mission accomplished' on the aircraft carrier? ... the conflict -- the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished..."

In 2008, on the fifth anniversary of Bush's carrier appearance...
"I don't know if you could ever say, quote 'mission accomplished,' as much as you could say 'Americans are out of harm's way.'"

So McCain was referring to the regime change, not the occupation, in 2003, but he still said that the major conflict is over, so at best he had poor judgment and at worst he sold out his short-lived life as a maverick to become a Bush hack so that he could get the nomination. In late 2007, he hit the Bush administration for deceiving the public about how easy the war would be, saying that "People were lead to believe that this would be a walk in the park...". McCain shouldn't be able to spin his "mission accomplished" statement as referring only to the ousting Saddam, and argue that he's been a pro-war maverick who's critical of the Bush Administration's handling of the war, since in 2003 he also said that "the end is very much in sight." Us Democrats can nail him for that.

In fact, Barack Obama nailed him for those words today, saying "Five years after George Bush declared 'mission accomplished' and John McCain told the American people that 'the end is very much in sight' in Iraq, we have lost thousands of lives, spent half a trillion dollars, and we're no safer."


The infamous words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSIrSNf0m7Q
Another time in 2003, McCain said "This is a mission accomplished."

The retraction:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24418639/

Obama winning Southern states

I just made a post about Georgia, but Obama could win South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Mississippi too:

When 25% of a state's electorate is blacks who vote for Obama, he must win 33.34% of everybody else to win that state:
McCain: 49.995%
Obama: 50.005
Blacks for Obama (25%): 0%, 100%
Everybody else (75%): 66.66%, 33.34%

When 30% of a state's electorate is blacks who vote for Obama, he must win 29% of everybody else to win that state:
McCain: 49.7%
Obama: 50.3%
Blacks for Obama (30%): 0%, 100%
Everybody else (70%): 71%, 29%

When 35% of a state's electorate is blacks who vote for Obama, he must win 24% of everybody else to win that state:
McCain: 49.4%
Obama: 50.6%
Blacks for Obama (35%): 0%, 100%
Everybody else (65%): 76%, 24%

When 40% of a state's electorate is blacks who vote for Obama, he must win 16.67% of everybody else to win that state:
McCain: 49.998%
Obama: 50.002%
Blacks for Obama (40%): 0%, 100%
Everybody else (60%): 83.33%, 16.67%

I bet he needs 30% for Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, 35% for South Carolina, and 40% for Mississippi. Here's the 2004 statistics for these states (from CNN):

Virginia:
Bush: 54%
Kerry: 46%
Whites (72%): 68%, 32%
Blacks (21%): 12%, 87%
Latino (3%), Asian (2%), Other (2%): n/a

North Carolina:
Bush: 56%
Kerry: 41%
Whites (71%): 73%, 27%
Blacks (26%): 14%, 85%
Other (3%): n/a

South Carolina:
Bush: 58%
Kerry: 41%
White (67%): 78%, 22%
Black (30%): 15%, 85%
Other: 4%

Georgia:
Bush: 58%
Kerry: 41%
Whites (70%): 76%, 23%
Blacks (25%): 12%, 88%
Latinos (4%): 56%, 43%
Other (2%): n/a

Mississippi:
Bush: 60%
Kerry: 40%
Whites (65%): 85%, 14%
Blacks (34%): 10%, 90%
Other (1%): n/a

Obama can win Georgia in November

Blacks have won statewide office before, like Thurbert Baker and Michael Thurmond (of no relation to Strom Thurmond ;) ).

I figure that if blacks who vote for Obama are 35% of the electorate then we have a pretty good shot at Georgia.

In 2000, 71% of Georgian whites voted for Bush, and 76% did in 2004. Whites were 70% of the electorate in 2004. Blacks, including blacks who voted for Bush, were 25% of the electorate. Non-black minorities, including Hispanics, were 5%.

So, if 35% of the entire 2008 electorate is blacks who vote for Obama then we only need 25% of the rest of the electorate, which includes all white voters, all non-white and non-black voters, and blacks who vote for McCain, to vote for Obama and we win Georgia with 51.25% of the popular vote.

If blacks who vote for Obama are 30% of the electorate, then we need 29% of the rest of the electorate and we win Georgia with 50.3% of the popular vote.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/GA/P/00/epolls.0.html

Anti-marijuana propoganda

http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/stoners/#

If marijuana actually posed a significant harm to people then the government wouldn't have to make propaganda to justify keeping it illegal.

My answers to the site's quiz:

"Approximately one in ten fatal car accident victims test positive for which drug?"

Obviously, marijuana since it wouldn't surprise me if one in ten people use it. Marijuana stays in your system for a long time, so you could have smoked weeks ago and not be high nor impaired whatsoever and you'll test positive for marijuana. If it significantly impairs driving then ban driving under the influence of marijuana, but don't continue prohibition. By the website's logic, we should reinstate alcohol prohibition because a third of car accident victims are under the influence of alcohol. This is not a strawman or a false dichotomy because both drugs don't usually harm non-users, but both probably impair driving (alcohol definitely does). You even could argue that alcohol hurts non-users in non-driving situations more than marijuana does, since alcohol makes some people aggressive, and others susceptible to sexual assault.

"Which has more cancer-causing chemicals? Marijuana smoke or cigarette smoke?"

I'm not surprised that marijuana smoke does, but it's irrelevant since cigarette smokers inhale more smoke than pot smokers. And even if marijuana's incredibly harmful, you shouldn't go to prison for hurting yourself. Of course, there's second-hand marijuana smoke. If it's harmful enough to non-users then perhaps there should be some legal penalty for smoking marijuana, or at least for smoking it around others without their consent, but there's no evidence to support that. Yes, there are more cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke than cigarette smoke, but there's no evidence to suggest that inhaling second-hand marijuana smoke as much as second-hand inhalers inhale (a lot of inhales ;) ) makes people significantly more likely to get cancer.

"Does marijuana smoke increase the user's chance of a heart attack?"

Probably complete bull. Or, possibly, there's an unrelated factor. I'm making this up out of thin air to illustrate a point, but maybe pot smokers are more likely to be vegetarians, and maybe they have weaker hearts. It's still possible that marijuana causes it, but again, you shouldn't go to prison for hurting yourself.

"Is marijuana addictive?"

Since funding a 1960's Stanford study that showed that marijuana has little adverse effects, the federal government has been reluctant to fund or run on their own accurate marijuana studies. Thus, it's no surprise that federally-funded scientists whose job depends on marijuana staying illegal, find that pot is very addictive. This ad hominem is justified because it shows that the federal government is not a credible source for marijuana information.

However, in my Social Welfare: Propaganda in the Helping Professions class, we learned that around 9% of pot smokers are addicted to it.

"What are the withdrawal symptoms from marijuana addiction?"

Since only 9% of users are addicted, it's likely that most users don't have serious withdrawal symptoms when they quit using marijuana. Plus, the site again references no credible study supporting their claim.

By November, America will know that McCain is no maverick

McCain can talk about being the candidate of change all he wants, but whether the issue is the war, tax cuts for millionaires, or privatizing Social Security, John McCain has been in lockstep with the Bush Administration.

Here's what an Obama-McCain debate might look like:

"No matter what the costs, no matter what the consequences, you seem determined to carry out a third Bush term.

'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice -- and you can't get fooled again.'

And we're not falling for it again, John McCain. Not this time.""

McCain would rebut:

"But I gave a speech about how we don't need anymore cowboy diplomacy."

To which Obama would respond:

"Some words speak loudly, but John McCain your actions over the past five years have spoken louder than your words over the past five months. You only gave us words on diplomacy, yet you and George Bush continue your failed policies in Iraq and the economy."

McCain would respond with:

"You little jerk."

and storm off the stage.

States consider releasing prisoners early

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_re_us/prisoners_early_release

Artificial punishments for drug offenses, like imprisonment and requiring drug felons to state their crimes on job applications, are usually more harmful to the community and the user than using the drug is. With the strength of prison guard unions and politicians unwilling to end the war on crime, drugs are unlikely to be decriminalized in the near future, costing states billions of dollars every year.

Luckily, some states are considering releasing some prisoners early to deal with budget deficits. Some state plans, however, apply even to violent offenders: Murderers, rapists, etc. Though many are falsely convicted, at least they were convicted for crimes that seriously harm other people.

Thus, releasing all drug users is a better solution since most (excluding PCP users, etc.) don't harm others by using drugs. They shouldn't be released at the same time to avoid a sudden, large influx of unemployed convicts (since they'll flood the job market, many won't find jobs and can't receive federal welfare because of drug convictions, so many will end up in prison again). Also, not requiring drug felons to state their convictions on job applications will make it easier for them to get hired when they're out of prison because they won't have to resort to stealing to live or, in some cases, pay for their drug habits.