ford
jack daniels
enterprise
branson tractors
rocky boots
fox sports
wrangler
the US Army
bud light
dickies
big tex (?)
these are just a few of the companies/organizations with whom mike vick should have had endorsement deals. apparently, they aren't shy about benefiting from animal cruelty for the entertainment of the masses--they have ad space on the nationally broadcast bull riding competitions.
this is what they say. *shrug*
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Monday, October 8, 2007
power
it occurred to me the other day that while all of the presidential hopefuls (with the possible exception of mccain) continue to have a field day bashing the president for his handling of the war, none of them (with the exception of paul & kuccinich) have recanted themselves of the power that the president now wields. none of them have said that they would open the doors of gitmo to the international community. to my knowledge, none of them have promised to submit themselves to the scrutiny of the congress in the event a declaration of war is needed. i don't specifically recall any of them saying they would never utilize the kind of unilateral measures used by the current administration (with the obvious caveat that we are not in immediate danger, of course).
did you know that ron paul has raised more money than john mccain? the mccain campaign is almost broke. the paul campaign raised over 5 million dollars in the 3Q. i don't think that the media is liberal so much as it simply suffers from group think. it just looks liberal now because part of the current group think is everything bush does is bad. i remember not being able to watch the news without hearing about that blue dress in the 90's. *shrug* just thought i would throw that out there. by the way, i learned that tidbit about ron paul on the Air America website. who says liberals can't report good stories?
did you know that ron paul has raised more money than john mccain? the mccain campaign is almost broke. the paul campaign raised over 5 million dollars in the 3Q. i don't think that the media is liberal so much as it simply suffers from group think. it just looks liberal now because part of the current group think is everything bush does is bad. i remember not being able to watch the news without hearing about that blue dress in the 90's. *shrug* just thought i would throw that out there. by the way, i learned that tidbit about ron paul on the Air America website. who says liberals can't report good stories?
our constitution
yesterday, i was talking to my friend, leah the lawyer. somehow we got onto the constitution and it's current state, and she made some compelling observations. i've always been a staunch defendant of the constitution and the bill of rights (all of the rights, not just the ones i like), but we really got to talking about the structure of the constitution and what that has meant for our society over the past 30 years or so.
take my defense over the right to bear arms. i've never really considered any argument that centered around hunting--not because i don't think it's legitimate, but because i don't think that the forefathers would have considered that as something that needed elucidation. it would be like including the right to go grocery shopping in the constitution. no-one would think to do that. no, i've always believed (and i think thomas jefferson believed) that the right to bear arms was fundamental to the inalienable right to revolution. i make this argument to leah the lawyer. she nods her understanding and then asks the following question. "So, when was the last time the US Marines were defeated in combat?" To which I have no response. So we reach a crossroads of the philosophical and the practical. Yes, it is true. the right to bear arms speaks directly to the right of the people to revolt, but how practical is that option when the governing body commands an essentially undefeated military? *ponder*
take due process and all that jazz. in a criminal trial, a defendant has the right to face his accuser. ok, that is something makes sense, right? how does a defendant "face" a crime lab? when the SBI crime lab runs a test, concludes that the white powder is, indeed, cocaine and the ADA presents that report in a trial...how does the defendant "face" his accuser? is it by proxy? you can't cross examine a piece of paper, and what happens to the notion of a "speedy" trial if every single defendant calls a technician or whatever to the stand?
take every single president from abe lincoln to the present. (now i remember how we got onto this subject. there we go.) anyone that has read the constitution will quickly (i hope) notice something ridiculous. the framers of the constitution spent the vast majority of their time focused on the legislative branch of government...then the judicial....then the executive. the thinking being that as the representative of the PEOPLE the legislative branch would and should be the most...active. is that the case now? to whom do we turn when we want to hear talk of tax breaks, or education, or social security, or any other of a host of domestic concerns which should properly be the domain of the congress? we ask the president. since abe lincoln, there has been a gradual but undeniable assumption of power and leadership by the executive branch. mostly because, the powers given to the executive branch are the least defined. is there anywhere in the constitution that gave abe lincoln the authority to issue the emancipation proclamation? no. that's why he issued that order in areas still in active rebellion. the emancipation proclamation as a document held no force in the north. that's why the 13th amendment to the constitution was issued--making slavery illegal. (my history on this is a little fuzzy. forgive me any slight mistakes--they weren't on purpose)
i say all of those things just to make the point that the makeup of our society has changed sufficiently as to be alien to the framers of the constitution. but, is it feasible at this point in our history to revisit the framework of social, economic, and legal systems? who can say?
take my defense over the right to bear arms. i've never really considered any argument that centered around hunting--not because i don't think it's legitimate, but because i don't think that the forefathers would have considered that as something that needed elucidation. it would be like including the right to go grocery shopping in the constitution. no-one would think to do that. no, i've always believed (and i think thomas jefferson believed) that the right to bear arms was fundamental to the inalienable right to revolution. i make this argument to leah the lawyer. she nods her understanding and then asks the following question. "So, when was the last time the US Marines were defeated in combat?" To which I have no response. So we reach a crossroads of the philosophical and the practical. Yes, it is true. the right to bear arms speaks directly to the right of the people to revolt, but how practical is that option when the governing body commands an essentially undefeated military? *ponder*
take due process and all that jazz. in a criminal trial, a defendant has the right to face his accuser. ok, that is something makes sense, right? how does a defendant "face" a crime lab? when the SBI crime lab runs a test, concludes that the white powder is, indeed, cocaine and the ADA presents that report in a trial...how does the defendant "face" his accuser? is it by proxy? you can't cross examine a piece of paper, and what happens to the notion of a "speedy" trial if every single defendant calls a technician or whatever to the stand?
take every single president from abe lincoln to the present. (now i remember how we got onto this subject. there we go.) anyone that has read the constitution will quickly (i hope) notice something ridiculous. the framers of the constitution spent the vast majority of their time focused on the legislative branch of government...then the judicial....then the executive. the thinking being that as the representative of the PEOPLE the legislative branch would and should be the most...active. is that the case now? to whom do we turn when we want to hear talk of tax breaks, or education, or social security, or any other of a host of domestic concerns which should properly be the domain of the congress? we ask the president. since abe lincoln, there has been a gradual but undeniable assumption of power and leadership by the executive branch. mostly because, the powers given to the executive branch are the least defined. is there anywhere in the constitution that gave abe lincoln the authority to issue the emancipation proclamation? no. that's why he issued that order in areas still in active rebellion. the emancipation proclamation as a document held no force in the north. that's why the 13th amendment to the constitution was issued--making slavery illegal. (my history on this is a little fuzzy. forgive me any slight mistakes--they weren't on purpose)
i say all of those things just to make the point that the makeup of our society has changed sufficiently as to be alien to the framers of the constitution. but, is it feasible at this point in our history to revisit the framework of social, economic, and legal systems? who can say?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
