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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)