Apparently the modern running-shoe has only existed since the 1970s, but people have been running for the entirety of human existence. This study finds that barefoot running ends up being much better for your body and is not prone to repetitive action injuries. I’ll certainly miss buying expensive shoes that only last 3-4 months of running.
This is just a side comment on the whole issue of the Supreme Court legalizing companies to spend any amount of money on advertising and media programming to advocate their own political positions. First…I agree with a friend of mine who recently stated that they don’t believe that most people in the United States are even aware of this decision…much less the implications of it.
But one of the things that makes this decision even more crazy is that people need to realize that many companies have foreign arms or heads. For example…Sony USA now has the legal right to give as much money as they choose to advertise a specific political agenda…but Sony USA answers to their company’s head in Japan. So, basically now their influence has very direct inroads to the U.S. political system.
Americans need to ask themselves not only if it is a good thing that a non-person corporation have such sweeping influence over politics and people, but if it is good that foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries…like British Petroleum (BP) from the U.K., or Celestica from Canada, Infosys from India, Scitex from Israel, Honda from Japan, SAP from Germany…..or any number of foreign companies operating in the United States, should have the right to advertise their political position to the masses concerning who people choose to elect in a public election of the citizens of the United States of America.
Just wanted to take a moment to clarify a couple things, since I spend a lot of time posting social and political commentary that I feel is particularly pointed or ridiculous. In that light I’ve been posting a lot of the commentary of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. Both of these people are considered extremely liberal by the conservative media. But the reason I post their videos is because those videos happen to accurately depict or comment about a problem or issue with the political or social landscape.
If Rush Limbaugh or Gretchen Carlson or Dick Morris would accurately depict the news in commentary, I would find it just as valid to link to their work. But equally, Maddow and Olbermann do not always represent reality either. For example, recently Keith Olbermann had a number of defamatory comments to say about Scott Brown, the new Senator in Massachusetts…of which I think most of those comments are baseless, regardless of what Brown’s background or ability as a Senator may be.
So, the point is that in politics I’m looking for reason, and reasonable explanations for issues, as well as actual straight talk…and not double-standards. So, when certain Republicans talk about free-speech for the middle-class, but then legalize free-speech for a non-person (a corporation)…that is double-speak. It should be obvious that allowing a company to advertise about political issues has nothing to do with a middle-class individual’s rights. Or take people who talk about health care legislation and refer to it as “Obamacare”, even while Obama has no hand in authoring any of it…I’m less inclined to accept as authoritative much that those people say about health care reform. As a third example, when a politician just simply has his or her facts incorrect, as John McCain recently did talking about the one-way ticket of the “Underpants Bomber”…when in fact the ticket was a round-trip ticket…and gets angry when he is corrected, then I’m less likely to trust him on what he has to say about the situation considering that he is regurgitating inaccurate reporting from a news organization, and not sticking to the facts the the DHS actually has.
So…just looking for reason in the midst of the rhetoric and chaos. I can already hear many of you saying “good luck with that”. If my alternatives are to buy into punditry, to just not listen at all, or to listen and seek the truth…I’ll pick that last choice.
Sorry for the three Keith Olbermann videos in a row, but I think that his commentary on the present concern over the issue is right on. The Supreme Court Judges have decided to support the “free speech” of non-persons (corporations), in that they can now spend any amount of money they choose on a campaign, candidate, or any advertising for them or any political issue.
People’s complaints about those that govern is very often that they seem to be bought and sold by special interests. To date there have only been a couple-thousand political action committees (PACs). Now, corporations will have no reason to have them, and no oversight concerning how much money is spent promoting their ‘special’ political interests.
In a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Count overturned a long-standing limit on how much money a company could contribute for public election campaign advertisements. This is a complete affront to the citizens of the United States and their public elections. Corporations should have more restrictions concerning public elections, not less.
Is it clear yet that this ‘incorporation’ thing has gotten way out of hand?
With the devastation caused by the earthquake in Haiti and all the suffering it has caused, people ask what God is angry with those people about. This is the question that Pat Robertson sought to answer with his comments. I think that Robertson’s response misrepresents the character of God, and would submit instead that God did not cause the earthquake there and that there is no ‘lesson’ to learn from the destruction…except for the merit or lack of merit of OUR OWN ACTION for the people of that nation now that the tragedy has occurred.
Greg Boyd from Woodland Hills in St. Paul, MN gives a good sermon about the problem of evil, considering situations like this one in Haiti:
Recent Comments