Holy crap! A&M has overtaken Colorado and USC has trumped everybody in recruiting. But it looks like OU still has the most quality.

Bluto - I think it was Mills' "On Liberty" which basically stated the same thing. Not certain though, it's been a while.

headradio,
If everyone in your town were blue, then more than likely you'd be a smurf. And we all know Smurfs are sex, drug, & shroom loving creatures. I mean you have Papa (head Pimp) Smurf running the show with Smurfette (Tricked out Whore) leading the Male Smurfs around by twig and berries. With the exception of the Vanity and Tailor since of course they are popping the brown cherry every night. With that much prostitution and shroom smoking of course they have a high crime rate. And Gargamel (spelling) is of course the supplier. Why else would he be a "magician" than to provide magic dust and all over forms of hardcore illicit drugs.

I guess my argument is more philosophical, too. In that, I should be able to put whatever the hell I want into my own body, as long as I don't harm anyone else while doing it. While there is no constitutional right telling us we control our own bodies, I consider it a natural right.

headradio - you may very well be correct. But the question we, as Americans, should be asking ourselves is: why, and what can we do about it.

I agree with almost all of the rant. Except analogies with Prohibition and Pot aren't really appropriate. Alcohol is now, was then, and always will be engrained in the population in a way pot never will (even if legalized). Dealers deal cause it's an easy and quick way to make a lot of money. If the pot market dries up, they will find another way to make quick and easy money: be it increasing hard core drug usuage and peddaling, robbery, prostitution, or hijacking. They'll find something. Hopefully it won't be any more violent than it already is however black markets teach us that the higher the level ofcompetition the more violent criminals become (in order to protect their "profit share" so to speak). Like a wounded animal against a wall (yeah, and I'm hasseling you about analogies while I throw that one out there).

Hey, no need to drag the Blue Man Group into this.

oh, me. you mentioned that 80% of the kids in inner cities involved in felonies, violent offenses, and criminal mischief offenses come from single parent families. i would bet that a high percentage of ALL kids in inner cities come from single parent families. what i'm saying is that if almost everyone in my town is blue, it follows that most of the crime in town will be committed by blue people also. it doesn't mean that being blue causes them to commit crime. stupid analogy, i know, but you know what i mean. and i'm not saying you're wrong, i'm just saying those statistics don't necessarily prove all that much.

right on, brother. right on.

Well I never said that legalizing pot would solve the drug problem, but instead of spending billions of dollars every year to fight the import of marijuana and then to arrest and imprison people who possess it, the government could spend those billions of dollars on treatment/rehab/prevention programs. I'm sure that cops would rather allocate their resources towards fighting real crime (murder, rape, child molesters, etc) instead of having to spend their time busting someone who happens to be in possession of a couple joints. Our federal prisons are filled to capacity with people who are nonviolent offenders whose only crime was the personal possession of marijuana, but who are sitting in jail for 10-20 years or more because of mandatory minimum sentences. Wouldn't those prison cells be better occupied by a rapist or a child molester?

Ask any DEA agent or cop to be candid with you, and they'll tell you that the War on Drugs is an utter and complete failure. For every pound of pot that the cops seize, 50 pounds gets through. It's a losing battle, and a real waste of our tax money. The government has been attacking the supply of drugs for decades with no results. Maybe they should control the supply and attack the demand for drugs instead. Hey, the results couldn't be much worse than they are now.

And I don't buy the argument that if pot is legalized, every kid is going to run out and start smoking. I mean, if a kid wants to smoke a joint nowadays, he or she can go right ahead and do it. Pot is easier for kids to get than alcohol. The legality of pot has nothing to do with its availability. The only thing being accomplished by laws against pot is the creation of a huge black market and a financial incentive for drug dealers to take advantage of. If you legalize pot, you take away any financial incentive and the pot dealers disappear. People who have consciously refrained from smoking pot for years are not going to suddenly have a change of heart and run out and start rolling fat chronic blunts just because pot is now legalized. Just look at Prohibition: When alcohol was outlawed, criminal organizations sprung up all over the place to control the black market. Once Prohibition was overturned, the criminal element had nothing left to control and disappeared. Why our government persists in keeping drugs illegal and supporting this black market is beyond me.

Now, as for drugs like crack...I think those should remain illegal, because when people use crack there is a clear and proven danger they will commit a crime. But smoking pot does not drive people to go commit crimes, it drives people to eat cupcakes and watch television. We should treat pot like we treat alcohol -- make it legal to use, but then punish people if they commit criminal acts while under its influence (driving, being in public, etc).

Ok, rant over. Time to study.

i stand corrected. serve up the humble pie. i'm still looking for my resources, though.

I agree with ME...
I mean, yeah, some people are fine after being raised in single parent households, and some aren't quite so lucky. It just seems that if you're in a traditional family that you are more likely to beat the odds.

And on a more personal note. I've worked for Americorp with inner city kids in Dallas and Austin. I volunteered for a PAC that lobbies for more funding for Parks & Rec, Summer Programs, and Big Brother Orgs. I've worked with the kids, seen where they live, and how they are raised by a single-mother who works a crappy job for min. wage. I know what I'm talking about. A child needs two parents. Sometimes that's not feasible. And there are plenty of well-adjusted, wonderful individuals who were raised in single-parent families. But it's hard to find anyone outside of NOW that would state that children are just as well off in single parent families as two parent families.

I don't know where your facts come from, but they're wrong. Amoung urban teens involved in felonies, violent offenses, and criminal mischief a staggering 80% come from single parent families. Over half of children born in the inner city are born out of wedlock and almost 40% to teen mothers (and both numbers are rising). The high number of children born to fatherless families in the inner city unquestionably results in higher crime rates. A fatherless child that has an adult male rolemodel is 3 times less likely to get involved in drugs, crime, and gangs than a child without one.

The stats for suburban crime, I don't know. But when it comes to inner city crime rates, my facts are solid.

I am not sure how many engineers are in Congress, but I could easily think of one off the top of my head.

so single parent families are a degradation of the moral fiber of the country? did you know that when it comes to delinquency among teens, having a father around hardly makes any difference? single parent female headed households are very similar to heterosexual two parent households in terms of offenses committed by the kids therein.

Just keep on telling yourself that. Meanwhile, I've yet to meet an engineering major in public office yet.

And I wouldn't blame America's drug obsesson with draconian laws considering ours aren't that much harsher than the rest of Europes. American and European laws for "hard-core" drugs (i.e. crack etc) are the same except when it comes to the punishment phase (America is far harsher sentencing dealers than Europe). The only difference are the laws regarding pot, which, while certainly different, don't make up for the disparity of drug users in America to those in Europe. The Forbidden Fruit arguement does has some validity but not enough to account for everything. Americans are the buyers of over 60% of the world's drugs. Forbidden Fruit doesn't justify that kind of disparity. Laziness, disposable income, lax moral structure, and single parent families (basically a degredation in the moral fiber of the country) are more than likely to blame for the prevalent drug culture in America. It would be unfair to say, "If we changed the laws, we won't have drug problems anymore." While I agree, pot laws need to be reevaluated, it's not the sole problem, nor would it fix all the countries drug ills. It's far more complicated than that. And you must admitt, no matter how they do it, anything that keeps kids off drugs can't be all that bad. They rag on cigarette companies all the time (unfairly, I think) and nobody complains about those.

Engineers don't have people skills. I have people skills, I am good with people! Why don't you people understand me?!??

and unfortunately it gives you the stereotype that you have no people skills.

Yeah, pretty cool video... It's funny to think that plane white kicks will be popular again.
There's actually a couple of Big XII schools represented in the video... One of the st. Lunatics is wearing a white and gold oklahoma state jersey, and another one is wearing a Kliff Kingsbury jersey.

About the pot ~ terrorism thing. I thought they were linking them through a different way, but not actually saying that terrorists are making their money off the pot? I can't remember exactly how it went, but I don't think it was a direct link. I could be way off though.

Me: Yes, there are engineers in politics. If you can learn to be an engineer, you have proven yourself. Engineers become doctors, lawyers, politicians, teachers, and many more things. I don't see any political scientists becoming engineers, though... A degree in engineering doesn't confine you to a technical future, it gives you a base where you learned how to learn new things quickly, so you can adapt to any environment.

hahaha...has anyone else seen the video for Nelly's latest, greatest, smash hit "Air Force Ones"? it's some tizight shitnit, yo. you best check it out.
give me two pair.

Augh, geez, I hate those "smoking pot supports terrorism" commercials. I have yet to see a more fake, contrived link to terrorism. Hmmm, let's ask ourselves WHY terrorist groups would deal drugs to make money. Could it be because there is a HUGE financial incentive to do so? And why does that financial incentive exist? Could it be because our government's draconian drug laws create a black market? Nahhh. I also love how those commercials try to make it look like pot smokers are the only people in the world who commit suicide, get low grades, or lose their jobs. Yeah, those problems don't happen to anyone else.

I guess that when we fill our gas tanks, we're "supporting" terrorism. After all, the Saudis are feeding us all that oil, and 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Stop supporting terrorism! Go ride a bike!

Dude, there is a show about tornadoes hitting the D/FW area on the Discovery Channel right now. Makes me think of Mr. Storm Chaser and how much of a cock he is.

You know what the worst feeling in the world is?

When you save over your Grand Theft Auto: Vice City game with your roommate's.

Go into politics with an E.E. degree? Yeah, that makes looooots of sense.