Excentric
PagesFront Page
Page Two
Page Three
Page Four
Page Five
Page Six
Page Seven
Page Eight
Page Nine
Page Ten
Page Eleven
Page Twelve
Page Thirteen
Page Fourteen
Page Fifteen
Page Sixteen
Page Seventeen
Archives
Links
Web Cams
National Parks
State Parks
Hiking Maps
Sedona Shopping
Sedona Weather
Sedona Artists
Life Extension
Sedona Arts Center
RV Resort
| BRAND NAMES
by Joseph G. Evrard,
Staff Kentuckian“I’ve had enough and I'm not going to take it anymore!” (What, did you think I was going to quote the famous statement verbatim? Remember, please, this is a family paper.) Anyway what, you ask, have I had enough of?
Come to think of it, how much is “enough” anyway? Isn’t one man’s “enough” another man’s “too much” or someone else’s “not quite enough, thank you, I’ll have just a touch more?” Who, after all, is to be the judge of just how much is “enough?”
Under our form of government only special people are legally entitled to pass judgment on matters of controversy. Interestingly enough, these people are called, “judges.” They are either appointed by the head of the Executive Branch, then confirmed by the legislature, or directly elected by the people.
Once in office they wield considerable power and therefore must be chosen carefully. These days it has become all too common for these “judge” people to engage in a practice commonly referred to as “legislating from the bench.”
This occurs when a judge thinks he or she knows better than the legislature how things should be run and who should be allowed to do what, when and how.
Consequently, they issue edicts, or more commonly, “judgments” that arguably run counter to the wishes of the people as expressed in the actions of the duly elected representatives of the people in the legislature after careful consideration, debate and a democratic activity known as “voting” in which the will of the majority of the people is (hopefully) reflected.
Such, at least was the expressed desire of the framers of the Constitution as recorded in their language in that document and any of a number of related treatises known as the Federalist Papers. Nor did these wise men stop there in their desire to assure that the will of the people would prevail.
In their wisdom, they articulated a procedure whereby the legislature itself would have built-in safeguards. The manifestation of this concern obtains organizationally in our system of two separate chambers forming the totality to the legislature.
This duality (known as the Bicameral Legislature) ensures that no single body of the legislature can subject the governed to its will, as any measure duly approved and voted on by one body must, as a matter of law, be approved by the other body before that measure may be sent to the Executive for approval.
Inevitably, there will be differences of opinion and philosophy relative to measures passed, obviating any possibility of either chamber of the legislature becoming a rubber stamp for the other. This too was anticipated by our Constitutional architects, as the provided a mediation process by which differing versions of the same measure can be rectified allowing the legislative process to proceed purposefully in attending to the needs of the governed.
None of this should suggest that the system herein described always functions smoothly. We’re all excruciatingly familiar with the excessive amount of posturing; name-calling, backbiting and general mendacity all too often exhibited by those chose to represent our views.
Such discord itself leads to further rounds of controversy invoking charged terms such as “gridlock,” “obstructionist” and “panderer.” All the while the needs of the governed suffer neglect while petty controversies rage unabated encouraging over-inflated windbags to unfurl their obscenely decadent egos providing a panoply of outrageous behavior eagerly relished by media sycophants madly scrambling over each other to shove a microphone into the face of the current luminary of bombast.
Now, where was I? Oh, yeah, I remember; I’ve had enough and I'm not going to take it anymore!
What, you might well ask, is a big enough bother to make such a fuss over? I’ll tell you. It just drives me bananas to see some goober walking down the street wearing a tee shirt that screams “TOMMY HILFIGER” at me. If it’s not that, it’s NIKE baseball caps or GAP shoes or YVES ST. LAURENT sunglasses or GUESS jeans.
Not only do clothing manufacturers spend millions on advertising (of which the costs, of course, are borne by the purchaser). They’ve also successfully brainwashed gullible people that in order to be “cool” you have to wear an article of clothing that bears their logo big and proud.
For all the free publicity they get from this, you’d think they’d sell their stuff at a discount. No, there are too many people out there who are such slaves to fashion that they’ll actually PAY EXTRA for the privilege of wearing a manufacturer’s logo.
Pardon me, but when did we become a nation of sheep? This whole thing upsets me so much I can’t even bear to write about it anymore. I’m going to put on my Carhartts (so everybody knows I appreciate quality) and go to the mall to stare at these bozos and study their folly firsthand.
See ya around,
BUCK
|  
 |
