Elon University Predictions Database

No matter what circumstances we face or predilections we harbor, the business of living is love. Getting love and keeping love. Manufacturing love. Making love. Making love stay. And no worldwide web of cool chips and hot wires is going to change that. So just shut up about your Brave New World, bub; we've all still got to live in the frightened old one.

– Philip Mart, 1995

Predictions Database

Even Bloggers Get the Blues

I've been retreating a bit recently. I've been enjoying my iPod. I've been engrossed in new music, old music and independent music.

GarageBand.com is a great site for music, especially if you're sick of seeing spoiled rich girls captivate idiot America with bad music, bad singing, and bad behavior. Go there and find some real music that you like.

I also finally picked up some remastered Led Zeppelin CDs. It's enlightening listening to whole albums from bands sequetially, I think. Right now I've just been listening to Led Zeppelin I.

And looking back at my musical tastes, I'm discovering now that I've been a Blues fan all along. I think I might have a much stronger identity with the South than I realize.

Goodnight Gonzo

I am so sad to hear this.
Yahoo! News - Author Hunter S. Thompson Kills Himself

Legal Pot is Safe Pot

Children are often taught that the use of drugs is a moral failure. That people who smoke marijuana are bad people. The real moral failure is how we lie to our children about drugs. When children grow up and question what they've learned (all drugs are equally bad), they are more likely to experiment with harder dangerous drugs. Why not just tell them the truth to begin with?

When marijuana is legalized, part of our moral responsibility as a society is to ensure it has been grown properly, limiting any harmful additives or pesticides.

Currently, the black market sells marijuana that cannot sometimes even suggest safety. By keeping the drug illegal, we are creating a system that may poison unsuspecting users with pesticides, mold, or other laced substances.

What will cause more harm? Responsible regulated use of a safe drug, inspected, regulated and taxed for the benefit of society... Or black market smuggling, unsure growing and handling procedures, in a system that only makes rich thugs richer and more powerful?

Here's an example how the market will regulate itself. Now let's make it legal for everyone.

CNN.com - California growers want pot certified organic - Feb 18, 2005

We regulate wine grape growers and pear growers and everybody else, so why shouldn't we also regulate pot growers?" said Tony Linegar, assistant agricultural commissioner for Mendocino County. "It's really an agricultural crop. In our estimate, it should be subject to a lot of the same laws and regulations as commercial agriculture."

Imported Comments:

*

I use to think that "drugs" WAS a moral failure, and I'll even go a step further to say that I was raised to think ( not by my parents but by my community) that drugs were evil. It took me coming out to reevaluate all my ideals and beliefs even though I have a very strong background in sociology and psychology. Anyway, I still have a "gut feeling" that marajuana should not be legalized. I personally still feel it's a gateway drug. I can tell you from working in an ER lab off and on for over 15 years now, that almost every drug screen thats positive for any drug is also positive for marajuana. It's not a hard fact, but that's what i've come across. I know you're passionate about this and I respect that very much. My offical response about legalization of drugs these days is "no opinion"

By Brian, on February 21, 2005 9:03 AM
*

Brian,

I'm glad you bring up the point about marijuana showing up positive in most drug screens in the ER.

This really only shows that marijuana is a companion drug for users who have serious drug problems with serious drugs. The better question is, "Would this person be in the ER if it were just for his marijuana use?" I'm willing to bet it nearly never would.

But for casual responsible marijuana users, using the drug doesn't lead to a gateway of harder drugs.

That's part of the myth that is perpetuated. Marijuanan users are bad. They're likely to start down the wrong path and rob liquor stores for crack.

Truth is, once your child grows up and finds out that is not true, they begin to doubt the things they've been told all along. So now why should they believe you if you've said herion is bad. They think maybe they've been lied to about that all along too...

Lies, the real gateway drug.

By Joe, on February 27, 2005 11:16 PM
*

one word "decriminalization" at least make some room for the baby killers and the rapists in the prisons. lets start prosicuting phycoitics befor pot heads, lets put the real danger in prison, and slap a fine on those who arnt violent, who can keep a job, who don't rob the poor beacuse their addiction is so strong that they feel like they will die if the dont get that crack,or meth,or what ever nasty man made drug they use, who have a family and keep it well but likes a little recreation on the side that dosent make him or her crazy to kill themselves or to hurt others. i just wish the government would just take the time and just make a little money off of something so harmless, and easy to regulate. u walk by a pot head eveyday, but u can really see a crack head.

By niki, on April 16, 2005 3:06 PM

Jerry Springer on the Radio

Greetings friends,

I've had to take the week (plus) off for personal reasons. But I've used the time for some personal reflection, too.

And in the meantime, I joined the iPod cult. :-) One of my goals with the iPod is to listen to some podcasting and radio shows I may have missed.

The first show I've downloaded is Springer on the Radio. There has always been something about Jerry Springer that I have admired. Yes his TV show is crazy, but he is nothing if not sincere about human relationships. The film, Ringmaster, starring Springer about families appearing on a Springer-like show was surprisingly excellent. He also intrigues me because of his strong history in Ohio, my home state. He just has that Ohio honesty.

Now he is being brutally honest about the hypocrisy in conservative America. This is what we need, more progressives on the attack. It's time progressives start winning the hearts and minds of America with honest talk.

From his February 15 show:

What are we talking about here? Do you think if gays are together or even if gays got married that that would threaten the institution of marriage. It would threaten your marriage?

What? Because a couple living down the block is gay, that all of a sudden your marriage is threatened, that you no longer love your spouse? You think because a couple down the block is living together or loving each other or wanting to get married that all of a sudden everything you believe is shattered?"

I honestly believe a key to the Democrat's future is if Progressive Talk Radio is supported and brought to America. Conservatives have run amok with outrageous blather for years. It's time that Democrats speak out to America directly. Through the radio.

Springer will be on the iPod for the commute tomorrow.

The Beasts and the Children

The Concerned Women for America list these as their core issues:

Definition of Family
Sanctity of Life
Education
Pornography
Religious Liberty
National Sovereignty

If you check their links and posts, you see no priority for:

Child Abuse
Domestic Violence
Divorce
Drug Abuse
Alcohol Abuse
Homeless Families


If these self-righteous, self-appointed moral monitors of our society cared about making a real difference in the lives of families and children, they would be outraged and at least link to this horrific story:Couple in Florida Tortured, Starved Children. I promise you if the couple had been of the same sex, they would be all over it.

Please Americans of a reasonable mind, help end the intolerance and instead work to improve the real problems confronting society.

Religion Is a Tool of Politics

The day before election day 2004 I boarded a plane to Ohio to attend my grandfather's funeral. Aboard the airplane, I flew with volunteers from the Kerry and Bush campaigns. There was a war going on, and Southwest Airlines was the troop transport.

The viewing was election day. Local friends and distant family had arrived. It was a somber day that kept me on my feet. So when a distant aunt and uncle invited me to sit down and talk about the election, I was happy to join them. I listened, disappointedly, that they supported President Bush for the following reasons: he supports making abortion illegal, the federal marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman (it's never "between a woman and a man"), and he opposes spending money on stem cell research.

I listened carefully and asked questions. I had no doubt their intentions were based on personal beliefs. I just believe those beliefs are based on fear, religious prejudice, moral superiority, and that icky feeling straight guys get when they think of two dudes doing it.

They simply opposed gay marriage because God says it's wrong and that's that. They had no qualms about using the government to control the rest of society based on their beliefs. I asked why there was a need to create a constitutional amendment. Why not let states decide for themselves? He talked about activist judges, and I know the phrase "America was founded by Christians on Christian principles" was used somewhere. She claimed Thomas Jefferson as an example, and I tried to explain that is was Jefferson himself who argued for the separation of church and state. I tried to explain how the church does not belong in the state and the state does not belong in the church. Jefferson said, "...religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god."

I told them Bush was using them. That the issue was not going to pass and it would continue to pop up only during election years. They could not believe me. In fact, Bush has already backed down on the FMA. But he has set the kindling for the fire next election by saying "Because we don't have the votes." Ah you see, 'vote for us and give us a supermajority, and then we'll talk about your amendment. We can't do anything now, sorry.' The issue will sit in Karl Rove's back pocket for two years until it's time to cement Congress with more Republicans. Then marriage will be a dire emergency again, you watch.

Bush panders to the religious right so to use them at election time. Tonight Bush tossed treats to a hungry evangelical electorate at the State of the Union address. His words were so imprecise as to be meaningless:

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

I say because marriage is a sacred institution, it should not be defined by the government. Only a church can proclaim a union holy. For the good of families, children, and all of society, I support unions between two humans of legal age being equally recognized by the state, with benefits and rights protected for all Americans.

I told my Michigan kin I agree abortion is abhorrent and that America should do all that it can to prevent it, short of making it illegal. But I asked him, if abortion were illegal, who would you prosecute? The doctors? The mothers? He would not even think about the structure of the solution, he only wanted to assert his morality. I told him making it illegal would cause more problems, but the best solution is to have both sides of the argument come together to educate the public, support women, fight poverty, and make abortion rare. I am convinced this is the way to reduce abortions.

The problem is, this argument is not about reducing abortions, or saving marriage. It's about moral superiority. It's not enough to work to make abortion rare, they need to control us with laws. It's not about saving marriage or these conservatives would also be concerned about divorce, domestic violence, and alcohol abuse. No, the fight is really about imposing their religious morality on everyone.

Prejudice and Policy in America

Larry King interviewed some of Time Magazine's most influential Christian evangelical leaders tonight. Beverly LaHaye, the founder of Concerned Women of America showed how she believes it's the government's responsibility to rescue children from growing up with two loving parents of the same sex. She prefers the time-tested, tried-and-true tradition of living closeted and having children, only so you can eventually be miserable and divorced. As long as the child knows he "started off with... that (straight) family unit."

Larry King: In a world and a country with so many problems, why is gay marriage such a big issue?

Beverly LaHaye: I think it's important that children have a... be raised with a father and a mother, uh, to start off with and if a father you know if there's divorce and all at least the child knows that he started with having a... that family unit.

LK: Two gay people can't raise a child?

BL: Well I don't... It's not a natural way. I mean they can't bear children, so...

LK: But that doesn't mean they can't raise them....

BL: Well..

LK: Some terrible people bear children.

BL: Well that's very true, some very terrible. That's why what we're fighting to really try to protect children from all the sexual trafficking and sexual abuse that goes on in our country today and across the world. But we'd really like to see children raised by the normal father and mother.

LK: And you would legalize that. You would support a constitutional amendment certifying that, a man and woman in marriage?

BL: Oh, yes. Absolutely.

She, of course, doesn't recognize the countless gay and straight couples that have no intention of bearing or raising children, but who wish to live in matrimony with one another supported with recognition from the state and, if desired, their own church. These gay and straight couples support the tradition of marriage as a strengthening bond in society, even without children.

Later she calls on the government to save homosexuals from themselves:

Beverly LaHaye: I want to make it clear right here that we're not angry at homosexuals. Really aren't. We love homosexuals and we want to help them And I know of hundreds...

Larry King: Why not let them live as they wish?

BL: Well because, uh.

LK: I mean why should the government care? The faith can do what it wishes. Why should the government care?

BL: We would like to rescue them from being, dying at an early age with the diseases that are very prevalent...

LK: How about male-female diseases?

BL: Well, it's not killing off the population like it is with the gay community. And the children get the AIDS, and it just goes on and on and on.

This kind of thinking is simply prejudice and xenophobia based on religious beliefs. And she wants to codify it into our laws, denying rights to you, Ms. Lesbian or Mr. Gay American.

Are you just going to sit there?




Imported Comments:

*

Super work performed.

By Miguel Dupuis, on November 26, 2005 2:36 PM

The Christian Uprising

I am watching Larry King interview a panel of some of Time's most influential Christian evangelicals in America - leaders credited with great influence on President Bush. I'm realizing there is a real uprising of evangelical christians who are imposing their beliefs on all Americans through our government. They have a right to believe what they want, and to preach, and to teach their children. But they also believe it is their calling to shape our country solely based on principles according to their god's laws.

One example: Their god's law is that homosexuality is wrong. This is a belief system based solely on faith in loosely translated verses in the Bible. To deny citizens (gays) their right to pursue happiness based solely on a belief system in the Bible is wrong. And it's not enough to let individual states decide for themselves. They believe it is their duty to the Lord to impose their biblical beliefs on the laws of entire country. That's why they need to change the constitution. And the U.S. President supports it.

This is a huge setback to the ideals of religious freedom and individual liberty. History teaches us that progress and regress come in cycles. With U.S. leadership in the hands of regressive religious-based-policy makers, our society is doomed to lose freedoms and punish those still in the minority. The more minority you are, the easier it is to call for your removal from society (by denying you rights or liberty).

We need a concentrated effort from reasonable people to stand firm against this radical uprising. Is there some organization with this mindset? I have noticed the ACLU is leading the charge for so many of the things I believe in. They've always been such a dirty word to Republicans, and somewhat to the public. Iit seems to me that so many freedoms we hold dear would erode without them.


The composition of this post started here, then wandered to Tim's journal comment, then back here again. Sorry to crosspost.


Imported Comments:

*

Don't worry you are not alone in your observations. There are some others who are acutally studing to be ministers who have noticed this devisating trait. I invite you to check some of us out and see what were saying, my blog is www.lifegodandpeace.blogspot.com and I have a friend who has an even better one at www.progressiveink.com don't worry there are others fighting this trend in the theological world.

By wes, on February 01, 2005 11:10 PM
*

What can I say... You are so wrong.
Problem is ..you know that you are, deep down, and you wont give it up.
Praying for you... This is not a put down to you..
Just praying for you as I would any friend.

Trace the history of STDs and see if you wont to continue to pay for them... please
Steve

By Steve Holland, on February 01, 2005 11:16 PM
*

if you are refering to STD's being transmitted by homosexuals than you are very misinformed about this particular issue. Homosexuals carry no more STD's than heterosexuals so the actual physical act of homosexuality doesn't make someone more proned to STD's. This is an issue of a persons rights as a citizen not on their sexual exploits in the bed room. If you want to criticise what homosexuals do in the bed room than please open up your love life to the disgression of the rest of society so that we may tell you what you can and can't do. Besides that how does homosexuality actually effect you?

By wes, on February 02, 2005 12:22 AM
*

If you do check the history of STDs you'll find heterosexuals, prostitutes, and military personnel more than anything. It's only because of the unique nature of the way HIV transmits and the relative wealth of our country that AIDS showed up in gay men first and has traditionally been seen by American society as a gay disease. Worldwide, however, it is a problem for everyone. Worldwide, 3.1 million people are estimated to have died from AIDS in 2004.

Please do not pray for me. Instead, think for yourself.

By Joe, on February 02, 2005 12:29 AM