The AFA is at it again. They are asking Betty Crocker/General Mills to stop advertising on the ABC show "Brothers And Sisters, because one of the episodes offended them. Here was their complaint in full:
Homosexual lip locks worthy of advertising support says General Mills/Betty Crocker
General Mills sponsored the October 22 episode of ABC's Brothers & Sisters. Brothers & Sisters suggested illicit sex and championed gay sex during the episode. In the October 22 episode, titled "Date Night," the focus is on sexual relationships and the family's failing business empire. There are countless references to illicit sex, and Jonathan and Kitty treat viewers to a graphic phone-sex segment in which Jonathan instructs Kitty to disrobe. (They are former sex partners, and Jonathan moves back in with Kitty and her mother.) In the same episode, Kevin, the gay lawyer, forges a relationship with a new man, and viewers get to witness a couple of the men's passionate kisses, one of them pretty graphic. Send an email to General Mills, asking them to stop sponsoring ABC's Brothers & Sisters due to the explicit sex and homosexual scenes. Click Here to see a full review of the show, or,
Click Here to Email General Mills Now!
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, ChairmanOneMillionDads.com
P.S. Please forward this to your family and friends!
_________________________________________________
The viewers, however, have spoken otherwise:
"Brothers & Sisters (13.1 million, 5.3/13) remained strong at 10 p.m., beating CBS's Without a Trace (15 million, 4.4/11) in the demo but not viewership"
If you yourself do not agree with the content of this program the strongest thing you can do is not to watch it. Block it from your television. But please, leave that decision up to the viewer. Send your e-mails now to General Mills and let them know that the AFA does not speak for everyone!
Primary Phone: 1-800-775-4777
Secondary Phone: 763-764-7600
Fax: 763-764-7384
E-Mail: Stephen W. Sanger, General Mills (stephen.sanger@genmills.com)
Thank you
~Cody Hobbs
Friday, October 27, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Where were you when Alan Jackson made fools of us all?
Turning on the television can be scary these days; what with Terror threats, North Korea, Iran; you might think it's dangerous just to step outside of your own front door. Since September 11, 2001, we've seen N.Korea test a nuclear bomb, and it sounds like Iran might be close to getting one for themselves. But thank goodness for our president who's promised to be tough on terror! He defied UN advisement and marched a U.S. lead coalition into Iraq to dispose of a despot leader who we knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, had nuclear weapons. In fact, the entire world new that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction; or according to Presedent Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condiliza Rice. And we were days from them using those weapons here on U.S. soil. But wait a sec, where are the weapons of mass distruction? And didn't the UN advise us NOT to invade Iraq, stating that there just wasn't enough evidence to support their claim?
I think we all felt a little closer to our neighbors after 9/11. It showed us just how precious life is. so enter the hero of our story: Alan Jackson, with a little song titled: Where were you (when the world stopped turning). It was a beautiful and heartfelt tribute to those who died that day, and to those who continue to die daily for our protection, right? In the song, Jackson repeats the line:
"I'm just a singer of simple songs
I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you
The difference in Iraq and Iran"
Three times. Well, I think we can all tell you the difference between Iraq and Iran now.
Why pick on Alan Jackson? 9/11 wasn't his fault
Alan Jackson is a roll model for the southern American. As a public figure, people naturally look up to you. This song touched me the first time I heard it, but then the thought came to me that maybe, it was just trying to cash in on the sentiments of 9/11.
Our President lied to us about Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Not one of the hijackers were from Iraq; Saddam Husein saw the Taliban as a threat to his control over Iraq; and there were no weapons of mass distruction. Iraq was a mistake. It had nothing to do with 9/11. That's why it makes me so angry when I hear songs like this one that has a disregard, not only for true information, but perpetuates naive, and irrational fears. It was "the difference between Iraq and Iran" that got us into the mess we're currently in. Instead of using our military to combat the actual threat, we've wasted our troops, money, time and energy fighting a country that posed no threat to us; meanwhile two countries that did have the potential to develop weapons of mass destruction has gone unchecked. This song, weather it was intended to or not, has lent itself to be used as a powerful piece of propaganda by the presidents administration, who cant admit when they're wrong.
Mr. Jackson, next time you try cashing in on a national tragedy, make sure you get your facts strait next time.
Cody Hobbs
I think we all felt a little closer to our neighbors after 9/11. It showed us just how precious life is. so enter the hero of our story: Alan Jackson, with a little song titled: Where were you (when the world stopped turning). It was a beautiful and heartfelt tribute to those who died that day, and to those who continue to die daily for our protection, right? In the song, Jackson repeats the line:
"I'm just a singer of simple songs
I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you
The difference in Iraq and Iran"
Three times. Well, I think we can all tell you the difference between Iraq and Iran now.
Why pick on Alan Jackson? 9/11 wasn't his fault
Alan Jackson is a roll model for the southern American. As a public figure, people naturally look up to you. This song touched me the first time I heard it, but then the thought came to me that maybe, it was just trying to cash in on the sentiments of 9/11.
Our President lied to us about Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Not one of the hijackers were from Iraq; Saddam Husein saw the Taliban as a threat to his control over Iraq; and there were no weapons of mass distruction. Iraq was a mistake. It had nothing to do with 9/11. That's why it makes me so angry when I hear songs like this one that has a disregard, not only for true information, but perpetuates naive, and irrational fears. It was "the difference between Iraq and Iran" that got us into the mess we're currently in. Instead of using our military to combat the actual threat, we've wasted our troops, money, time and energy fighting a country that posed no threat to us; meanwhile two countries that did have the potential to develop weapons of mass destruction has gone unchecked. This song, weather it was intended to or not, has lent itself to be used as a powerful piece of propaganda by the presidents administration, who cant admit when they're wrong.
Mr. Jackson, next time you try cashing in on a national tragedy, make sure you get your facts strait next time.
Cody Hobbs
Monday, October 23, 2006
Support the Troops - Vote the Bums out
As you should have guessed by this point, I don't support the war in Iraq, and for a number of reasons. But that doesn't prevent me from having a deep respect for the men and women in uniform that fight for the country they believe in. It makes me down right angry when I hear people say things like: "It's their fault, they volunteered", or "They can always chose to be conscientious objector". The bottom line is this: these men and women are doing a job few of us would do ourselves: defending the United States in the trenches and mountain tops.
Yes, the men and women did volunteer; but shouldn't this be looked at as a courageous act? How many of us would really voluntarily sign a contract to lay in a ditch and get shot at for what we thought was the protection of not just our own family, but for complete strangers families as well? I'm guessing not many. Even I will admit, with the prospect of the draft, the thought of being sent to war even frightens me. These men and women, as any military is to any country, are essential for its survival and protection.
And, so is their faithful service, and willingness to take orders. The military didn't start the Iraq conflict, they just have to fight it. Think about it: what would happen if every person in the military defected as a "conscientious objector" whenever the lines of morality became slightly skewed? We would no long have a military at all, or not one strong enough to protect us from any industrialized foreign nation. Our safety depends on their obedience to the Commander in Chief.
So, that is why it is our responsibility, as it is theirs too on election day, to vote for the person who we think is going to make the most responsible decisions when it comes to our nations finest. And the same carries over to congress, too. And this is bigger than a "partisan" issue.
First, we need to stop looking at this war in binary oppositions: You're either with us, or you're against us. You're either tough on Terror, or you want to cut and run. And this is why I tend to wax more liberal. The liberals don't want to simply "cut and run", most of them see that this issue isn't going to be solved by a catchy either/or slogan.
Setting up Congressmen and decorated war veteran John Murtha
But that is exactly what the GOP did when congressmen John Murtha delivered a bill to the house floor detailing a precise timetable for troop withdraw. The GOP changed the bill from a "phased out" withdrawal, to an immediate "cut and run" withdrawal, but still promoted it as the original bill drafted by the decorated war veteran. Way to support our troops, GOP! So it shouldn't have come as a surprise when the bill only received six votes.
So don't forget what is at stake this November during the midterm elections. Just as those who serve in the military has a responsibility to protect us, it is our responsibility to keep them safe by electing officials who will use the power to fight and fund a war reasonably, and responsibly. Thank you.
Cody Hobbs
Yes, the men and women did volunteer; but shouldn't this be looked at as a courageous act? How many of us would really voluntarily sign a contract to lay in a ditch and get shot at for what we thought was the protection of not just our own family, but for complete strangers families as well? I'm guessing not many. Even I will admit, with the prospect of the draft, the thought of being sent to war even frightens me. These men and women, as any military is to any country, are essential for its survival and protection.
And, so is their faithful service, and willingness to take orders. The military didn't start the Iraq conflict, they just have to fight it. Think about it: what would happen if every person in the military defected as a "conscientious objector" whenever the lines of morality became slightly skewed? We would no long have a military at all, or not one strong enough to protect us from any industrialized foreign nation. Our safety depends on their obedience to the Commander in Chief.
So, that is why it is our responsibility, as it is theirs too on election day, to vote for the person who we think is going to make the most responsible decisions when it comes to our nations finest. And the same carries over to congress, too. And this is bigger than a "partisan" issue.
First, we need to stop looking at this war in binary oppositions: You're either with us, or you're against us. You're either tough on Terror, or you want to cut and run. And this is why I tend to wax more liberal. The liberals don't want to simply "cut and run", most of them see that this issue isn't going to be solved by a catchy either/or slogan.
Setting up Congressmen and decorated war veteran John Murtha
But that is exactly what the GOP did when congressmen John Murtha delivered a bill to the house floor detailing a precise timetable for troop withdraw. The GOP changed the bill from a "phased out" withdrawal, to an immediate "cut and run" withdrawal, but still promoted it as the original bill drafted by the decorated war veteran. Way to support our troops, GOP! So it shouldn't have come as a surprise when the bill only received six votes.
So don't forget what is at stake this November during the midterm elections. Just as those who serve in the military has a responsibility to protect us, it is our responsibility to keep them safe by electing officials who will use the power to fight and fund a war reasonably, and responsibly. Thank you.
Cody Hobbs
Sunday, October 22, 2006
The illegal immigration - of cash
There's been a lot of talk about the high influx of illegal immigration into the united states: in 2005 alone, it is estimated that over 20 million persons immigrated into the United States illegally.# This, however, is not my biggest concern. In a study conducted by the Inter-American Development Bank's Multilateral Investment Fund, illegal immigrants will send $45.3 billion dollars to countries outside of the United States. Not only does the high number of illegal immigrants cause downward pressure on competitive wages and raise unemployment, the heavy "migration" of cash causes some serious problems as well.
In 2004, the U.S. GDP (gross domestic product) was $10.98 trillion: 45.3 billion of that this year will not be spent in the U.S., however. That may seem like a small percentage, but that is money that would otherwise be re-circulated back into the U.S. economy, bolstering a job market that is being hit by an economical recession, and an evermore higher number of immigrants into the United States. In the article published by chron.com, it says:
"These cash flows have captured the attention of U.S. and international businesses in the last few years. Banks across the country are trying to tap into that market by offering money-wiring services. And in cities with large immigrant communities like Houston, furniture, cement and real estate companies offer immigrants here the chance to pay for sofas, construction materials and new homes in Mexico and Central America."
Perhaps, in addition to tightening security at the border, we should be tightening security at the bank as well. Foreign countries are profiting off of the backs of the United States worker, and it's time that this comes to an end. The government and law enforcement should come down just as hard on banks that are offering money-wire services to illegal immigrants as they do companies that higher them. In statements to the press, President Bush has repeatedly stated that immigrants are helping the economy by spending their money here in the U.S. But how can this be the case if they're sending it outside of the United States? and to the tune of $45.3 billion dollars on an annual basis? It's bad for the economy, and it's bad for the individual American.
Cody Hobbs
In 2004, the U.S. GDP (gross domestic product) was $10.98 trillion: 45.3 billion of that this year will not be spent in the U.S., however. That may seem like a small percentage, but that is money that would otherwise be re-circulated back into the U.S. economy, bolstering a job market that is being hit by an economical recession, and an evermore higher number of immigrants into the United States. In the article published by chron.com, it says:
"These cash flows have captured the attention of U.S. and international businesses in the last few years. Banks across the country are trying to tap into that market by offering money-wiring services. And in cities with large immigrant communities like Houston, furniture, cement and real estate companies offer immigrants here the chance to pay for sofas, construction materials and new homes in Mexico and Central America."
Perhaps, in addition to tightening security at the border, we should be tightening security at the bank as well. Foreign countries are profiting off of the backs of the United States worker, and it's time that this comes to an end. The government and law enforcement should come down just as hard on banks that are offering money-wire services to illegal immigrants as they do companies that higher them. In statements to the press, President Bush has repeatedly stated that immigrants are helping the economy by spending their money here in the U.S. But how can this be the case if they're sending it outside of the United States? and to the tune of $45.3 billion dollars on an annual basis? It's bad for the economy, and it's bad for the individual American.
Cody Hobbs
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Are college professors too liberal?
I am writing this in response to an article published by The Chronicle, October 19th, 2006. The article makes claims that U.S. college professors wax too liberal, and that this, they say, is bad, not just for our education system, but for the country at large. Assuming that this is the case, is this necessarily a bad thing? Aren't college professors citizens endowed with the right to vote their conscious like every other American?
But, before we broach those questions, I'd like to address some issues I have with The Chronicle's claims:
The statistics The Chronicle uses:
1: Professors are three times as likely to call themselves "liberal" as "conservative." In the 2004 presidential election, 72 percent of those surveyed voted for John Kerry.
Why should it matter who a Professor is voting for? Wouldn't discriminating against Professors who voted one way or the other be a violation of the 14th amendment to the Constitution?
2: Almost one-third of professors cite the United States as among the top two greatest threats to international stability -- more than cited Iran, China, or Iraq.
Even I was drawn into the sensationalism of the article, and missed this one. Since when dose one-third constitute a majority? And yes, we are the ones responsible for the instability in Iraq: we are, after all the Nation that is currently occupying their country.
3: Fifty-four percent of professors say U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is partially responsible for the growth of Islamic militancy.
That means that forty-six percent of professors say the opposite. The numbers are almost split 50/50. And again, we are occupying their territory, a sovereign nation; how are we not partially to blame for them not being happy that we are there. (And notice the wording: it says PARTIALLY, not FULLY.)
4: Sixty-four percent say the government's powers under the USA Patriot Act should be weakened.
Isn't this just saying that sixty-four percent value the liberties granted to us by the Bill of Rights? Shouldn't we be more worried about the thirty-six that don't?
College should be a place where ideas are shared openly, and freely. A place where students should be taught to think critically, and for themselves. So long as college professors continue to be living, human beings, they will come with some sort of bias attached. History is written from the subjective vision of whoever sits behind the pen; such is the human folly. What we should be more concerned about is not who has what bias, but that they are teaching students not to be afraid to have an opinion for themselves. In a word, ideas should not be feared. And that is what Stop Partisan is about. It is not about sitting on the fence, for fence sittings sake, it is about the free exchange of different ideas and opinions. And that should be held above all others as our most precious Liberty as American citizens; and indeed, as citizens of the world.
Cody Hobbs
But, before we broach those questions, I'd like to address some issues I have with The Chronicle's claims:
The statistics The Chronicle uses:
1: Professors are three times as likely to call themselves "liberal" as "conservative." In the 2004 presidential election, 72 percent of those surveyed voted for John Kerry.
Why should it matter who a Professor is voting for? Wouldn't discriminating against Professors who voted one way or the other be a violation of the 14th amendment to the Constitution?
2: Almost one-third of professors cite the United States as among the top two greatest threats to international stability -- more than cited Iran, China, or Iraq.
Even I was drawn into the sensationalism of the article, and missed this one. Since when dose one-third constitute a majority? And yes, we are the ones responsible for the instability in Iraq: we are, after all the Nation that is currently occupying their country.
3: Fifty-four percent of professors say U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is partially responsible for the growth of Islamic militancy.
That means that forty-six percent of professors say the opposite. The numbers are almost split 50/50. And again, we are occupying their territory, a sovereign nation; how are we not partially to blame for them not being happy that we are there. (And notice the wording: it says PARTIALLY, not FULLY.)
4: Sixty-four percent say the government's powers under the USA Patriot Act should be weakened.
Isn't this just saying that sixty-four percent value the liberties granted to us by the Bill of Rights? Shouldn't we be more worried about the thirty-six that don't?
College should be a place where ideas are shared openly, and freely. A place where students should be taught to think critically, and for themselves. So long as college professors continue to be living, human beings, they will come with some sort of bias attached. History is written from the subjective vision of whoever sits behind the pen; such is the human folly. What we should be more concerned about is not who has what bias, but that they are teaching students not to be afraid to have an opinion for themselves. In a word, ideas should not be feared. And that is what Stop Partisan is about. It is not about sitting on the fence, for fence sittings sake, it is about the free exchange of different ideas and opinions. And that should be held above all others as our most precious Liberty as American citizens; and indeed, as citizens of the world.
Cody Hobbs
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Bush: Low Gas Prices are a threat[?]
October 12, President Bush said that falling gas prices "worry" him. Bush says that low gas prices will "make us complacent about our future when it comes to energy". But has high gas prices really furthered the advancement of alternative fuels? And isn't a higher price just punishing the consumer for the use of its most needed commodity?
First, the average consumer has little to do with the advancement of alternative fuel; or at least in a direct since. Yes, the consumer does create the demand, but with no alternative readily available, or at least not one that is economically feasible, than the consumer cannot make a "choice" where no other option is available. People still have to commute to work, school, the grocery store; products still must be transported from one region to another. So, supporting a higher price tag on gas isn't really moving anything forward; if anything, it's moving it backwards! New technology isn't cheep; and it won't be cheep when it is introduced on the market. And, if consumers are already pinched at the pump, then it is unlikely, especially for those who don't have the financial resource to do otherwise, that the consumer will make a costly expenditure; such as purchasing a pricy new automobile. Furthermore, raising the price of a commodity will curb spending in other areas, such as the development of an alternative fuel source. To put it simply, you can't spend money you ain't got. On the other hand, a lowering the price of a commodity will free up financial resources elsewhere, opening up the opportunity for the further development of a new technology: alternative fuel.
However, the sale of sport utility vehicles has increased 30% since the decline in the price in gas. What is needed is a more educated consumer, not a financial strain on those who cannot afford it. In adjunct with this article, I will be re posting Gas Crisis; and I suggest a reading of that article for a further outline of a more reasonable solution.
Cody Hobbs
First, the average consumer has little to do with the advancement of alternative fuel; or at least in a direct since. Yes, the consumer does create the demand, but with no alternative readily available, or at least not one that is economically feasible, than the consumer cannot make a "choice" where no other option is available. People still have to commute to work, school, the grocery store; products still must be transported from one region to another. So, supporting a higher price tag on gas isn't really moving anything forward; if anything, it's moving it backwards! New technology isn't cheep; and it won't be cheep when it is introduced on the market. And, if consumers are already pinched at the pump, then it is unlikely, especially for those who don't have the financial resource to do otherwise, that the consumer will make a costly expenditure; such as purchasing a pricy new automobile. Furthermore, raising the price of a commodity will curb spending in other areas, such as the development of an alternative fuel source. To put it simply, you can't spend money you ain't got. On the other hand, a lowering the price of a commodity will free up financial resources elsewhere, opening up the opportunity for the further development of a new technology: alternative fuel.
However, the sale of sport utility vehicles has increased 30% since the decline in the price in gas. What is needed is a more educated consumer, not a financial strain on those who cannot afford it. In adjunct with this article, I will be re posting Gas Crisis; and I suggest a reading of that article for a further outline of a more reasonable solution.
Cody Hobbs
Friday, August 18, 2006
Is the Bush Administration just using scare tactics?
Even I will agree with you that some conspiracy theories, okay, most conspiracy theories are just plain absurd. I mean come on, who really believes the government of the United States is being controlled by Aliens (from outer space, not Mexico)? or Elvis and Tupock are living out their geriatric years on their own private island in the Bahamas. This is the reason I think most of us pass over stories, like one published Friday, July 7th on Time.com. The article postulates that the Bush administration is raising terror alerts to boost GOP poll numbers. I know, I even thought this sounded a bit "beam me up Scotty" when I first read it. But then I turned off the three ring circus (television) in my living room, and applied some good ol' rational thought to what I had read. Could our own government be using terror alerts, a pretty serious thing since 9/11, just for political gain?
Just weeks before the London scare, Bill O'rily, host of the O'rily factor, said that if the United States were to suffer another Terrorist attack, it would be "the end of the Democratic Party". And we all remember the infamous tape by Osama Bin Laden, released just three nights before the general Presidential election, one that even the Republicans admit helped Bush win his second term Presidency. So with Congressional mid midterm elections just around the corner, wouldn't it be a great tactic to remind the Country how much danger we are in and how much the Republicans support national security and how the Democrats are "weak" when it comes to fighting "terror"? Just a thought.
After the terror plot to use watter bottles and cell phones (now it has been admitted that using such devices are more complicated than initially reported) to blow plains out of the sky, the United States immediately banned ALL passengers from bringing ANY liquid aboard a plain. Oh, and they also raised the terror alert from "yellow - elevated" to "red [ohhh, scary] - high". The next day, Sean Hannity, another conservative television and radio talk show host, said that the timing was "coincidental" and that no one can control when "these things happen". All right, I'll give him that. But doesn't it strike anyone as just a bit odd, just one iota, that we see a rise in the number of terror threats around elections? I can't make up your mind for you, but hopefully I can help to connect the dots. What do you think?
Cody Hobbs
Just weeks before the London scare, Bill O'rily, host of the O'rily factor, said that if the United States were to suffer another Terrorist attack, it would be "the end of the Democratic Party". And we all remember the infamous tape by Osama Bin Laden, released just three nights before the general Presidential election, one that even the Republicans admit helped Bush win his second term Presidency. So with Congressional mid midterm elections just around the corner, wouldn't it be a great tactic to remind the Country how much danger we are in and how much the Republicans support national security and how the Democrats are "weak" when it comes to fighting "terror"? Just a thought.
After the terror plot to use watter bottles and cell phones (now it has been admitted that using such devices are more complicated than initially reported) to blow plains out of the sky, the United States immediately banned ALL passengers from bringing ANY liquid aboard a plain. Oh, and they also raised the terror alert from "yellow - elevated" to "red [ohhh, scary] - high". The next day, Sean Hannity, another conservative television and radio talk show host, said that the timing was "coincidental" and that no one can control when "these things happen". All right, I'll give him that. But doesn't it strike anyone as just a bit odd, just one iota, that we see a rise in the number of terror threats around elections? I can't make up your mind for you, but hopefully I can help to connect the dots. What do you think?
Cody Hobbs
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
First Amendment under fire
Today, the Senate held debates on a Constitutional amendment to give congress the authority to protect the flag. This, even after the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning, however heinous it may be, is still protected under free speech. The amendment failed by one vote. In over a 200 year history, the Constitution has only been amended 27 times, ten of which are the the Bill of rights, ratified shortly after the ratification of the original Articles of the Constitution. To counteract this amendment, proposed by the GOP, Dick Durbin, and sponsored by Hillary Rodham Clinton, suggested an initiative to make a law (not a Constitutional amendment) outlawing protesting at cemeteries during a funeral.
After the vote, Senator Barbara Boxer said the flag is a "reminder of our democracy". It is also a symbol of our history of fighting to preserve our fundamental right to freedom and liberty. Respect can only be earned, it cannot be forced. And the American flag has certainly earned the highest level of respect for every United States citizen. I do not believe the flag should be desecrated; however, respect for the flag and for our nation must be allowed to come to each American citizen of their own free will. During his first term, and sadly his last term inaugural speech, the great President John F. Kennedy said "[T]he rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." And I believe that his words are just as true now as they were then. This amendment would have sent the message that personal freedom can only be granted by a fuhrer; moreover, it would have been a blaspheme to our forbears, and the foundation they so carefully poured.
I think I have figured out this administrations, and this Congresses hidden agenda for the year: to make the United States Constitution nothing more than a worthless rag. I can already see the Senate marching from Capitol Hill to the Museum where the Constitution is kept, and one by one defiling it, while singing gleefully.
This is another rally call for each and every one of us to fulfill our most basic duty as an American citizen: to vote. If we, ourselves, are not willing to give that much in defence of our freedom, then we will surely loose them; and we will have no one other than ourselves to blame. Encourage your friends and family to register, and when the day comes, to step into the booth and vote their conscious. No one else can do it for them. Celebrate your freedom!
Cody Hobbs
After the vote, Senator Barbara Boxer said the flag is a "reminder of our democracy". It is also a symbol of our history of fighting to preserve our fundamental right to freedom and liberty. Respect can only be earned, it cannot be forced. And the American flag has certainly earned the highest level of respect for every United States citizen. I do not believe the flag should be desecrated; however, respect for the flag and for our nation must be allowed to come to each American citizen of their own free will. During his first term, and sadly his last term inaugural speech, the great President John F. Kennedy said "[T]he rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." And I believe that his words are just as true now as they were then. This amendment would have sent the message that personal freedom can only be granted by a fuhrer; moreover, it would have been a blaspheme to our forbears, and the foundation they so carefully poured.
I think I have figured out this administrations, and this Congresses hidden agenda for the year: to make the United States Constitution nothing more than a worthless rag. I can already see the Senate marching from Capitol Hill to the Museum where the Constitution is kept, and one by one defiling it, while singing gleefully.
This is another rally call for each and every one of us to fulfill our most basic duty as an American citizen: to vote. If we, ourselves, are not willing to give that much in defence of our freedom, then we will surely loose them; and we will have no one other than ourselves to blame. Encourage your friends and family to register, and when the day comes, to step into the booth and vote their conscious. No one else can do it for them. Celebrate your freedom!
Cody Hobbs
Friday, June 23, 2006
So long Stare Decisis
On Thursday, June 15, in a benchmark ruling, the Federal Supreme Court decided that evidence gathered in a "no knock" search can be used in court . Past decisions by the court has generally protected a citizens right to privacy by forcing police to forfeit evidence gained illegally. This decision was passed by a 5-4 margin, and is credited to the two new judges elected by President George Bush. Judge Sandra Day O'conner would have likely voted to uphold the ban on using evidence gathered in "no knock serches." Justice Antonin Scalia called the failure to knock a "preliminary misstep." No knock searches have been sanctified in cases where there is emanate danger; however, on the case decided on Thursday, Hudson, Jr., Petitioner v. Michigan, there was no imminent threat to the police officers. When asked why he thought it was appropriate, now, to break precedence, Scalia answered that "we are living in different times."
What is different about the "times" we are living in now? We are currently living in a generation where we are seeing our constitutional rights stripped away from us; our government makes no apologies for illegally wiretapping it's own citizens. (The FBI has also admitted to wiretapping members of the press who are NOT suspected terrorists.) Judge Scalia, isn't now the time that we the people need the most Judaical protection from our government?
Congressional midterm elections are just around the corner. Though California is not a key "battleground" state, we can continue to spread our voice. Our congress is supporting a tyrannical president. We are operating at our highest national deficit in the nations history. And worst of all, our constitutional rights are disappearing right before our eyes. Election day is the day for voters to send congress a message loud and clear that we demand the protection of our civil liberties.
Cody Hobbs
What is different about the "times" we are living in now? We are currently living in a generation where we are seeing our constitutional rights stripped away from us; our government makes no apologies for illegally wiretapping it's own citizens. (The FBI has also admitted to wiretapping members of the press who are NOT suspected terrorists.) Judge Scalia, isn't now the time that we the people need the most Judaical protection from our government?
Congressional midterm elections are just around the corner. Though California is not a key "battleground" state, we can continue to spread our voice. Our congress is supporting a tyrannical president. We are operating at our highest national deficit in the nations history. And worst of all, our constitutional rights are disappearing right before our eyes. Election day is the day for voters to send congress a message loud and clear that we demand the protection of our civil liberties.
Cody Hobbs
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Senate to Vote on Constitutional amendment
The Senate will enter debates this week on a controversial constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. President George Bush has kicked off a campaign in support of the amendment, saying that this message is necessary to protect marriage from the hands of "activist" judges.
In 2005, 11 states passed a measure to ban gay marriage; and in all 11 states, the bill passed by large margins. As a democracy, is not President Bush only acting to serve the will of the people? If the United states were strictly a Democracy, I suppose the latter statement would be correct; however, we are a constitutional state; and as such, minorities, such as African-Americans, Hispanics, and even homosexuals are protected equally, even if their fundamental right to the pursuit of happiness is not yet recognized by the people at large.
What if the "will of the people" is dangerous to society; like child molesters?
I am not exactly sure how people have made the blind jump from same-sex marriage to child molesters (and homosexuality has also been compared to other such savory pastimes as bestiality, rape, and murder) but I am ever hopeful that we, as a nation, have at least a grain more of common sense then to believe allowing two consenting adults whom wish to share their love with one another through the sanctity of marriage is not the rode to kiddy porn at prime-time.
I also wonder if President Bush has ever heard of the Warren Court, or knows the meaning of Civil rights. During the tumultuous sixties, then Chief Justice Earl Warren, set precedence barring discrimination in public places. In his most notable ruling, "Brown V. Board of Education", Judge Earl Warren struck to end segregation in public schools. In his ruling, he states that "[I]n the eyes of the law, justice was color-blind" Had it not been for this activist Judge, we may still have black and white drinking fountains.
Hurting America...
Is discrimination against gays hurting America? On memorial day, a group of anti-gay protesters from Westboro Baptist Church picketed Arlington Cemetery, holding signs that said: "God is Americas terror", and "Thank God for dead soldiers" What caused such hatred for Americas fallen Heroes? Margie Phelps, the spokeswoman for Wetboro Baptist Church said "America is doomed because she has institutionalized sin and exalted homosexuality" Frankly, this is disgusting. These soldiers her organization protest gave their lives so people like her could be free to believe in whatever they chose, and this is her thanks?
Our forbears envisioned a country where people of all walks of life could live freely. They designed a Government of restriction, and included a bill of rights into the constitution to give voice to the voiceless. It would truly be an assault on American liberty for this Amendment to pass.
Cody Hobbs
In 2005, 11 states passed a measure to ban gay marriage; and in all 11 states, the bill passed by large margins. As a democracy, is not President Bush only acting to serve the will of the people? If the United states were strictly a Democracy, I suppose the latter statement would be correct; however, we are a constitutional state; and as such, minorities, such as African-Americans, Hispanics, and even homosexuals are protected equally, even if their fundamental right to the pursuit of happiness is not yet recognized by the people at large.
What if the "will of the people" is dangerous to society; like child molesters?
I am not exactly sure how people have made the blind jump from same-sex marriage to child molesters (and homosexuality has also been compared to other such savory pastimes as bestiality, rape, and murder) but I am ever hopeful that we, as a nation, have at least a grain more of common sense then to believe allowing two consenting adults whom wish to share their love with one another through the sanctity of marriage is not the rode to kiddy porn at prime-time.
I also wonder if President Bush has ever heard of the Warren Court, or knows the meaning of Civil rights. During the tumultuous sixties, then Chief Justice Earl Warren, set precedence barring discrimination in public places. In his most notable ruling, "Brown V. Board of Education", Judge Earl Warren struck to end segregation in public schools. In his ruling, he states that "[I]n the eyes of the law, justice was color-blind" Had it not been for this activist Judge, we may still have black and white drinking fountains.
Hurting America...
Is discrimination against gays hurting America? On memorial day, a group of anti-gay protesters from Westboro Baptist Church picketed Arlington Cemetery, holding signs that said: "God is Americas terror", and "Thank God for dead soldiers" What caused such hatred for Americas fallen Heroes? Margie Phelps, the spokeswoman for Wetboro Baptist Church said "America is doomed because she has institutionalized sin and exalted homosexuality" Frankly, this is disgusting. These soldiers her organization protest gave their lives so people like her could be free to believe in whatever they chose, and this is her thanks?
Our forbears envisioned a country where people of all walks of life could live freely. They designed a Government of restriction, and included a bill of rights into the constitution to give voice to the voiceless. It would truly be an assault on American liberty for this Amendment to pass.
Cody Hobbs
Friday, May 12, 2006
The Cost of Freedom
In a recent poll collected by ABC news reports that 63% of American people think the secret program by the NSA to tap United States citizens phone lines is acceptable. Wane Simmons, a former CIA operative says that the people who are responsible for leaking information on the NSA's secret program, along with the reporters who published the story, should be punished with jail time. We are given the same line in defence of the NSA's program every time scrutiny is brought upon it: "It is to protect your freedom."
This does bring up an important point. The freedoms we enjoy as American citizens come with a heavy cost. And, in our generation, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 demonstrated that cost. However, to forgo our liberty, the very essence of our freedom, is absolutely unacceptable. It is our freedom that hundreds of thousands of our finest military personal fight and die for daily. It is for love of freedom that we rise at the start of every football and baseball game and put our hands over our hearts while the national anthem is played. No, freedom is not free; there is a price to pay. But when we surrender our freedom and liberties, we loose the very essence of why we fight.
The cost of freedom is responsibility. To live in a free society is to bear the responsibility for for our own actions, and to recognize that as a nation, as a unified body of people, we are responsible for the assurance that all Americans can live as free citizens. That is the price tag that comes attached to our freedom.
Shouldn't we all be discussed at the mantra: "If you've done nothing wrong, then why does it bother you?" This is nothing more than a cleaver declaration of war against the American people; the very people we are supposed to be defending. Those who use this conning mantra are, at its essence, saying that not one of us can be trusted so we are all suspect. They are pointing a finger at every one of their neighbors and calling them out as a terrorist. If freedom doesn't belong to us, then for whom is it reserved?
Cody Hobbs
This does bring up an important point. The freedoms we enjoy as American citizens come with a heavy cost. And, in our generation, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 demonstrated that cost. However, to forgo our liberty, the very essence of our freedom, is absolutely unacceptable. It is our freedom that hundreds of thousands of our finest military personal fight and die for daily. It is for love of freedom that we rise at the start of every football and baseball game and put our hands over our hearts while the national anthem is played. No, freedom is not free; there is a price to pay. But when we surrender our freedom and liberties, we loose the very essence of why we fight.
The cost of freedom is responsibility. To live in a free society is to bear the responsibility for for our own actions, and to recognize that as a nation, as a unified body of people, we are responsible for the assurance that all Americans can live as free citizens. That is the price tag that comes attached to our freedom.
Shouldn't we all be discussed at the mantra: "If you've done nothing wrong, then why does it bother you?" This is nothing more than a cleaver declaration of war against the American people; the very people we are supposed to be defending. Those who use this conning mantra are, at its essence, saying that not one of us can be trusted so we are all suspect. They are pointing a finger at every one of their neighbors and calling them out as a terrorist. If freedom doesn't belong to us, then for whom is it reserved?
Cody Hobbs
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Senate Bill 1437
Bill requires gays' history to be taught:
State Senator Wants California to Lead Way
By Aaron C. Davis, San Jose Mercury News, April 9, 2006
SACRAMENTO - The state Senate will consider a bill that would require California schools to teach students about the contributions gay people have made to society -- an effort that supporters say is an attempt to battle discrimination and opponents say is designed to use the classroom to get children to embrace homosexuality.
The bill, which was passed by a Senate committee Tuesday, would require schools to buy textbooks ``accurately'' portraying ``the sexual diversity of our society.'' More controversially, it could require that students hear history lessons on ``the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America.''
Though it's a California bill, it could have far-reaching implications, not only by setting a precedent but also because California is the nation's largest textbook buyer and as such often sets the standards for publishers who sell nationwide.
The bill could also bring sex wars roaring back into state politics in an election year in which gay-rights advocates had already purposefully relegated same-sex marriage to the legislative back burner, and as signature-gathering efforts for propositions rolling back gay rights had begun to slow.
``We're totally opposed to inserting sexual orientation into textbooks in our schools. This is more than just accepting it, it's forcing our kids to embrace it, almost celebrate it,'' said Karen England, executive director of the public-policy group Capital Resource Institute, which believes teaching about sexual orientation should be left up to parents.
``This is not about discrimination. California is one of the most friendly gay, lesbian and transgender states in the nation,'' England said. ``This is a bold and out-front attempt to do what I think has always been the goal of a small but very loud group.''
The bill's author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, rejects the criticism. ``We've been working since 1995 to try to improve the climate in schools for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender kids, as well as those kids who are just thought to be gay, because there is an enormous amount of harassment and discrimination at stake,'' she said.
As for the need to teach gay history, Kuehl points to research she says concludes that gay students might do better in school and be less at risk for suicide, truancy or drug and alcohol abuse if they saw their own lives more accurately reflected in school textbooks and if the issue were more openly discussed in classrooms.
``Teaching materials mostly contain negative or adverse views of us, and that's when they mention us at all,'' said Kuehl, one of the Legislature's six openly gay lawmakers. A Senate analysis of her bill noted that one of the few times homosexuality is routinely discussed in classrooms is in relationship to pathology. ``In textbooks, it's as if there's no gay people in California at all, so forget about it,'' she said.
The bill expands on the existing state education code that already requires inclusion in the curriculum of the historical role and contributions of members of ethnic and cultural groups.
But central to the coming legislative floor debates will no doubt be questions about how gay issues might be woven into American history. The answer is still up for debate -- as is which historical figures might be outed in the process, and how textbook authors would decide their relevance.
``We're not suddenly going to say, `So and so was gay' when they never said that,'' Kuehl cautioned. ``But if you're teaching Langston Hughes poetry, you get a twofer because he was admittedly gay and he was black. So you could say he was a gay, black poet and talk about that.''
Aejaie Sellers, executive director of the Billy DeFrank LGBT Center in Santa Clara, said she thinks required gay-history lessons for students are a fantastic idea.
``Gays throughout history should be recognized. This is not something new, this goes back to the 18th and 17th and 16th century,'' said Sellers. ``The decriminalization of history could go back hundreds of years. There are certainly people who have made positive contributions to American history but all we ever hear is the tragic stuff.''
``Who knows,'' Sellers asked, ``that the author of `America the Beautiful,' Katharine Lee Bates, was gay?''
England says she doesn't really care, because a person's contribution to history doesn't hinge on sexual orientation.
``I don't care if, or who, whatever historical figure they want to say is gay,'' England said. ``If we're discussing history, who someone had sex with is inappropriate. I don't think most Californians want history and social sciences taught through the lens of who in history slept with whom.''
Sellers said she thinks the need for gay history and other lessons may vary from school to school.
``There are some schools that have gay-straight alliances where students feel heard and where teachers believe gender identity is not optional, that you're born with it. And it seems teachers there support and reflect that in their teaching. There are other schools where that's not the case.''
Whether the bill becomes law and if gay-history lessons become mandatory might quickly become Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's call.
The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 3-1; voting in favor were Sens. Joe Dunn, D-Garden Grove; Martha Escutia, D-Norwalk; and Kuehl. Voting against it was Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin.
The bill, SB 1437, requires only a majority vote in the Assembly and Senate, meaning that it could pass even if lawmakers -- Republican and Democrat -- voted the same way they did for last fall's gay-marriage bill. That bill passed, but the governor vetoed it.
State Senator Wants California to Lead Way
By Aaron C. Davis, San Jose Mercury News, April 9, 2006
SACRAMENTO - The state Senate will consider a bill that would require California schools to teach students about the contributions gay people have made to society -- an effort that supporters say is an attempt to battle discrimination and opponents say is designed to use the classroom to get children to embrace homosexuality.
The bill, which was passed by a Senate committee Tuesday, would require schools to buy textbooks ``accurately'' portraying ``the sexual diversity of our society.'' More controversially, it could require that students hear history lessons on ``the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America.''
Though it's a California bill, it could have far-reaching implications, not only by setting a precedent but also because California is the nation's largest textbook buyer and as such often sets the standards for publishers who sell nationwide.
The bill could also bring sex wars roaring back into state politics in an election year in which gay-rights advocates had already purposefully relegated same-sex marriage to the legislative back burner, and as signature-gathering efforts for propositions rolling back gay rights had begun to slow.
``We're totally opposed to inserting sexual orientation into textbooks in our schools. This is more than just accepting it, it's forcing our kids to embrace it, almost celebrate it,'' said Karen England, executive director of the public-policy group Capital Resource Institute, which believes teaching about sexual orientation should be left up to parents.
``This is not about discrimination. California is one of the most friendly gay, lesbian and transgender states in the nation,'' England said. ``This is a bold and out-front attempt to do what I think has always been the goal of a small but very loud group.''
The bill's author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, rejects the criticism. ``We've been working since 1995 to try to improve the climate in schools for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender kids, as well as those kids who are just thought to be gay, because there is an enormous amount of harassment and discrimination at stake,'' she said.
As for the need to teach gay history, Kuehl points to research she says concludes that gay students might do better in school and be less at risk for suicide, truancy or drug and alcohol abuse if they saw their own lives more accurately reflected in school textbooks and if the issue were more openly discussed in classrooms.
``Teaching materials mostly contain negative or adverse views of us, and that's when they mention us at all,'' said Kuehl, one of the Legislature's six openly gay lawmakers. A Senate analysis of her bill noted that one of the few times homosexuality is routinely discussed in classrooms is in relationship to pathology. ``In textbooks, it's as if there's no gay people in California at all, so forget about it,'' she said.
The bill expands on the existing state education code that already requires inclusion in the curriculum of the historical role and contributions of members of ethnic and cultural groups.
But central to the coming legislative floor debates will no doubt be questions about how gay issues might be woven into American history. The answer is still up for debate -- as is which historical figures might be outed in the process, and how textbook authors would decide their relevance.
``We're not suddenly going to say, `So and so was gay' when they never said that,'' Kuehl cautioned. ``But if you're teaching Langston Hughes poetry, you get a twofer because he was admittedly gay and he was black. So you could say he was a gay, black poet and talk about that.''
Aejaie Sellers, executive director of the Billy DeFrank LGBT Center in Santa Clara, said she thinks required gay-history lessons for students are a fantastic idea.
``Gays throughout history should be recognized. This is not something new, this goes back to the 18th and 17th and 16th century,'' said Sellers. ``The decriminalization of history could go back hundreds of years. There are certainly people who have made positive contributions to American history but all we ever hear is the tragic stuff.''
``Who knows,'' Sellers asked, ``that the author of `America the Beautiful,' Katharine Lee Bates, was gay?''
England says she doesn't really care, because a person's contribution to history doesn't hinge on sexual orientation.
``I don't care if, or who, whatever historical figure they want to say is gay,'' England said. ``If we're discussing history, who someone had sex with is inappropriate. I don't think most Californians want history and social sciences taught through the lens of who in history slept with whom.''
Sellers said she thinks the need for gay history and other lessons may vary from school to school.
``There are some schools that have gay-straight alliances where students feel heard and where teachers believe gender identity is not optional, that you're born with it. And it seems teachers there support and reflect that in their teaching. There are other schools where that's not the case.''
Whether the bill becomes law and if gay-history lessons become mandatory might quickly become Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's call.
The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 3-1; voting in favor were Sens. Joe Dunn, D-Garden Grove; Martha Escutia, D-Norwalk; and Kuehl. Voting against it was Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin.
The bill, SB 1437, requires only a majority vote in the Assembly and Senate, meaning that it could pass even if lawmakers -- Republican and Democrat -- voted the same way they did for last fall's gay-marriage bill. That bill passed, but the governor vetoed it.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Medicated nation: Part one
This was originally intended to be a one-part article; however, with the extensive amount of information, and the different types of legal and addictive mead's (from Oxycontin, to Lipitrex) I have decided to split this into three parts; firstly, discussing the general atmosphere of an over medicated nation. The second installment will focus solely on diet pills (such as Lipitrex) and the final installment will close with a summation of the overall problem. As always your comments and points of view are always appreciated.
I would also like to add that I do recognize the wonderful achievements our pharmaceutical industry has made. However, as with most things, where there is a pro, there is a contra.
Medicated nation: Part One - Be careful with that ice-pick Eugene
Imagine being strapped down to a dentist-office-like chair, and seeing a man enter with nothing but an ice-pick shaped device in his hands. He stands over you, and forces your eyes open: whatever the terror, you will be forced to watch every agonizing minute of it. There is no anaesthesia, but that's OK, you wont feel anything in a minute anyway. The doctor jams the ice-pick into your right tear-duct, and hammers it about an inch and a half into your skull. He then begins to move the pick back and forth, then repeats the process with your other eye.
What I have described is not a heinous murder from a Clive Barker flick, but rather a once-legitimate medical procedure known as a lobotomy. The procedure was first used by Dr. Walter Freeman in 1936, and this procedure was administered to between 40,000, and 50,000 Americans between 1936 and the late 1950's, after this barbaric procedure was finally banded in the United states.
The lobotomy was used to subdue unruly patients. And it worked blissfully too. The lucky recipients would spend the rest of their sordid days living in a near catatonic state, that is, if you can call it "living" at all. Though there are now fewer than 50 brain-surgeries a year (and none of which are lobotomies) have we truly put an end to this tyranny, or have we only wrapped it in prettier wrapping paper?
The War on Drugs: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
In the United states alone, it is estimated that over 10 million people are on some form of legally prescribed psychoactive drug. More than 13 for every 1,000 children under the age of 18 are on some form of psychoactive drug in the United States. The Number one prescribed psychoactive drug for young people is Ritalin, a stimulant used for children diagnosed with ADD. One resonating problem we run into is the high number of children that are misdiagnosed as having AD/HD. The symptoms match the normal behaviors to growing adolescents too closely to make an accurate diagnosis at a young age. And don't our children have enough problems as it is without putting them on a substance that is speeds molecular little brother? If that wasn't alarming enough, in the January 16, 2006 edition of TIME magazine, reporter Belinda Luscombe took the stuff for a week doing research and reported that while she was being super-productive, she felt agitated at everyone, and said that she began to lose her personal attachment to people, seeing them mostly as roadblocks rather than human-beings.
With new drugs expected to hit the market soon, one with the slogan do you feel just OK?, are we moving closer to our Utopian society, or something out of Huxley's nightmare? Are we using these prescription medications simply as a way not to feel, or to negate personal responsibility (from emotion)? Have we found the cure for the Human Condition? Can we really be free if we are chained to so many drugs? Are we playing god? Or rather, do we now think we are god? What do you think?
Cody R. Hobbs
I would also like to add that I do recognize the wonderful achievements our pharmaceutical industry has made. However, as with most things, where there is a pro, there is a contra.
Medicated nation: Part One - Be careful with that ice-pick Eugene
Imagine being strapped down to a dentist-office-like chair, and seeing a man enter with nothing but an ice-pick shaped device in his hands. He stands over you, and forces your eyes open: whatever the terror, you will be forced to watch every agonizing minute of it. There is no anaesthesia, but that's OK, you wont feel anything in a minute anyway. The doctor jams the ice-pick into your right tear-duct, and hammers it about an inch and a half into your skull. He then begins to move the pick back and forth, then repeats the process with your other eye.
What I have described is not a heinous murder from a Clive Barker flick, but rather a once-legitimate medical procedure known as a lobotomy. The procedure was first used by Dr. Walter Freeman in 1936, and this procedure was administered to between 40,000, and 50,000 Americans between 1936 and the late 1950's, after this barbaric procedure was finally banded in the United states.
The lobotomy was used to subdue unruly patients. And it worked blissfully too. The lucky recipients would spend the rest of their sordid days living in a near catatonic state, that is, if you can call it "living" at all. Though there are now fewer than 50 brain-surgeries a year (and none of which are lobotomies) have we truly put an end to this tyranny, or have we only wrapped it in prettier wrapping paper?
The War on Drugs: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
In the United states alone, it is estimated that over 10 million people are on some form of legally prescribed psychoactive drug. More than 13 for every 1,000 children under the age of 18 are on some form of psychoactive drug in the United States. The Number one prescribed psychoactive drug for young people is Ritalin, a stimulant used for children diagnosed with ADD. One resonating problem we run into is the high number of children that are misdiagnosed as having AD/HD. The symptoms match the normal behaviors to growing adolescents too closely to make an accurate diagnosis at a young age. And don't our children have enough problems as it is without putting them on a substance that is speeds molecular little brother? If that wasn't alarming enough, in the January 16, 2006 edition of TIME magazine, reporter Belinda Luscombe took the stuff for a week doing research and reported that while she was being super-productive, she felt agitated at everyone, and said that she began to lose her personal attachment to people, seeing them mostly as roadblocks rather than human-beings.
With new drugs expected to hit the market soon, one with the slogan do you feel just OK?, are we moving closer to our Utopian society, or something out of Huxley's nightmare? Are we using these prescription medications simply as a way not to feel, or to negate personal responsibility (from emotion)? Have we found the cure for the Human Condition? Can we really be free if we are chained to so many drugs? Are we playing god? Or rather, do we now think we are god? What do you think?
Cody R. Hobbs
Sunday, April 23, 2006
New address
Attention all
Stop partisan has a new home on myspace. Come check it out at: http://www.myspace.com/stop_partisan
Stop partisan has a new home on myspace. Come check it out at: http://www.myspace.com/stop_partisan
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Every body does it
At some point we all must succumb. It's that time of the year, or quarter rather, for me to take a little vacation. I will be out of service for the next two weeks...
But, when I return:
Addicted nation: a probe into a pharmaceutical industry that is making a new wave of junkies, users and losers. Unitll next time!
Cody Hobbs
But, when I return:
Addicted nation: a probe into a pharmaceutical industry that is making a new wave of junkies, users and losers. Unitll next time!
Cody Hobbs
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
New education study: Class matters
New study printed in today's online edition of the guardian:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1719123,00.html)
While I won't, and cannot post the article verbatim herein this blog, a new study by academics at University College London (UCL) and Kings College London has given statistical backing for my claims. Follow the hyperlink above to read the article.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1719123,00.html)
While I won't, and cannot post the article verbatim herein this blog, a new study by academics at University College London (UCL) and Kings College London has given statistical backing for my claims. Follow the hyperlink above to read the article.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Every Child Left Behind? Part 3
To conclude our analysis of the No Child Left Behind program, we'll take a look at how the program is fundamentally flawed, even if it were properly funded. But first, we'll look at how the education system works here in the US of A. Traditionally, education funding starts at the state not the Federal level, and monies collected from city ordinances are used to build new schools, and make sure they're running par excellence. (This is, of course, the system in a nut shell) The Federal Government, traditionally, has little involvement with the education system.
So why is the Federal Government getting involved now?
As we discussed earlier, our schools are in pretty bad shape as a nation. And this is where NCLB comes in, brought to you by Rod Paige, the same man whom masterminded the Huston Miracle! As you can see, we're already off to such a wonderful start. We've already discussed the "plan" from the Federal Government, but here it is, again in a nut shell - Standardized National testing (the multiple choice type); those schools who perform the best get the most moo-la from the Federal Government.
Good! Doesn't that just hold the districts accountable?
Before we get to "who's accountable", first we need to see if this test thing is really the best means to achieve this. First, for most white collar jobs, the most important job skill you can have is the ability to communicate, either orally or written, your ideas succinctly and clearly. Remember all of those book reports and ten page essays-with-oral-presentations you had to do in high school? You can thank your teachers later. Remember our earlier statistic- that 60%-70% of high school graduates cannot think or read critically? NCLB does nothing to improve communication skills. The only thing a standardized test can determine is how well you can regurgitate factual information. (I do understand the importance of association, however) Our next generation will be released into the toughest job market the US has ever seen- not just competing with their neighbor for a good paying job, but the whole world, without proper communication skills.
So what can we do?
First we have to get to the root of the problem. I understand that there are some really bad teachers out there; however, how can a teacher teach a class when the students just wont behave? And if the teacher should try to take corrective action towards the unruly brat- Law suite! It looks like the root lies with the parents and trickles upwards into the hollowed halls of institutions of education. In my AFA post, I outlined some things parents can do to teach their children healthy study habits, but do the parents really have the time? Gone are the days when one parent can afford to stay home with the rug-rats and engaged in active parenting. We've exported a high majority of our higher paying manufacturing jobs over-seas, and there is so much competition for the jobs that are left, that it is causing heavy deflationary pressures on wadges. The job that payed $20.00 an hour twenty years ago now only pays $10.00 (salary adjusted in today's dollars). GDP (how much we produced inside the US) was at 1.3% for 2005, down from its average of 3.5% annual gain, (GDP hasn't been this low since depression times) while CPI (inflation) rose 3.4% in 2005. http://www.bls.gov/
What the heck does that mean?
That means the average price of goods has risen more than what we made (GDP is in $'s) domestically last year. Combine that with a high influx of illegal immigrants pushing wadges down, and it puts an ever increasing strain on the median family income. Parents to day, to survive, have to work more hours to generate the same amount of income they did a generation ago.
So with the parents unable to parent, who can we hold accountable? For now, I will only suggest that we need to reconsider our current structure of "corporate anarchy". Isn't it time we start pulling in the reigns, and incenting business to stay here in the united states?
Cody Hobbs
So why is the Federal Government getting involved now?
As we discussed earlier, our schools are in pretty bad shape as a nation. And this is where NCLB comes in, brought to you by Rod Paige, the same man whom masterminded the Huston Miracle! As you can see, we're already off to such a wonderful start. We've already discussed the "plan" from the Federal Government, but here it is, again in a nut shell - Standardized National testing (the multiple choice type); those schools who perform the best get the most moo-la from the Federal Government.
Good! Doesn't that just hold the districts accountable?
Before we get to "who's accountable", first we need to see if this test thing is really the best means to achieve this. First, for most white collar jobs, the most important job skill you can have is the ability to communicate, either orally or written, your ideas succinctly and clearly. Remember all of those book reports and ten page essays-with-oral-presentations you had to do in high school? You can thank your teachers later. Remember our earlier statistic- that 60%-70% of high school graduates cannot think or read critically? NCLB does nothing to improve communication skills. The only thing a standardized test can determine is how well you can regurgitate factual information. (I do understand the importance of association, however) Our next generation will be released into the toughest job market the US has ever seen- not just competing with their neighbor for a good paying job, but the whole world, without proper communication skills.
So what can we do?
First we have to get to the root of the problem. I understand that there are some really bad teachers out there; however, how can a teacher teach a class when the students just wont behave? And if the teacher should try to take corrective action towards the unruly brat- Law suite! It looks like the root lies with the parents and trickles upwards into the hollowed halls of institutions of education. In my AFA post, I outlined some things parents can do to teach their children healthy study habits, but do the parents really have the time? Gone are the days when one parent can afford to stay home with the rug-rats and engaged in active parenting. We've exported a high majority of our higher paying manufacturing jobs over-seas, and there is so much competition for the jobs that are left, that it is causing heavy deflationary pressures on wadges. The job that payed $20.00 an hour twenty years ago now only pays $10.00 (salary adjusted in today's dollars). GDP (how much we produced inside the US) was at 1.3% for 2005, down from its average of 3.5% annual gain, (GDP hasn't been this low since depression times) while CPI (inflation) rose 3.4% in 2005. http://www.bls.gov/
What the heck does that mean?
That means the average price of goods has risen more than what we made (GDP is in $'s) domestically last year. Combine that with a high influx of illegal immigrants pushing wadges down, and it puts an ever increasing strain on the median family income. Parents to day, to survive, have to work more hours to generate the same amount of income they did a generation ago.
So with the parents unable to parent, who can we hold accountable? For now, I will only suggest that we need to reconsider our current structure of "corporate anarchy". Isn't it time we start pulling in the reigns, and incenting business to stay here in the united states?
Cody Hobbs
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Everey Child Left Behind? Part 2
So now that we have taken a look into where No Child Left Behind has come from, lets examine the effects of underfunding the program.
In 2004, here was how much each state did not receive:
(Yes, this is a long list, bear with me for a minute)
Alabama did not get $147 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $90 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $11 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Alaska did not get $37 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $19 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Arizona did not get $182 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $104 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $13 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Arkansas did not get $84 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $52 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
California did not get $1.3 billion in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $898 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $103 million for critical after-school programs, and $47 million to raise teacher quality.
Colorado did not get $96 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $54 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.
Connecticut did not get $80 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $47 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
District of Columbia did not get $44 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $28 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Delaware did not get $32 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $19 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Florida did not get $500 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $313 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $35 million for critical after-school programs, and $17 million to raise teacher quality.
Georgia did not get $283 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $180 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $22 million for critical after-school programs, and $10 million to raise teacher quality.
Hawaii did not get $47 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $22 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Idaho did not get $38 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $22 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Illinois did not get $409 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $265 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $31 million for critical after-school programs, and $13 million to raise teacher quality.
Indiana did not get $131 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $80 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Iowa did not get $51 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $29 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Kansas did not get $66 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $39 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $5 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
Kentucky did not get $123 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $81 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Louisiana did not get $200 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $137 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $16 million for critical after-school programs, and $8 million to raise teacher quality.
Maine did not get $24 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Maryland did not get $161 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $83 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Massachusetts did not get $171 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $110 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $13 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Michigan did not get $299 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $197 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $23 million for critical after-school programs, and $10 million to raise teacher quality.
Minnesota did not get $91 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $49 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.
Mississippi did not get $116 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $75 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $9 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Missouri did not get $140 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $87 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $11 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Montana did not get $38 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $21 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Nebraska did not get $43 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Nevada did not get $61 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $33 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
New Hampshire did not get $31 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
New Jersey did not get $209 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $122 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $15 million for critical after-school programs, and $7 million to raise teacher quality.
New Mexico did not get $98 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $57 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
New York did not get $966 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $664 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $73 million for critical after-school programs, and $24 million to raise teacher quality.
North Carolina did not get $230 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $137 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $17 million for critical after-school programs, and $9 million to raise teacher quality.
North Dakota did not get $17 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Ohio did not get $310 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $196 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $23 million for critical after-school programs, and $12 million to raise teacher quality.
Oklahoma did not get $129 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $64 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $8 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.
Oregon did not get $98 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $62 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $8 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
Pennsylvania did not get $337 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $217 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $25 million for critical after-school programs, and $12 million to raise teacher quality..
Rhode Island did not get $23 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $23 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
South Carolina did not get $80 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $81 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
South Dakota did not get $34 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $21 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Tennessee did not get $160 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $97 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $12 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Texas did not get $843 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $548 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $66 million for critical after-school programs, and $30 million to raise teacher quality.
Utah did not get $53 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Vermont did not get $27 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $16 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Virginia did not get $195 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $88 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $12 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Washington did not get $147 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $79 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
West Virginia did not get $66 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $46 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Wisconsin did not get $128 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $78 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $9 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Wyoming did not get $31 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
(source taken from http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/brokenpromisesreport.html)
The newly proposed budget plan from 2005 would cut an estimated $3.4 billion MORE from federal education funding for the next year.
But we need that money to slay the terrorist!
Okay...
However, with out the appropriate funds, the only thing the standardized testing is doing is reaffirming the idea that our schools are in some deep doo-doo. So by cutting the funding, were just re-stating the initial problem this was suppose to fix, but cutting out the solution. (I'll discuss next post on the problem of simply throwing money at a problem to fix it- but for now, well assume that money will magically fix the problem)
Bravo guys! Way to stick it to our youngsters! Next post, on 2-18-06 will dig deeper into the fundamental flaws of NCLB, even if it were being properly funded.
Cody Hobbs
In 2004, here was how much each state did not receive:
(Yes, this is a long list, bear with me for a minute)
Alabama did not get $147 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $90 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $11 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Alaska did not get $37 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $19 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Arizona did not get $182 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $104 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $13 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Arkansas did not get $84 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $52 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
California did not get $1.3 billion in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $898 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $103 million for critical after-school programs, and $47 million to raise teacher quality.
Colorado did not get $96 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $54 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.
Connecticut did not get $80 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $47 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
District of Columbia did not get $44 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $28 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Delaware did not get $32 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $19 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Florida did not get $500 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $313 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $35 million for critical after-school programs, and $17 million to raise teacher quality.
Georgia did not get $283 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $180 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $22 million for critical after-school programs, and $10 million to raise teacher quality.
Hawaii did not get $47 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $22 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Idaho did not get $38 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $22 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Illinois did not get $409 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $265 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $31 million for critical after-school programs, and $13 million to raise teacher quality.
Indiana did not get $131 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $80 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Iowa did not get $51 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $29 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Kansas did not get $66 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $39 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $5 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
Kentucky did not get $123 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $81 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Louisiana did not get $200 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $137 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $16 million for critical after-school programs, and $8 million to raise teacher quality.
Maine did not get $24 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Maryland did not get $161 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $83 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Massachusetts did not get $171 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $110 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $13 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Michigan did not get $299 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $197 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $23 million for critical after-school programs, and $10 million to raise teacher quality.
Minnesota did not get $91 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $49 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.
Mississippi did not get $116 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $75 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $9 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Missouri did not get $140 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $87 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $11 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Montana did not get $38 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $21 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Nebraska did not get $43 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Nevada did not get $61 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $33 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
New Hampshire did not get $31 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
New Jersey did not get $209 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $122 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $15 million for critical after-school programs, and $7 million to raise teacher quality.
New Mexico did not get $98 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $57 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
New York did not get $966 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $664 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $73 million for critical after-school programs, and $24 million to raise teacher quality.
North Carolina did not get $230 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $137 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $17 million for critical after-school programs, and $9 million to raise teacher quality.
North Dakota did not get $17 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Ohio did not get $310 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $196 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $23 million for critical after-school programs, and $12 million to raise teacher quality.
Oklahoma did not get $129 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $64 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $8 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.
Oregon did not get $98 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $62 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $8 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
Pennsylvania did not get $337 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $217 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $25 million for critical after-school programs, and $12 million to raise teacher quality..
Rhode Island did not get $23 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $23 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
South Carolina did not get $80 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $81 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
South Dakota did not get $34 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $21 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Tennessee did not get $160 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $97 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $12 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Texas did not get $843 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $548 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $66 million for critical after-school programs, and $30 million to raise teacher quality.
Utah did not get $53 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Vermont did not get $27 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $16 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Virginia did not get $195 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $88 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $12 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Washington did not get $147 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $79 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
West Virginia did not get $66 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $46 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Wisconsin did not get $128 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $78 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $9 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Wyoming did not get $31 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
(source taken from http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/brokenpromisesreport.html)
The newly proposed budget plan from 2005 would cut an estimated $3.4 billion MORE from federal education funding for the next year.
But we need that money to slay the terrorist!
Okay...
However, with out the appropriate funds, the only thing the standardized testing is doing is reaffirming the idea that our schools are in some deep doo-doo. So by cutting the funding, were just re-stating the initial problem this was suppose to fix, but cutting out the solution. (I'll discuss next post on the problem of simply throwing money at a problem to fix it- but for now, well assume that money will magically fix the problem)
Bravo guys! Way to stick it to our youngsters! Next post, on 2-18-06 will dig deeper into the fundamental flaws of NCLB, even if it were being properly funded.
Cody Hobbs
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Everey Child Left Behind?
It's a pretty much agreed on fact that U.S. schools ain't that great. (K-12) From our falling scores in Math and science compared to other industrialized nations, to a new survey that reports between 60-70% of high school graduates cannot think critically, it's clear that something needs to be done. So enter our hero, G.W. Bush and the infamous No Child left Behind act. With schools providing yearly testing to compete for federal aid, (the higher a school's average score, the more federal money they receive*) we can once again sleep soundly that our youth is gettn' themselves some educationism! But then we pinch ourselves, and sadly watch as this colorful fantasy melts away before our very eyes.
So what's the deal behind No child left behind? Is this the long awaited miracle that's going to save our children, or is this creating a worse problem then we have now? Because of the extensive amount of information on NCLB, we will split this story into three segments, the first going back to where it all began, with a little thing called the "Huston Miracle"
The Huston Miracle - The U.S. hasn't sold it yet!
In many ways, Huston represented the core of our nations education problems. The drop-out rate was at 67%, most who did make it never went to college; to put it simply you might have asked: what Huston education system? But, while G.W. was still Governor of Texas, along came along one Mr. Rod Paige, the man who was then in charge of the Huston school district. He worked day and night with Governor Bush to find a solution to their education malices. Then, on a cold December night, while sipping a cup of warm hot chocolate, the answer appeared! The idea was to introduce a standardized test (the multiple choice kind, where you pick A, B, C or D) for the whole district, and based on the scores, schools would receive an extra incentive for their hard work! The teachers of the schools who could lower the drop-out rate, and provide top scores would receive a pay raise! This revolutionary idea worked so well, that within ONE YEAR the drop out rate for Huston proper dropped to under 19%! It seemed standardized testing was the answer!
But could this have been to good to be true? First, under the new provisions provided, in order for a student to be considered as a "drop-out" it had to have occurred in their senior year. Moreover, teachers were encouraged to "hold kids back" who they didn't think would make the grade. If after four years of being held back and the student chose to leave school, they were considered to have simply "been transferred". (Students who were held back in their freshmen, sophomore or junior year weren't allowed to take the test.) Could the Huston miracle just been the result of some fuzzy math? If so, then their is no way Rod Paige would have been allowed to keep his job, much less ever achieve a higher position in the government.
But wait, that same Mr. Rod Paige is now U.S. Secretary of Education, appointed by a now President G.W. Bush due to his excellent efforts in Huston. He is also one of the masterminds behind our current federal No child left behind act!
So, to conclude Part One of our No Child Left behind inquiry, I will leave you with a question: can we trust a program that has such seedy roots? Part Two will look at the underfunding of the program on 02-16-2006.
Cody Hobbs
*So schools that really need the funding are getting less money!
Sorce provided from CNN documentery: No Child Left Behind
So what's the deal behind No child left behind? Is this the long awaited miracle that's going to save our children, or is this creating a worse problem then we have now? Because of the extensive amount of information on NCLB, we will split this story into three segments, the first going back to where it all began, with a little thing called the "Huston Miracle"
The Huston Miracle - The U.S. hasn't sold it yet!
In many ways, Huston represented the core of our nations education problems. The drop-out rate was at 67%, most who did make it never went to college; to put it simply you might have asked: what Huston education system? But, while G.W. was still Governor of Texas, along came along one Mr. Rod Paige, the man who was then in charge of the Huston school district. He worked day and night with Governor Bush to find a solution to their education malices. Then, on a cold December night, while sipping a cup of warm hot chocolate, the answer appeared! The idea was to introduce a standardized test (the multiple choice kind, where you pick A, B, C or D) for the whole district, and based on the scores, schools would receive an extra incentive for their hard work! The teachers of the schools who could lower the drop-out rate, and provide top scores would receive a pay raise! This revolutionary idea worked so well, that within ONE YEAR the drop out rate for Huston proper dropped to under 19%! It seemed standardized testing was the answer!
But could this have been to good to be true? First, under the new provisions provided, in order for a student to be considered as a "drop-out" it had to have occurred in their senior year. Moreover, teachers were encouraged to "hold kids back" who they didn't think would make the grade. If after four years of being held back and the student chose to leave school, they were considered to have simply "been transferred". (Students who were held back in their freshmen, sophomore or junior year weren't allowed to take the test.) Could the Huston miracle just been the result of some fuzzy math? If so, then their is no way Rod Paige would have been allowed to keep his job, much less ever achieve a higher position in the government.
But wait, that same Mr. Rod Paige is now U.S. Secretary of Education, appointed by a now President G.W. Bush due to his excellent efforts in Huston. He is also one of the masterminds behind our current federal No child left behind act!
So, to conclude Part One of our No Child Left behind inquiry, I will leave you with a question: can we trust a program that has such seedy roots? Part Two will look at the underfunding of the program on 02-16-2006.
Cody Hobbs
*So schools that really need the funding are getting less money!
Sorce provided from CNN documentery: No Child Left Behind
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Criminal in Chief
With senate Judiciary hearings starting on the "wire tapping" incident, I feel that it is appropriate to define exactly where (I think) Bush has quite-in-fact broke the law. There has been much ambiguity spread by the major news networks, and, indeed, ambiguity spread by Senators and congressmen, too, as to what criminal acts have been committed.
This is just like Nixon / Liberals always pull the "Nixon" card
But is this like Nixon? Does The Commander-in-chief have the authority to wire-tap its own citizens to preserve National security? The answer is unequivocally, yes; however, not unconditionally so. So what does that mean? In simple language: The President, based on the powers vested to him by the Constitution, and defined by the provisions of FISA, may eavesdrop on its own citizens providing certain criteria, or conditions, if you will, have been met. *
So no law was broken then, right?
The supreme court has ruled, concerning gathering intelligence using wire tapping methods, that: if "neither a warrant nor a statute authorizing eavesdropping can be drawn so as to meet the Fourth Amendment's requirements . . . then the Fruits' of eavesdropping devices are barred under the Amendment." So we are given herein two conditions under-which the Executive branch must act.
1. It must meet 4th Amendment requirements, and
2. The Executive branch *must obtain a warrant*
It is on this second point that the legality of the NSA's wiretapping has been contested. As outlined by FISA, the Executive branch (President Bush; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales both fall under the Executive branch) has 72hrs. to obtain a warrant after begging the wiretapping.
So, then isn't getting a warrant just a ritualized gesture?
To some degree it is. However, the purpose for this "ritual" is to keep the Executive in check. With-out a warrant, we are saying "I blindly trust your discretion". Has President Bush given us reason to trust him unconditionally? Has he been honest in all of his affairs? These questions, only you can answer for yourself.
But wait! President Bush said that if we had been keeping track of terrorist activity prior to 9/11, we could have prevented the attacks on the WTC. Shouldn't we then be applauding him for his efforts?
And I'm so glad you asked. To make the claim that criminal wiretapping is what was needed to prevent the 9/11 attacks is GROSSLY MISLEADING. I cannot emphasize this enough. In 1999 a special operations Command military intelligence program was created. The program was named "Able Danger". Hearings before the Senate Judiciary committee has asserted that "Able Danger had identified the September 11, 2001 attack leader Mohamed Atta, and three of the 9/11 plot's 19 hijackers, as possible members of an Al Qaeda cell linked to the '93 World Trade Center Attacks." This contradicts the original finding of the 9/11 Commission that intelligence agencies had not identified the attackers prior to 9/11.
:-\
This means that:
WE HAD THE INTELEGENCE!! However, because of laws passed concerning agencies ability to communicate with one another, we were never able to put the pieces of the puzzle together. What was needed to prevent the 9/11 attacks was not illegal wiretapping; rather, a repaired intelligence agency is what was needed. The President broke the law, very clearly, by issuing an order allowing the NSA to conduct electronic surveillance without ANY warrant. We must demand that accountability is restored to our government.
* Under FISA (and this is where more ambiguity arises) it is legal to use electronic surveillance to spy on a foreign entity without a warrant.
Cody Hobbs
This is just like Nixon / Liberals always pull the "Nixon" card
But is this like Nixon? Does The Commander-in-chief have the authority to wire-tap its own citizens to preserve National security? The answer is unequivocally, yes; however, not unconditionally so. So what does that mean? In simple language: The President, based on the powers vested to him by the Constitution, and defined by the provisions of FISA, may eavesdrop on its own citizens providing certain criteria, or conditions, if you will, have been met. *
So no law was broken then, right?
The supreme court has ruled, concerning gathering intelligence using wire tapping methods, that: if "neither a warrant nor a statute authorizing eavesdropping can be drawn so as to meet the Fourth Amendment's requirements . . . then the Fruits' of eavesdropping devices are barred under the Amendment." So we are given herein two conditions under-which the Executive branch must act.
1. It must meet 4th Amendment requirements, and
2. The Executive branch *must obtain a warrant*
It is on this second point that the legality of the NSA's wiretapping has been contested. As outlined by FISA, the Executive branch (President Bush; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales both fall under the Executive branch) has 72hrs. to obtain a warrant after begging the wiretapping.
So, then isn't getting a warrant just a ritualized gesture?
To some degree it is. However, the purpose for this "ritual" is to keep the Executive in check. With-out a warrant, we are saying "I blindly trust your discretion". Has President Bush given us reason to trust him unconditionally? Has he been honest in all of his affairs? These questions, only you can answer for yourself.
But wait! President Bush said that if we had been keeping track of terrorist activity prior to 9/11, we could have prevented the attacks on the WTC. Shouldn't we then be applauding him for his efforts?
And I'm so glad you asked. To make the claim that criminal wiretapping is what was needed to prevent the 9/11 attacks is GROSSLY MISLEADING. I cannot emphasize this enough. In 1999 a special operations Command military intelligence program was created. The program was named "Able Danger". Hearings before the Senate Judiciary committee has asserted that "Able Danger had identified the September 11, 2001 attack leader Mohamed Atta, and three of the 9/11 plot's 19 hijackers, as possible members of an Al Qaeda cell linked to the '93 World Trade Center Attacks." This contradicts the original finding of the 9/11 Commission that intelligence agencies had not identified the attackers prior to 9/11.
:-\
This means that:
WE HAD THE INTELEGENCE!! However, because of laws passed concerning agencies ability to communicate with one another, we were never able to put the pieces of the puzzle together. What was needed to prevent the 9/11 attacks was not illegal wiretapping; rather, a repaired intelligence agency is what was needed. The President broke the law, very clearly, by issuing an order allowing the NSA to conduct electronic surveillance without ANY warrant. We must demand that accountability is restored to our government.
* Under FISA (and this is where more ambiguity arises) it is legal to use electronic surveillance to spy on a foreign entity without a warrant.
Cody Hobbs
Sunday, January 29, 2006
The Book of Danial
Here is the AFA's reason for wanting the Book of Danial canceled. (Thank you Virgina, for pointing that out!) Text has been taken directly from their e-mail efforts:
"NBC is promoting the network's mid-season replacement series "The Book of Daniel" with language that implies it is a serious drama about Christian people and Christian faith. The main character is Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest whose wife depends heavily on her mid-day martinis. Webster regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus. The Webster family is rounded out by a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter. At the office, his lesbian secretary is sleeping with his sister-in-law. Network hype – and the mainstream media – call it "edgy," "challenging" and "courageous." The hour-long limited drama series will debut January 6 with back-to-back episodes and will air on Friday nights. The writer for the series is a practicing homosexual. The homosexual son will be network prime-time's only regular male homosexual character in a drama series. Please use the link below to send a letter to NBC Chairman Bob Wright. Next, please forward this to your family and friends today! Those at NBC responsible for this program consider it a good, religiously oriented show typical of Christian families. "
"NBC is promoting the network's mid-season replacement series "The Book of Daniel" with language that implies it is a serious drama about Christian people and Christian faith. The main character is Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest whose wife depends heavily on her mid-day martinis. Webster regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus. The Webster family is rounded out by a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter. At the office, his lesbian secretary is sleeping with his sister-in-law. Network hype – and the mainstream media – call it "edgy," "challenging" and "courageous." The hour-long limited drama series will debut January 6 with back-to-back episodes and will air on Friday nights. The writer for the series is a practicing homosexual. The homosexual son will be network prime-time's only regular male homosexual character in a drama series. Please use the link below to send a letter to NBC Chairman Bob Wright. Next, please forward this to your family and friends today! Those at NBC responsible for this program consider it a good, religiously oriented show typical of Christian families. "
The AFA - The American Fascist Association?
NBC has decided to cancel its controversial new show, Book of Daniel after only a few short weeks on the air. The reason for the cancellation was due to low ratings; however, a conservative Christian group, The AFA, didn't want anybody to see even a single episode, and they were in fact successful in arm-twisting several affiliates of NBC to never air the show at all. Moreover, you don't ever have to see the program to be offended by it; the AFA will send you a handy e-mail to let you know what you should be offended by. So what say you dear reader? Is this an example of democracy at work? Should a rouge group that strictly adheres to a single ideology make dictatorship-like decisions for the "good" of the nation?
The AFA, and its affiliate organizations: One Million Dads / One Million Moms are organizations that lobby's its members to take action against inappropriate television programming, write their congressmen concerning issues they feel are important to them, and otherwise take action in their own community to make it a more "Christen" safe zone. I don't think everything AFA and friends do is wrong nor do I have anything against their Christian roots. In fact, The AFA is, in many respects, just a bigger version of what I hope to achieve someday. So what’s the problem then?
Writing Congress is an honorable act. Encouraging friends and family, and others whom share in your ideologies to not watch a television program because you think they may find it offensive is serving your community. But trying to eliminate things you find offensive so that NO ONE can see them is a fascist move. I do no use the word "fascist" to be facetious, I mean it literally. If someone is offended by a television program, than tune out; and if enough people are offended by the material, then the program will not last.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!
One major concern amongst conservative groups is the accessibility of the material to young viewers. Parents say that it is impossible to monitor their children’s television watching habits all of the time. Well, I am afraid that I have some news for you all, THE TELEVISION IS NOT A PARRENT! And neither should you depend on this death-box to do any parenting for you. You, mom and dad (or dad and dad/mom and mom, or any other combo.) are the most influential people in your children’s first twelve years of life. An article in the January 16th, 2006 addition of Time magazine suggests that no children under two should be exposed to ANY television. As for television watching habits of children older than two, hear are some suggestions:
1. No T.V. in the bedroom. This applies to adults as well. Reserve the bedroom for sleeping, reading, homework, making children ;-), but pleas - no television.
2. Block-out the bad programming. Most televisions now have the ability to block out programs with a certain rating, and even whole channels. If you have small children, might I suggest blocking MTV, VH1, BET and TBN.
3. After-school activities. It is not uncommon for both parents to have to work; after school activities is a wonderful way for your children/teens to get involved and keep their heads out of the television. If no activities are provided by your school, check your local YMCA. And if you feel really ambitious, talk with other parents in your neighborhood about a community activity.
4. If your children happens to see offencive material; like say, at a friends house, simply sit them down and explain to them that what they saw was not real, and if applicable, that it was inappropriate behavior. Your children will have a much more firm grasp on reality if you do so.
If you find yourself too busy to spend any time rearing your child, then don't have them. Again, I am absolutely serious about this. If you must depend on the television to do ALL of the parenting then you are not at a place in your life where you should have children. I sympathize with the fact that parents must both work to support their family, and I understand that it is doubly difficult for single parents. But don't be ashamed to ask for help from your family and friends. Your children are worth it.
The AFA also presents itself as an organization representing a Christen society that is under the same danger the Christians of Rome were in under Emperor Nero. They support the Blue Finger Campaign, a (in my opinion) sick comparison of Christians in the U.S. to Iraqi’s voting in Iraq.
The AFA is not the only organization of its kind. And there are organizations on the left, such as the ACLU, fighting to extend our liberties rather than restrict them. It is also true that they may not represent a majority opinion; however, at least for the time being, though they are not the only voice, they are the loudest.
Cody Hobbs
The AFA, and its affiliate organizations: One Million Dads / One Million Moms are organizations that lobby's its members to take action against inappropriate television programming, write their congressmen concerning issues they feel are important to them, and otherwise take action in their own community to make it a more "Christen" safe zone. I don't think everything AFA and friends do is wrong nor do I have anything against their Christian roots. In fact, The AFA is, in many respects, just a bigger version of what I hope to achieve someday. So what’s the problem then?
Writing Congress is an honorable act. Encouraging friends and family, and others whom share in your ideologies to not watch a television program because you think they may find it offensive is serving your community. But trying to eliminate things you find offensive so that NO ONE can see them is a fascist move. I do no use the word "fascist" to be facetious, I mean it literally. If someone is offended by a television program, than tune out; and if enough people are offended by the material, then the program will not last.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!
One major concern amongst conservative groups is the accessibility of the material to young viewers. Parents say that it is impossible to monitor their children’s television watching habits all of the time. Well, I am afraid that I have some news for you all, THE TELEVISION IS NOT A PARRENT! And neither should you depend on this death-box to do any parenting for you. You, mom and dad (or dad and dad/mom and mom, or any other combo.) are the most influential people in your children’s first twelve years of life. An article in the January 16th, 2006 addition of Time magazine suggests that no children under two should be exposed to ANY television. As for television watching habits of children older than two, hear are some suggestions:
1. No T.V. in the bedroom. This applies to adults as well. Reserve the bedroom for sleeping, reading, homework, making children ;-), but pleas - no television.
2. Block-out the bad programming. Most televisions now have the ability to block out programs with a certain rating, and even whole channels. If you have small children, might I suggest blocking MTV, VH1, BET and TBN.
3. After-school activities. It is not uncommon for both parents to have to work; after school activities is a wonderful way for your children/teens to get involved and keep their heads out of the television. If no activities are provided by your school, check your local YMCA. And if you feel really ambitious, talk with other parents in your neighborhood about a community activity.
4. If your children happens to see offencive material; like say, at a friends house, simply sit them down and explain to them that what they saw was not real, and if applicable, that it was inappropriate behavior. Your children will have a much more firm grasp on reality if you do so.
If you find yourself too busy to spend any time rearing your child, then don't have them. Again, I am absolutely serious about this. If you must depend on the television to do ALL of the parenting then you are not at a place in your life where you should have children. I sympathize with the fact that parents must both work to support their family, and I understand that it is doubly difficult for single parents. But don't be ashamed to ask for help from your family and friends. Your children are worth it.
The AFA also presents itself as an organization representing a Christen society that is under the same danger the Christians of Rome were in under Emperor Nero. They support the Blue Finger Campaign, a (in my opinion) sick comparison of Christians in the U.S. to Iraqi’s voting in Iraq.
The AFA is not the only organization of its kind. And there are organizations on the left, such as the ACLU, fighting to extend our liberties rather than restrict them. It is also true that they may not represent a majority opinion; however, at least for the time being, though they are not the only voice, they are the loudest.
Cody Hobbs
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Judge Dread?
The Judicial branch of the government is probably the least, and most misunderstood branch of the government, and with good cause. There’s not a whole lot said about the Judicial branch in the Constitution. (Of the three branches of government, the Judiciary branch has the shortest explanation.) The Judiciary branch is also one of the most controversial, possibly having an unbalanced amount of power. No ruling of the court has ever been successfully challenged by any other branch of government. So, in short, The Supreme Court has historically always had the last word.*
So what is the function of the courts? Is it to enforce law? Is it to craft it? Or is it something different. Article Three of the United States Constitution only gives a vague outline of what the purpose of the third branch of government is. (I won’t paste the entire Third Article here; pleas follow the link. )
Okay. What does that mean?
Judicial powers have been defined as: “[T]he guardians of the Constitution… Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes.” (click here for source) So then it is the courts job to interpret how laws, and the Constitution applies to real world situations.
So what's the big deal?
As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court has never been successfully challenged by any other branch of government. Our governmental system was designed on a system of checks and balances. No branch of government was meant to have more power than the other, but how can this be if the high-court has never been challenged? The Supreme Court is also the only branch of government that is not designed to bend to the will of the people; they serve already existing law. Moreover, Supreme Court Justices sit on the court for life. The only way for this to be changed would be via a Constitutional Amendment. But, should it be changed? Has the high court been dysfunctional? I will leave it up to you to decide that. Until we meet again, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
*The Supreme Court has overturned prior rulings, but only when challenged by a sitting Justis, not by any other branch of government.
So what is the function of the courts? Is it to enforce law? Is it to craft it? Or is it something different. Article Three of the United States Constitution only gives a vague outline of what the purpose of the third branch of government is. (I won’t paste the entire Third Article here; pleas follow the link. )
Okay. What does that mean?
Judicial powers have been defined as: “[T]he guardians of the Constitution… Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes.” (click here for source) So then it is the courts job to interpret how laws, and the Constitution applies to real world situations.
So what's the big deal?
As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court has never been successfully challenged by any other branch of government. Our governmental system was designed on a system of checks and balances. No branch of government was meant to have more power than the other, but how can this be if the high-court has never been challenged? The Supreme Court is also the only branch of government that is not designed to bend to the will of the people; they serve already existing law. Moreover, Supreme Court Justices sit on the court for life. The only way for this to be changed would be via a Constitutional Amendment. But, should it be changed? Has the high court been dysfunctional? I will leave it up to you to decide that. Until we meet again, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
*The Supreme Court has overturned prior rulings, but only when challenged by a sitting Justis, not by any other branch of government.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Roe v. Wade
There has been much discussion about Roe v. Wade, abortion, and weather or not it is "fact" that life begins at conception. (Or if there is such thing as "scientific fact" at all.) Also, questions have been raised about the Constitutionality of Roe. Unfortunately, their are no definitive answers to these questions.
Mommy, where do babies come from?
Determining when life begins has been a long debated question. And weather you want to believe life begins at conception, or if it is just a fetus until x trimester, there is a certified M.D. who agrees with you. And lots of them, on both sides. As for determining scientific "fact", I will refer you to the words of Stephen J. Gould PhD.: "In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact'--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess... [F]acts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty... Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world."
It is a fact that this blog exists. It is a fact that that thing growing inside of a woman is a living thing. However, what is trying to be decided by the debate isn't weather it is a living thing, the sperm inside of me is a living thing, what must be decided is if it is a separate individual, or when it becomes a separate individual. I am fully able to support myself. I do not require to be "plugged into" someone else for survival. If, however, a fetus is removed from a mothers womb, then it has no chance at maturing into a full grown human without some other host. If I am in a car accident, and require a respirator to live, my next of ken, or spouse, can have me removed from life support. However, if I have a guest in my home, and the only way to get him out is to push him out a ten story window, it would be unlawful for me to do so.
In the decision of Roe v. Wade, the majority of the Justices found that Roe had power of attorney over the fetus inside of her, and to deny her the right to terminate that life would violate her first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendment. You may be inclined to say that, in that case, their is no possible way Roe could, or should be over turned. Isn't it just like the car accident scenario? Their is one crucial difference. If I express a desire to be resuscitated at all costs, as say in a living will, then that is the final word. Where Roe could be defeated is on the issue of consent. The fetus inside of the woman cannot express consent. Therefor, the only voice it has to speak for it is the equal protection clause in the 14 amendment. As for there being no specific mentioning of abortion in the Constitution, it was intended to be that way. The Constitution was written as a lay-man's document, without any technical language or anything too specific. If you read a standard law, like say one passed by the Senate, (the Patriot act is a good example) it is very specific, and often difficult to understand. The Constitution, however, was meant to be understood by all Americans. As for how to interpret the vague language, that is what the Judicial branch of the government was intended to do.
Roe is far from a clear-cut issue. Most people do hold strong opinions one way or the other on the issue, and I certainly encourage that. But, thinking that their is only one way to look at the issue is absurdly incorrect. As I have said before, the debate is far from over. And in the end, it will be the Supreme Court Justices who have the last word. Until next time, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
Mommy, where do babies come from?
Determining when life begins has been a long debated question. And weather you want to believe life begins at conception, or if it is just a fetus until x trimester, there is a certified M.D. who agrees with you. And lots of them, on both sides. As for determining scientific "fact", I will refer you to the words of Stephen J. Gould PhD.: "In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact'--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess... [F]acts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty... Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world."
It is a fact that this blog exists. It is a fact that that thing growing inside of a woman is a living thing. However, what is trying to be decided by the debate isn't weather it is a living thing, the sperm inside of me is a living thing, what must be decided is if it is a separate individual, or when it becomes a separate individual. I am fully able to support myself. I do not require to be "plugged into" someone else for survival. If, however, a fetus is removed from a mothers womb, then it has no chance at maturing into a full grown human without some other host. If I am in a car accident, and require a respirator to live, my next of ken, or spouse, can have me removed from life support. However, if I have a guest in my home, and the only way to get him out is to push him out a ten story window, it would be unlawful for me to do so.
In the decision of Roe v. Wade, the majority of the Justices found that Roe had power of attorney over the fetus inside of her, and to deny her the right to terminate that life would violate her first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendment. You may be inclined to say that, in that case, their is no possible way Roe could, or should be over turned. Isn't it just like the car accident scenario? Their is one crucial difference. If I express a desire to be resuscitated at all costs, as say in a living will, then that is the final word. Where Roe could be defeated is on the issue of consent. The fetus inside of the woman cannot express consent. Therefor, the only voice it has to speak for it is the equal protection clause in the 14 amendment. As for there being no specific mentioning of abortion in the Constitution, it was intended to be that way. The Constitution was written as a lay-man's document, without any technical language or anything too specific. If you read a standard law, like say one passed by the Senate, (the Patriot act is a good example) it is very specific, and often difficult to understand. The Constitution, however, was meant to be understood by all Americans. As for how to interpret the vague language, that is what the Judicial branch of the government was intended to do.
Roe is far from a clear-cut issue. Most people do hold strong opinions one way or the other on the issue, and I certainly encourage that. But, thinking that their is only one way to look at the issue is absurdly incorrect. As I have said before, the debate is far from over. And in the end, it will be the Supreme Court Justices who have the last word. Until next time, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Oh, Teddy boy
I won't give you a play-by-play rundown of the second-to-last day of hearings, but I will give some of the highlights of the hearings thus far.
The hearings piqued today when Sen. Ted Kennedy (D. Massachusetts) demanded that records concerning Alito's involvement in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton be subpoenaed. In an issue of the organizations publications, it was opined that Princeton has gone downhill since admitting more African-Americans. When questioned, Alito simply responds that "I don't remember" what his involvement was. And, at the end of the day, without said documents, his involvement is inconclusive.
Alito has been criticized for not directly answering questions on his opinion on Roe v. Wade. The closest he came was when he was asked if he would keep an open mind in deciding future cases, in spite of his 1985 memo, he answered that he would. Since future cases concerning abortion are expected to be brought to the Supreme Court, if he does provide a definitive answer in these hearings, he could be forced to recuse himself from the hearings. He has also said that he believes in Stare Decisis (a legal philosophy that president decisions are to be followed by the court).
As for questions pertaining to executive power, he said that "No man [including the President] is above the law, and no man is below the law."
Alito does have some rulings that should be put under scrutiny by the committee. And that is their job, par the Constitution. And I shall reiterate, just because something is said, doesn't make it so. However, no one can predict how Alito will vote. So far he has answered the questions as openly as he could. I do have my personal concerns about the Alito nomination. However, I will not trump-up the facts for, or against Alito. They are what they are. I have read, and listened to so many political commentators in the last two days, both left and right, exaggerate, nit-pick, and just flat out lie about the proceedings, and Alito's past, that it makes me want to vomit. I do think that the records Kennedy requested are crucial to this nomination. We have one more day before it is decided if he will be passed to the full vote of the Senate. Until then, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
The hearings piqued today when Sen. Ted Kennedy (D. Massachusetts) demanded that records concerning Alito's involvement in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton be subpoenaed. In an issue of the organizations publications, it was opined that Princeton has gone downhill since admitting more African-Americans. When questioned, Alito simply responds that "I don't remember" what his involvement was. And, at the end of the day, without said documents, his involvement is inconclusive.
Alito has been criticized for not directly answering questions on his opinion on Roe v. Wade. The closest he came was when he was asked if he would keep an open mind in deciding future cases, in spite of his 1985 memo, he answered that he would. Since future cases concerning abortion are expected to be brought to the Supreme Court, if he does provide a definitive answer in these hearings, he could be forced to recuse himself from the hearings. He has also said that he believes in Stare Decisis (a legal philosophy that president decisions are to be followed by the court).
As for questions pertaining to executive power, he said that "No man [including the President] is above the law, and no man is below the law."
Alito does have some rulings that should be put under scrutiny by the committee. And that is their job, par the Constitution. And I shall reiterate, just because something is said, doesn't make it so. However, no one can predict how Alito will vote. So far he has answered the questions as openly as he could. I do have my personal concerns about the Alito nomination. However, I will not trump-up the facts for, or against Alito. They are what they are. I have read, and listened to so many political commentators in the last two days, both left and right, exaggerate, nit-pick, and just flat out lie about the proceedings, and Alito's past, that it makes me want to vomit. I do think that the records Kennedy requested are crucial to this nomination. We have one more day before it is decided if he will be passed to the full vote of the Senate. Until then, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Survivor - Judicial island
Today marked the first day of the Senate Judicial Committee hearings on judicial nominee Samuel Alito Jr. The committee opened by allowing each of the fifteen senators on the committee to give a ten minute opening statement directed to Alito. These opening statements were so action packed I was drowning in my morning cereal by minute five. However, this is not an issue to be taken lightly. If confirmed, Alito will sit on the highest court in the United States for life.
Isn't the Supreme Court just a bunch of old dudes wearing dresses?
Though the gowns they adorn my seem a bit odd, (styled after the Roman Toga) but their rulings have an impact on every citizen in the United States. And the seat Alito will be filling is perhaps more crucial than that of the Chief Justice, currently held by John Roberts. Alito has been nominated to fill the seat of Sandra Day OConner, who has agreed to sit on the court after her retirement until her replacement has been confirmed.
For nearly two decades, Sandra Day O’Conner has been the crucial swing vote in a divided court. She has cast over 140 tie-breaking votes since being sworn into the Supreme Court in 1981. O’Conner was also the first woman nominated to the court, and ruled consistently to advance woman’s rights, a person’s right to privacy and maintaining a fair separation of powers between the three branches of government. O’Conner has struck down both state and federal laws, sighting them to be unconstitutional. For this, she has been labeled by some conservatives as an "activist" Judge.
An "activist" Judge makes biased rulings based on personal beliefs, conviction or morals regardless of the law. Activist Judges are also accused of "Legislating" from the bench, creating laws instead of interpreting them. O’Conner, however, made decisions based on the highest doctrine of law in the United States, the Constitution. She has ruled time and again to ensure that none of our fundamental rights, as set forth by the Constitution, have been violated.
ZZZZZZZZZ...
OK, so enough with the history of O’Conner. What about Alito? Several of the Democrats on the committee cited examples of rulings where Alito had ruled, as a Federal Appellate Court judge, to restrict a persons right to privacy, and in one case his opinion stated that private citizens have no constitutional right to privacy. (What constitution did he study? The 4th Amendment) (For specific examples of Alito's track record against personal privacy, click here) Alito has also written negatively against the Warren Court, (named as such, because the presiding Chief Justice at the time was Earl Warren) One of the Warren Court's most infamous ruling was involving "reapportionment" (referred to as One man, one vote) requiring electoral districts to have equal populations and helped to ensure greater representation for minorities. Alito has also been accused of not supporting the Warren Courts dessision in Brown v. Board of Education, the land mark ruling ending segregation in public schools. You can read more about the legacy of the Warren Court by clicking here
Sunset for Roe V. Wade
Perhaps the most controversial Supreme Court ruling in our history has been Roe V. Wade. With a conservative Judge rearing to take the place of O’Conner, Roe is perhaps, for the first time since the land mark ruling, in danger of being overturned. Pleas understand that I am not arguing the validity of Roe, nor am I soliciting support for the ruling. However, it is very possible that the Court could overturn Roe easier than you may think. When the ruling was first handed down, it contained a Sun Set Clause (means for reversal in a law, or ruling) that stated if there ever was evidence determining when life in a fetus begins, Roe would become void.
We are only in the first day of the hearings. The Democrats have cited several rulings handed down by Alito that do seem to paint him as not supporting privacy, against abortion, and supporting a weaker separation of powers. Citing a few cases, however, cannot sum Alito's entire history of over 300 rulings. Alito has since said that he does support aspects of the Warren Court, and believes in upholding precedence. We also know that mere lip service cannot provide an accurate forecast of how he will rule on the Supreme Court. And this is, after all, only the first stage in the confirmation process. He will be questioned thoroughly about his past decisions. Our only recourse is to turn away from the sunny shores of Laguna Beach for a while, and educate ourselves on this man who has been nominated to a lifetime position crafting the future of America. If we don't like what we see, then it is our responsibility to write our senators encouraging them to vote against Samuel Alito Jr. I can't force you to pay attention, but I hope I have helped you in understanding the weight this nomination holds. Until next time, fair well and amen.
Cody Hobbs
Isn't the Supreme Court just a bunch of old dudes wearing dresses?
Though the gowns they adorn my seem a bit odd, (styled after the Roman Toga) but their rulings have an impact on every citizen in the United States. And the seat Alito will be filling is perhaps more crucial than that of the Chief Justice, currently held by John Roberts. Alito has been nominated to fill the seat of Sandra Day OConner, who has agreed to sit on the court after her retirement until her replacement has been confirmed.
For nearly two decades, Sandra Day O’Conner has been the crucial swing vote in a divided court. She has cast over 140 tie-breaking votes since being sworn into the Supreme Court in 1981. O’Conner was also the first woman nominated to the court, and ruled consistently to advance woman’s rights, a person’s right to privacy and maintaining a fair separation of powers between the three branches of government. O’Conner has struck down both state and federal laws, sighting them to be unconstitutional. For this, she has been labeled by some conservatives as an "activist" Judge.
An "activist" Judge makes biased rulings based on personal beliefs, conviction or morals regardless of the law. Activist Judges are also accused of "Legislating" from the bench, creating laws instead of interpreting them. O’Conner, however, made decisions based on the highest doctrine of law in the United States, the Constitution. She has ruled time and again to ensure that none of our fundamental rights, as set forth by the Constitution, have been violated.
ZZZZZZZZZ...
OK, so enough with the history of O’Conner. What about Alito? Several of the Democrats on the committee cited examples of rulings where Alito had ruled, as a Federal Appellate Court judge, to restrict a persons right to privacy, and in one case his opinion stated that private citizens have no constitutional right to privacy. (What constitution did he study? The 4th Amendment) (For specific examples of Alito's track record against personal privacy, click here) Alito has also written negatively against the Warren Court, (named as such, because the presiding Chief Justice at the time was Earl Warren) One of the Warren Court's most infamous ruling was involving "reapportionment" (referred to as One man, one vote) requiring electoral districts to have equal populations and helped to ensure greater representation for minorities. Alito has also been accused of not supporting the Warren Courts dessision in Brown v. Board of Education, the land mark ruling ending segregation in public schools. You can read more about the legacy of the Warren Court by clicking here
Sunset for Roe V. Wade
Perhaps the most controversial Supreme Court ruling in our history has been Roe V. Wade. With a conservative Judge rearing to take the place of O’Conner, Roe is perhaps, for the first time since the land mark ruling, in danger of being overturned. Pleas understand that I am not arguing the validity of Roe, nor am I soliciting support for the ruling. However, it is very possible that the Court could overturn Roe easier than you may think. When the ruling was first handed down, it contained a Sun Set Clause (means for reversal in a law, or ruling) that stated if there ever was evidence determining when life in a fetus begins, Roe would become void.
We are only in the first day of the hearings. The Democrats have cited several rulings handed down by Alito that do seem to paint him as not supporting privacy, against abortion, and supporting a weaker separation of powers. Citing a few cases, however, cannot sum Alito's entire history of over 300 rulings. Alito has since said that he does support aspects of the Warren Court, and believes in upholding precedence. We also know that mere lip service cannot provide an accurate forecast of how he will rule on the Supreme Court. And this is, after all, only the first stage in the confirmation process. He will be questioned thoroughly about his past decisions. Our only recourse is to turn away from the sunny shores of Laguna Beach for a while, and educate ourselves on this man who has been nominated to a lifetime position crafting the future of America. If we don't like what we see, then it is our responsibility to write our senators encouraging them to vote against Samuel Alito Jr. I can't force you to pay attention, but I hope I have helped you in understanding the weight this nomination holds. Until next time, fair well and amen.
Cody Hobbs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)