New Blog!

Read it here!

http://rollingsisyphus.wordpress.com/

By the people, for the people?

From the time I took my first history class in grade school I was taught that America, the land of the free, was a country built by the people, for the people. Our government, so the text books said, was responsible for to the people they served; that each elected representative, including the executive (the President) were all employees of the United States citizens. And there is a document in D.C., our nations capital, which preamble states:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And it is this document, The Constitution, that each and every one of our elected officials takes an oath to uphold when being sworn into office. It is a contract that binds them to serve the populace of the United States. So how are we doing? If you take a look at the actions of our current President, we're not doing too hot. President Bush has made the statement that he was determined to stick with the Iraq war even if his wife and his dog were the only ones left at his side. And gallop polls show that this is the case, has indeed been the case for some time. Yet Bush persists, and ignoring his generals; an independent Iraq study group; congress; the Senate; and the people of the United States, and is planning to send even more troops into a conflict that we think we should not be in. It sounds like this is more of a government by Bush, and For Bush, and not the People, unless you count his wife and dog.

If you owned a business and one of your employees said that he was going to punch 80% of your customers in the face, no matter what you, or any of his superiors said, what would you do? Chances are, he wouldn't have a job for much longer. Yet we continue to give him whatever funding he asks for to continue disregarding the People. Does this make since to you?

Impeachment. It's that time.

In November, the electorate sent a clear message to Congress; that it's time for change. It seems the people just got tiered of the status quo of being ignored when it came to where their tax dollars were spent. So they went to the polls, and elected a new congress, shifting the balance of power in both branches to the Democrats. And our Commander in Chief has promised not to listen. He has vowed to veto a medicare reform requiring the government to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs. And the Iraq war, the issue the GOP lost big on last fall, Bush only has plans to escalate the conflict by raising troop levels. I guess you don't rank as high as his dog when it comes to the decisions he makes running the country.

I think we can all agree that impeachment isn't something that should be taken lightly. But when our commander in chief out right refuses to listen, and says that he will continue to refuse to listen, then it's time, not to send him a "message", but to get rid of him. Write your congressman, and demand justice!

~Cody Hobbs

The AFA is at it again. It's time to let the vewier decide!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

New address

Attention all

Stop partisan has a new home on myspace. Come check it out at: http://www.myspace.com/stop_partisan

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

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.

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

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