Wrong Target?

IMG_0133
Originally uploaded by dmr620

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/8113986/21506105



A group of concerned citizens looking to involve Americans in the political process, get to the core of what democracy should really be about. Action and involvement that should be sparked by its citizen's not by its corporate body. The act in this video with the best intentions of exposing Target's unjust involvement in the political process, but what are the participants really asking for? If everyone stopped shopping at Target what would then materialize? What about the just products that Target sells, what would become of those vendors? What would be the implications of cutting off all shopping at Target? Is the answer to attack companies individually? Or is it to reformulate injustice at its core? Address laws that are written and conducive to an unjust political, economic, and social climate? Have citizens resorted to their only power being to feed into the consumerism and materialism that has been the environment accepted and embraced by society? Why do I have to pay for my voice to hopefully be heard? Is my inherent right of freedom of expression and speech not enough to be loud and get people to listen? Evidently it isn't. But why is this? Should we accept this and try to exercise different ways to exhibit power, or can we try harder to attack injustice at it's core? We have the information, we have the inherent right written in our laws, but will anyone listen? Can we make them?

Alienating the Inalienable.

IMG_3408
Originally uploaded by dmr620

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/08/olson-wallace-fns/



The jurisdiction of individual states to exercise control over their local laws is important not only because of logistics but to uphold certain aspects of culture in each state. However there are basic laws that protect the fundamental liberties and freedom of all citizens alike regardless of what state. The laws of the constitution are constructed in such a way to protect these fundamental rights. If we cannot take advantage of the very structure of our legal system in a case where there is such an obvious discriminatory violation of human rights then why are they in place? Our constitution and laws protect the right for any citizen of the United States to freely exercise their right to marry. If we allow states to be able to decide whether or not gay marriage should or should not be allowed then this not only puts at risk the rights of gay individuals but the potential for risk of future groups being discriminated against. In our laws there are certain rights that have been constructed in a way to specify inalienable rights as a citizen and the right to marry included. Regardless of what state a gay citizen of the United States lives in they should be able to exercise the right to marry, Why should their right to live equal to any other citizen in a certain state be taken away simply because of their sexual orientation? Just like every citizen has the free right of speech they also have the right to marry, this is outlined in the constitution, just like states cannot individually take away the right to speech they should not be able to take away the right to marry.