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
Friday, May 12, 2006
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)