Sarah Palin, the 3rd grader's choice.

Am....I....the...only...person...who...realizes...that.....Sarah Palin.....talks in sentence...fragments?

I am awaiting the official transcript, it should be good. When asked about the bailout, she starts rambling on about health care.

Then at the debates, when asked about nuclear weapons, she strung together approximately four different theses in one painful upchuck of words.

It is no surprise to me that this woman failed out of four, count 'em, four colleges before finally getting a degree. Talking to Sarah Palin must be like visiting a classroom of eighth graders.

I don't mean to be hurtful or mean, but someone has to say it.

Our current president rambles off to faraway lands of verbs and nouns, present tense and past tense, sanity and sheer lunacy. To think that the colossal failure of simple communication that is Sarah Palin could at one point lead our nation scares me to death. Imagine a world where our potential leader-in-waiting's breadth of experience in foreign policy consists of "trade missions" and the ability to see Russia from her "backyard."

At what point will people really begin to realize what Palin is all about?
All she did in the debate was drop buzzwords and phrases like "economic growth," "maverick," and name-drop "Ahmadinejad" about 7 trillion times. Are we supposed to be impressed? Is it really enough that you've been cramming for the last 72 hours? How many times do you think they had to quiz her on that? Not just the pronunciation, but where he's from, what religion he subscribes to, some "evil" phrases that he's said, and maybe some catchy phrase like "he hates golden retrievers, just like Senator Obama and Senator Biden."

It's really like pitting James Carville against a high school debate team.

Watch Palin stumble and bumble her way to a nonsensical answer"

Ctizenship, a Novel Concept

I have recently noticed a phenomenon that I find to be totally interesting and inspiring.

When I was at my local supermarket yesterday, I decided to start the air-conditioning in my car while loading my groceries to keep them from instantaneously melting in the ninety plus degree heat. When I was done loading them up, I realized that the parking lot had no repository for empty shopping carts. At this point I had a decision to make. I could leave my cart in the parking lot, thereby ensuring that an employee would have to retrieve it later, and drive off in my nice cool car. Or, I could do the polite thing and return it to the store. It turned out that an employee of the store was already in the parking lot, so I gave my cart to him, for which he showed genuine gratitude.

This may not seem all that ground-breaking, but for me it was a semi-epiphany. I realized that the reason I chose the more courteous route was because I was aware that an elderly woman had just glanced at my four Obama bumper stickers. I didn't realize it at the time, but my actions were shaped by the fact that I was essentially a surrogate for Barack Obama's campaign. I know that sounds completely idealistic and probably makes Bill O'Reilly want to throw up, but to me it's pretty cool.

The fact that my desire to demonstrate my support for Barack Obama led me to make the friendlier, more courteous decision, says a great deal about the dynamic of his campaign. I am not going to say that by electing Senator Obama, we will immediately solve all of the world's problems, but what I will steadfastly support is the sense of community that he speaks of and strives to engender.

To think that a political candidate inspires greatness just by virtue of his campaign is quite the accomplishment. I find myself wondering why anyone would be skeptical of a candidate who has made a significat impact, simply by running for president. To me, if Barack Obama can inspire kindness and keen sense of civic duty in me, the potential for nation-wide kindness and community is enormous.

Think about it. People recall with great fondness the sense of solidarity and compassion for their fellow citizens that the nation experienced with the second World War. We didn't hesitate to help those less fortunate than us. We were America. We were a nation united against an evil front. We didn't need Nazism or Communism, we had America. We had the promise and zeal that came from our unilateral commitment to democracy. People in times past realized that we are first and foremost humans, and by reasons beyond our control, countrymen.

Is it then a bizarre desire to long for the same sense of community that we once had? Is being friendly and neighborly that foreign of a concept that we write it off as idealistic? It is alarming to me the negative characterizations that Barack Obama has faced for suggesting that we re-examine the way we treat each other. It's absolutely insane to call a man "unrealisitc" or "idealistic" because he wants us to start treating our neighbors as family.

Do we really only resort to kindness when all other options have been exhausted? It should not take another World War to return America to a friendly place. I have a humble suggestion. Give kindness a chance. Next time you see someone you don't know, smile at them. Ask people how they are doing, and care about the answer. Courtesy should not be something we do when on the clock, it should be something that we do without ulterior motivation.

I realize I sound like an "idealist". That's because I am. The thing that people miss is that my optimism is not hopeless or unattainable. It is not unrealistic. We can very simply become a prosperous nation again. Sometimes all it takes is a little compassion for your fellow man.

It's a novel concept. One that I enjoy.

Experience

I am confronted with the battle over experience all of the time.

How could a junior senator like Barack Obama really know enough about the government to be able to be president?

People have come to equate the amount of time that a politician has been in office with his or her ability to lead. In essence, we find experience to be preferential to education or intelligence. When a senator has served for many years, he takes on a certain tenure. Politics becomes a thing very much reminiscent of a John Grisham novel. I am completely convinced that all sorts of deals and secret arrangements occur on Capitol Hill all of the time. Politics has evolved to a skull and crossbones good ol' boys club.

And why not? Being a senator is highly profitable. You can earn money and pension by working hard in a factory for years on end, but the easier route is to become a senator.

Senators are paid $162,100 per year and are eligible for lifetime retirement after as little as 5 years in office. Health benefits are available immediately and are life-long. The average senator spends his time attending parties and benefits and fund raisers. A small amount of time is dedicated to actually participating in the senate. Senators eventually become professional politicians, their lifestyle above and beyond what most people encounter. How many Americans travel by "driver" and have an assistant to take notes and run errands at every whim?

People who have been in government for a while have become completely out of touch with their constituencies. The interest, instead of the welfare of their electorate, becomes how to make the most money while still getting reelected. Politicians forget the times when they had to work forty hours a week.

While the average American makes $26,036 a year, politicians make over SIX TIMES that much! When was the last time that people making $26k and $162k had a lot on common? In my opinion, the longer a politician works in Washington, the more out of touch he becomes.

Hillary Clinton didn't know what Red Bull was.

John McCain doesn't know how to use a computer.

How then, can these people claim to know or even relate to the problems of the middle class? I think that the answer may be to elect people who, until recently, were not so different from us.

I like the candidate who only recently paid off his school loans, not one who has untold millions.

I find that people who have actually lived in the middle class actually know what's best for it, not people who can "imagine" struggling. It is not enough to envision the plight of Americans, we must elect someone who has been there. I don't need experience. I don't need someone who hasn't stepped foot in a McDonald's in 30 years. I don't need a candidate who can't even figure out Hotmail. I don't need a candidate who continually hits his senile head on car doors.

Vote with your brain, not your eyes.

I should preface this by pointing out that the county in which I live, Indian River County, is predominantly elderly and, consequently, largely republican. For every democrat, there are 1.6 republicans. I was at a local business the other day, and the man behind the counter lamented that it was getting harder and harder to collect money for outstanding invoices. I sympathized with him, citing that most of us are in tough economic times. I said I wouldn't get into the politics of the economy because I know that I am in the minority in my county.

His response?

"I'll tell you one thing, that old boy gets into office, some old country boy gonna take care of him."

Let's break that down. What he meant was:

"If Barack Obama is elected, he will be assassinated."

As harmless as this may sound to some, I have a big problem with it.

Every time I hear someone say that, it sounds to me like people are trying to dissuade me from voting for him. In other words, "why would you vote for him, someone's just going to assassinate him anyway." It's essentially an acceptance of our collective racism. To me it implies a conspiratorial vibe. As in "some old country boy, like me, will 'take care' of him."

People who did not, in some way, share that racial motivation would refer to it as assassination, not "taking care of him."

Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but it's usually accompanied with a knowing look, as if to say, "you're with me, right?"

I just don't understand why we, as a nation, can't come together and forget that the best qualified candidate is a black man. The economy does not rise or fall according to the color of the president's skin. Our global success won't depend on how light or dark our president's skin is.

To be accurate, I'm not imagining racism, some Americans openly admit that they will never vote for a black man. To these people I say, DON'T BREED.

To vote for someone because he is the white candidate is ludicrous. The white candidate doesn't have any good plans for our nation. He's an old, senile, angry man, and has no business making decisions for Americans.

It's the economy, stupid.

I'll make it quick, it's just a rant. I don't understand anyone who thinks that the Iraq war is going well. The timing of the war and our clear recession (yes, recession) is the 531+ billion pound gorilla in the room.

It's very simple. We had a budget surplus. We then decided to make tax cuts. Then we attacked Iraq.

Now the economy sucks.

How then, can we expect something new by doing the same thing? In the words of the great Rich Dickerson, isn't doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results the first sign of insanity?

John McCain can't offer any new ideas other than cutting taxes and continuing to perpetrate an utterly failed war.

Let's try something new.

barackobama.com

Nothing From Nothing Leaves Nothing

I just got done perusing the section of John McCain's website dedicated to the economy. It sounds great:

• Make gas cheaper
• Make gas cheaper
• Make gas cheaper
• Save mortgages

Wow! I want cheap gas!

What is John McCain's plan for this? I'm supposed to say something witty here, but there's nothing to say. The problem is, he doesn't have any actual viable solutions for making gas cheaper. If you read his site, you get the impression that being the president gives you a magic wand to cast spells on OPEC. Unfortunately, some people are actually buying it.

I understand the willingness to succumb to a hope that a candidate can magically accomplish things, I really do. But I've never seen a more obvious attempt at pandering in my entire life.

The painful reality of John McCain's economic plan is that he has no idea how to pay for anything. His website says the following (I've made all quotes red, sort of like the Unites States' check register):

John McCain Will Help Americans Hurting From High Gasoline And Food Costs. Americans need relief right now from high gas prices. John McCain will act immediately to reduce the pain of high gas prices.

That sounds great but, how? How are we, who have a flagging dollar, supposed to make this reduction in gas prices. Better yet, how do YOU, John McCain, plan on making that happen?

From his site:

John McCain Will Stop Filling The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) To Reduce Demand. International demand for oil is bolstered by federal purchases for the SPR. There is no reason to fill it when oil is so expensive; the overall SPR is of adequate size, and when it places further upward pressure on prices.

So what he is saying is, we are already at the mercy of countries that hate us, but we should stop stockpiling reserves. What happens in a real war? What happens if OPEC finally decides to really start price gouging? Then we are at the complete mercy of their whims. I am by no means a protectionist, but I am also pessimistic about our relations with the largest oil producing countries.

By stopping the filling of our reserves, McCain's plan serves to increase our potential reliance on foreign oil. It is a classic pandering band-aid plan. Its sole purpose is to win an election. If we are to reduce gas prices, we must reduce demand, which will succeed in giving us more bargaining power.

McCain also proposes a "gas tax holiday" which is another shiny gimmick to get votes, but will do more harm than good according to every major economist in America. It's like giving away a free toaster with the purchase of a Mercedes Benz, it's a crude ruse to get your vote.

Check it out here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3038243520080430


John McCain has even more plans to get votes:

John McCain Is Proposing A New "HOME Plan" To Provide Robust, Timely And Targeted Help To Those Hurt By The Housing Crisis. Under his HOME Plan, every deserving American family or homeowner will be afforded the opportunity to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects their home's market value.

So we're going to save families' homes by bailing them out with federal funding. It sounds great. How does John McCain plan on paying for it? This genius idea:

John McCain Will Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families. John McCain will permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) – a tax that will be paid nearly exclusively by 25 million middle class families. Repealing this onerous tax will save middle class families nearly $60 billion in a single year. Under McCain's plan, a middle class family with children set to pay the AMT will save an average of over $2,700 – a real tax cut for working families.

I'm confused. We're going to keep Bush's tax cuts, eliminate the AMT, and lower coprorate taxes by 10%, right? So now the question becomes, where does McCain plan on getting the money to bail out homeowners? Better yet, where does McCain plan on getting funding for the military to keep us in Iraq for 5-100 years?

Cutting taxes sounds great to the average American, but what's the point of having a little more coin in your pocket if the dollar isn't worth anything? Is it worth sacrificing our education, roads, and military just to save the middle class a small amount? The lost benefit to the nation as a whole far outweighs the immediate benefit to the middle class. Simply put, I'd rather pay a little more in taxes in exchange for armed forces that are actually properly equipped.

All that John McCain proposes to do is spend money and cut taxes. I have a news flash, you plunge us into ever increasing national debt by continuing to spend without paying for it. It's no wonder that our nation is credit-sick, our government leads the way!


















We have soldiers in Iraq with no body armor, and John McCain wants to cut taxes? We are trying teach our citizens to be credit-smart.....by raising the national debt? It just doesn't make any sense. John McCain has a bunch of great-sounding ideas, but no concrete way of making them come true. He's like a 15 year old with an American Express. He wants to spend with no plan on paying it back.

How about being fiscally responsible for once? If we can't afford a war, get out of it! McCain calls Obama a "tax and spender." I'd rather have a "tax and spender" than a "spend and spend and spender."

No Country For Old Men

I realize that it has been a while since I entertained the masses with a post, and I apologize for the delay. I have been waiting, like everyone else, to see what Hillary would do. Now that she's out of the race, I have decided to write about the upcoming general election.

I meet people every day who do not "like" Barack Obama. Some don't like him for specific reasons, others just harbor a suspicion about him that they cannot explain. I cannot, however, find a single person who is excited about McCain as a candidate. Even the conservative radio hosts don't have much love for him. Doesn't anyone see how preposterous it is to vote for a man that you do not like, based solely on the fact that he represents "your" party? For years now, McCain has been a thorn in the side of republicans. He has been a republican (in name only) who has espoused more liberal ideals than any other republican.

It is only now, because he is the republican candidate, that McCain is changing his stances on issues in order to appeal to voters. McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, saying "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."
Now, McCain wholeheartedly supports these tax cuts, saying that they help America.

Which is it? Are the Bush tax cuts good or bad? I guess it depends on whether or not you have to answer a constituency or are instead trying to appeal to a republican ideal. Along the same lines, McCain voted against repealing the estate tax, but now he wants to keep the elimination permanent. Again, how can you vote against something but then say that you support it?

Now, McCain is talking about cutting the corporate tax rate by 10%. I must be missing something here but, how can we continue to cut taxes and still be able to afford anything? I mean, taxes are not just to bloat government, they're to build schools, maintain roads, and support our military. It's funny that a man who is adamantly pro-war in Iraq and Iran wants to cut taxes, thereby reducing our tax revenue and, consequently, the amount of money we can use for national security.

Where does John McCain think that the $527 billion we have spent in Iraq comes from?

So, you have a man who doesn't understand economics, but purports to have a firm grasp on national security and foreign policy. Does being a prisoner of war somehow qualify you to be the commander in chief? Does being held captive translate into good foreign policy? The man is a powder keg, ready to explode into rage at any time. Do we as Americans really want a loose cannon in office AGAIN?

John McCain's understanding of foreign policy is apparently that we should joke around about bombing countries, or that we should be in Iraq for 100 years. Maybe that is the foreign policy of the republican party, but I doubt it. He criticizes Obama for proposing to meet with foreign leaders "without conditions," but what exactly is the problem with that? According to John McCain, we should continue to ignore the countries who don't like us, and be increasingly exclusionary. To me, that sounds like terrible foreign policy.

How many people really think that a 70 year old man can revitalize America's global image? It's time for us to wake up! This pattern of electing old cantankerous men needs to come to an end. People look at elderly people and they see wisdom, but anyone can tell you that elderly people also resist change, regardless of its potential benefit. Older people cling to old ideals, some of which are outdated and must change. Our ideals in America have been to do whatever we want and not face any consequences. We are reaping what we have sown. All it takes is the ability to say, "I will not vote a party line simply because my father does." It is time to critically analyze who can best reshape how the world views the US. It's time to say that it's ok to vote across party lines if that is what it takes to give us the much needed shot in the arm that we so desperately require.

I implore everyone to look closely at McCain and Obama. What will you see in McCain that you like? I can see nothing. Being a prisoner of war and an old man do not qualify you to run the country. It's time for radical change, not stagnant policies.

Yet Another Obama Smear E-Mail

I was forwarded the latest and greatest Obama smear e-mail, which purports to list 50 of his “lies”. Below each accusation is the truth. I have left the ridiculously bad grammar, spelling, and punctuation intact for pure comedic value. Enjoy.





1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.

• Fact: Selma began in 1963, not 1965. And the reference is to the growing civil rights movement, which cannot be summed up in one single event or organization.

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

• Fact: Ever heard of the New York Times? That little one-horse newspaper has verified that Obama’s father was, in fact, a goat-herder turned economist. Check it out here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/world/africa/04village.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - L IAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

• Fact: Obama never said his dad was a freedom fighter. All that he said was that he was part of a bureaucratic, messy government. I can also find nothing to support the claim that Oginga Odinga’s reign was any more violent than any other Kenyan government

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades.

• Fact: First of all, Raila Odinga has claimed to be cousins with Senator Obama, but this claim is widely reported to be exaggerated. He did indeed come from the same tribe as Obama’s father, but that is all that is known. Secondly, Raila Odinga is the Prime Minister of Kenya, a post that was created with the UN after the “legitimate election” was rigged to favor the other party. He did not incite violence, supporters from either side clashed, and an agreement was finally made. He was sworn into office on April 17th, 2008. Side note: Obama would probably prefer to have the Prime Minister of Kenya as his cousin instead of Dick Cheney, who is indeed a distant cousin.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. According to the New York Times: “I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith,” Ms. Obama, 85, said in a recent interview in Kenya.' Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

• Fact: The author of this email must be the product of an immaculate conception, as he doesn’t realize that people have two, count ‘em, TWO grandmothers. Obama was referring to his maternal grandmother, who had a large part in raising him.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ (from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

• Fact: The name has origins in both Swahili and Arabic. Here is a link explaining more:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004187.html
Hussein is originally a Semitic name, read here for more: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/02/28/hussein/

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years,until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.

• Fact: This is just a blatant lie. Here is a link on Snopes.com that disproves that claim:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

8. ) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).

• Fact: The school required that you register with one of five state-approved religions. Obama was registered in the religion of his stepfather, a non-practicing Muslim. The school offered teachings of the religion of the land, which he was required to attend. It should also be noted that he also attended a Catholic school, which he writes about in the same paragraph. Forgive me but, is it a crime to study other religions in school? I took a religion class in college and studied the Koran, the Bible, and the Torah, and I don’t think that makes me Muslim, Christian, or Jewish.

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

• Fact: I can not find one source to back up this claim. Obama does, however, speak “passable” Bahasa, the language of Indonesia and Malaysia.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.

• Fact: Again, a randomly contrived “quote”. Obama only said that living abroad changed the way that he viewed other cultures.

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies. You seek to disarm America whil e our avowed enemy, Iran, will not subject itself to a nuclear ban. Top Hamas politica l adviser Ahmed Yousef said the Hamas terrorist group 'supports Obama’s foreign policy vision'.

• Fact: Wow. That doesn’t even make sense. Iran is our “avowed enemy”? Did John McCain write this??? For the record, the Ahmed Yousef quote was “We like Obama and hope he wins”. As I stated in a previous post, an unsolicited endorsement is not something he can control. I would also like to remind everyone that McCain admittedly sought out John Hagee’s endorsement, a man who said that New Orleans deserved Hurricane Katrina. Just a thought…

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

• Fact: Being a biracial kid in the 70’s was probably no picnic. It was probably difficult to fit in, and I doubt that anyone could speak to his state of mind, that’s pure conjecture. Also, does the writer of this email have any record of his classmates saying he was “just fine”? How can anyone try to presume what motivates anyone?

13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the arti cle you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

• Fact: I don’t even know how to address this. The first thought is…who cares? Secondly, maybe he confused it with another magazine but, again, who cares!?!?


14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

• Fact: Again, he mixed up the magazine. He was nine years old, these things happen.

15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

• Fact: The quote said that he had “no plans” to run. Both McCain and Hillary have said the same thing in the past.

16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO V OTES.

• Fact: A present vote is a way of saying that you support aspects of the bill, but not the earmarks and pork barrel spending attached to it. And for the record, Obama voted “present” 129 times out of 4,000 votes. Check out more here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/

17.) Oops, I Misvoted - LIAR, only when cau ght by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

• Fact: I have no idea whatsoever as to what this is referring to.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

• Fact: The University of Chicago issued a statement verifying that, in fact, Obama was a professor of law. It can be found here:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

• Additionally, Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review, one of the most prestigious titles a lawyer can have.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

• Fact: Obama worked as a constitutional lawyer from 1993 to 2002 at the law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, whose site can be found here: http://www.lawmbg.com/index.cfm/PageID/2674

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didn’t write it,introduce it, change it, or create it.

• Fact: Blatant lie, proven by the Senate website:
http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

• Fact: The final draft of the bill took 14 days, but the actual crafting of any bill takes much longer.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

• Fact: Obama’s bill was not passed because of a republican controlled senate, but even after being watered down by republicans, it still installed new safety protocols. For more info on nuclear nonproliferation legislation introduced by Obama, refer here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x3353

23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

• Fact: Blatant lie. Read more here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711150016?f=h_latest

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

• Fact: Obama organized and led the group. He never claimed to take it on by himself.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

• Fact: I have no idea what this is referring to.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

• Fact: Again, a complete fabrication.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

• Fact: Again, I can find no evidence to back up this claim.

28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

• Fact: The memo only says that the meeting took plane and that NAFTA was discussed. An advisor to the Obama campaign never denied the meeting took place. And he also admitted that he was there to ease their minds, and to assure them that Obama’s talk on NAFTA was accurately about negotiating, not scrapping NAFTA.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel. You state you will open friendly communication with the Leader of Iran who is attempting to develop nuclear weapons to destroy us, but refuse to speak to FOX news. You are against provisions of the Patriot act which would all wiretapping of the phones of suspected terrorists in the USA.

• Fact: Obama did not vote for that resolution because it would have amounted to a support for an attack on Iran. It should also be pointed out that our Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, and our Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, support more diplomatic approaches to foreign policy. Also, Ali Abunimah is an acquaintance of Obama, not a “friend”. Also, why would any reasonable person support the Patriot Act? The Patriot Act serves to throw away all of our civil liberties and turn us into an Orwellian state. I am NOT ok with the “Patriot” Act either.

30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.

• Fact: Once again, a complete fabrication.

31.) I Didn’t Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.

• Fact: Obama ran ads on national networks like CNN and MSNBC, which, astonishingly, happen to be watched in Florida. He did not insert ads on any Florida television channels or networks.

32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, no you didn’t.

• Fact: Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. Obama slipped in an interview when he was exhausted and mentioned Michigan by accident. He was so tired that he called the interviewer the wrong name.

33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, no you did not.

• Fact: Again, this quote never happened.

34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said let the delegates decide.

• Fact: Guess what, the delegates are assigned based on the votes of the people.

35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

• Fact: Is the writer insinuating that Obama should change the rules of the democratic nominating races?

36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didn’t write yourself.

• Fact: Again, a fabrication.

37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this.

• Fact: I have never heard of this and cannot find a single reference to it.

38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

• Fact: Alice Palmer could not get enough signatures to be put on the ballot.

39.) I Don’t Take PAC Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.

• Fact: Out of $233 Million, Obama’s campaign is registered as taking $250 of PAC money. Check it out here: http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?cand_id=P80003338&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=


40.) I don’t Have Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

• Fact: Obama stated that his campaign and his presidency will never have any federally registered lobbyists. This is true to this day.

41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

• Fact: It was not made by a campaign worker. Check it out here: http://www.bluestatedigital.com/2007/03/on_the_1984_video.html

42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.

• Fact: Again, what is this about? I can find no references to this anywhere.

43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other people’s words.

• Fact: First of all, I don’t believe that was a quote that he made. Secondly, during one speech, he borrowed a line from one of his campaign’s national co-chairs who encouraged him to use the line and gave him permission to do so.

44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.

• Fact: Wow, the 3rd anti-Africa statement. Clearly the writer of this e-mail is educated and a progressive thinker. The fact is, he has passed many bills in the US Senate. And as far as Africa goes, George W. Bush has promised more aid to Africa than any previous president or country, the only good thing that has come of his presidency.

45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.

• Fact: Once the war is started, Obama would be stupid to not vote to support our troops with money for supplies. Secondly, he has never set a firm withdrawal date, only a general guideline.

46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay the 15,000,000 who don’t have to buy it.

• Fact: Am I reading that wrong? I can’t even understand what the accusation is.

47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no record of any such letter ever being created or sent.

• Fact: Again, no idea what this is about.

48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - LIAR, you won’t wear a flag pin and you don’t put your hand over your heart during the Anthem. There is a Cuban Flag with Che Guevara Displayed at Barack Obama Campaign Office which you allow to b e displa yed. You voted against making english the official language of the United States. You voted to give illegal aliens social security benefits, which would bankrupt the social security system for Americans legally paying into it.

• Fact: Patriotism, last time I checked, did not require a lapel pin. I, as well as most Americans, do not put my hand over my heart during the anthem.

• The office at which the flag was displayed was a volunteer office that is in no way affiliated with or funded by the Obama campaign. Nonetheless, his office issued a statement that while the volunteer was flying the flag, his campaign did not support the action.

• The vote referenced was against The Comprehensive Immigration and Reform Act of 2007, and the English language amendment was added days before the vote took place. The real opposition was to the actual bill, not the last minute amendment. Check it out here: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/english-official.htm

• In regards to the social security bill, the vote was whether or not to give LEGAL aliens credit for the money they paid into the system before they were legal. Check it out here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/socialsecurity.asp

49.) My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - LIAR, your wife’s words follow lock-step in the vain of Rev. Wright and Louis Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America.

• Fact: Michelle Obama clarified her statements. Her words could’ve been chosen better, but her original statement still stands as blown out of proportion. She was referring to the pride that she felt about the way that Obama has inspired a grassroots movement.

50.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn’t Support - LIAR, your wife has received nearly a quarter of a million dollars through Treeho use, which is connected to Wal-Mart.

• Fact: Michelle Obama worked for a pepper and pickle company that sold 16% of its products to Wal-Mart. It is quite a stretch to say that because the company she worked (past tense) for sold some of their food to Wal-Mart, Obama is somehow supporting Wal-Mart. I would challenge anyone to find a successful food company that refuses to sell their food to Wal-Mart. It would be business suicide to not have your products sold in the nation’s largest retailer.



One of my favorite recurring themes is LIAR. I also enjoy the randomly made up accusations and quotes that can’t be documented or proven whatsoever.

Repudiate Repudiation, Mr. McCain.

Has anyone heard the word repudiate more frequently than in this presidential election? Seriously. Google it. I'll wait.


See what I mean?!? Sure the first few links are for definitions, but after that, all you see is McCain and Obama. Repudiate Hamas, repudiate Wright, repudiate liverwurst, repudiate repudiation.


We really have reached the ultimately politically correct election. The standard for this election is to find something that your opponent clearly opposes, but attack him for not "repudiating" it in no uncertain terms.

It's like when Obama debated Clinton. He said that he "rejected" Farrakhan's endorsement of him. Does that leave any doubt as to his feelings? To any logical person, the intent is pretty clear, but in the ever increasing passive-aggressive race, Hillary decided it was not enough. She told the moderators that Obama rejected the comments, but he did not "denounce" them. Senator Obama quickly responded with (and I paraphrase) 'Fine, I reject AND denounce' Farrakhan's endorsement.


Give me a break! To think that we now have to use two, three, or maybe even four synonyms to say one thing is ridiculous!

Now McCain wants Obama to "repudiate" Hamas. He is bringing up a quote from Ahmed Yousef that says "We like Obama and hope that he will win the election" to which McCain responded "It's indicative of how some of our enemies view America. And I guarantee you, they're not going to endorse me."


Forgive me for being stupid, but at what point does someone saying that they support you mean that you solicited or even welcome said support? I mean, if we're going to get down to it, McCain SOUGHT OUT the endorsement of John Hagee, a clear bigot and all-around weirdo.


That being said, the larger meaning in that statement is that McCain is offering more of the cowboy, my-way-or-the-highway style of foreign policy that Bush has given us for the last 8 years. It wouldn't surprise me if every leader of every organization outside the US desired a president with more of a compromising attitude than Bush or McCain. To demonize Obama because someone within a Palestinian terrorist organization likes him is ludicrous. Let me also remind everybody that John McCain sought out John Hagee's endorsement, knowing full well that he said that New Orleans deserved Hurricane Katrina for "a level of sin offensive to God."

So, Mr. McCain, why must Obama "repudiate" some unsolicited endorsement from a wacko, when you SOUGHT OUT an endorsement from a wacko. Let's stop playing these political games and get down to policy. Instead of trying to make people think Obama is somehow viewed as a terror ally, why don't you tell everyone why you asked an offensive man for an endorsement? Why don't you also tell everyone how leaders worldwide are hoping that anybody but you takes office, because they want a leader who will not use America to police the world?

Mr. McCain, it's time to get past this petty passive-aggressive style of politics. If you want to say something, don't just dance around the issue. Instead of attempting to call out your opponent by demanding they "repudiate" someone, why not tell us how you really feel? Instead of trying to be the nice, politically correct guy, why not say what you actually mean? Instead of insinuating things, be a man and come out and say exactly what you think. If you really are the bold, resolute leader that you claim to be, prove it. Dancing around issues by floating out vague suggestions about your opponent is the kind of timid politics that tells me that you are in no way qualified to run this country.

Am I right? Am I Wrong? Leave a comment and let me know.

End of rant.

Obama, The Pro-Life Choice

I was challenged by a friend and avid reader of The Garment File to convince her why a pro-life voter should vote for Barack Obama.

I will admit that, while I am a supporter of Obama, I had some initial doubts about my ability to defend his pro-choice voting record to a conservative pro-life voter. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it's not such a difficult proposition.

There are a few reasons that pro-life organizations always support republican candidates. The obvious answer is that republicans purport to be advocates for the pro-life movement. Another reason that matters more for this race than others is that a few supreme court positions may become vacant in the coming years. Since the only legitimate way to ban abortions is to overturn Roe v. Wade, pro-life activists consider the nomination of pro-life justices paramount to their cause.

While John McCain has almost a 100% pro-life voting record, and will most certainly continue that trend as president, he is NOT the best candidate for reducing and/or stopping abortions in America. It is my contention that Barack Obama, while a staunch pro-choice candidate, will actually do more to reduce abortions than John McCain.

Let's consider a few things:

• When choosing a candidate based on his perceived value of life, one must take into account many more factors than abortion alone. John McCain is a clear supporter of war. He has made his support for the war in Iraq VERY clear. A support for life, to me, does not mesh with supporting a war that has no benefits whatsoever. I can understand supporting a war that benefits somebody, but that fact is, our soldiers are dying in Iraq for absolutely no reason other than the fact that we decided to try to police the middle east.
• After voting for George W. Bush and electing a republican congress, based on their supposed advocacy for the pro-life movement, pro-life voters have nothing to show for it. Bush fought for the conservative pro-life vote, but did nothing to prevent or reduce abortions. In fact, I would argue that due to his support of abstinence-only sex education, there are now more accidental pregnancies, which translate to more abortions. To deny our students the ability to learn how to prevent pregnancies is to encourage abortion. Republicans purport to be actively pro-life, but they just want your vote.
  

Now, let's consider the benefits that Obama, despite being pro-choice, offers to the pro-life movement.

It's generally agreed that no matter the legality of abortion, it will continue.

I believe that the some valuable ways to reduce the amount of abortions are as follows:

• Make the world and the country a more desirable place to raise a child.
• Make birth control and prenatal care affordable.
• Encourage responsibility and good parenting.
  

When a woman gets pregnant in today's political and economic climate, she has to consider the benefit to her child of bringing him or her into a country in terrible economic shape, in the middle of a pointless war, and a less than optimal standing on the global stage. She would, most likely, have poor health insurance, or none at all. All of these factors make abortion the logical choice for many women.

Barack Obama promises to change not only the politics of America, but the climate of hospitality and community in America. He has said many times that investing in not only ourselves, but our neighbors and communities, is the best way to return America to our old standard of living. He has said time and time again that our fellow citizens' problems should be ours as well.

When the burdens of your fellow American become your own, a real climate of change for a better society begins. When having a child is viewed as a blessing, and not a curse, abortion becomes more of a last-resort option. When you know that you can provide that child with adequate health care, a real opportunity at financial success, and the opportunity to live in a peaceful world, abortion becomes the illogical choice.

The bottom line is, when considering abortion, one must consider the most effective way of reducing it. Since making it illegal will only serve to criminalize something that will still happen, the only logical choice is to take a preemptive stance to try and remove the willingness to have an abortion.

I truly believe that by making America a more desirable place to raise a child, abortions will decline. I also truly believe that Barack Obama is the only candidate who is taking a proactive stance on reforming not only the economy and our reputation, but the way that we, as a society, treat each other. Let's face it, McCain offers politics as usual. His presidency will most likely be as ineffective as Bush's has been. Since voting republican has done nothing to improve abortion rates, how can voting democrat hurt? It's not like democrats will pass laws that encourage abortion. The legality of abortion will stay the same no matter who is elected. It is simply a matter of choosing a candidate that can change the externalities that influence a woman's decision to have an abortion.

How did I do? Leave a comment and let me know.

Hillary "Huckabee" Clinton

Finally. The Pennsylvania primaries are over. No more bitter-gate. No more Charlie Gibson. No more Hillary. Wait a minute, you mean she's still in the race?

Is anybody really buying her claim that she can win this nomination? Is anyone buying her claim that she can win the general election?

I realize that the media is loving this drawn out race, but let's face it, Hillary Clinton just can't win the nomination. She netted a whopping ten delegates out of the largest remaining state. Of course her campaign is calling this the momentum-generator that her candidacy so desperately needed. However, the math for Hillary is just impossible. With a 130+ delegate deficit, at this point she would need to take at least 20 delegates in each of the remaining states, which is just not possible.

As of today, I have decided to dub her Hillary "Huckabee" Clinton. Just like Mike Huckabee, she is staying in the race when it is just NOT winnable. Unfortunately, because of the superdelegates, her defeat, while an eventuality, is not a foregone conclusion.

Just like with Huckabee, the pundits and newscasters are all trying to come up with all of these ridiculous scenarios in which she could pick up enough delegates to secure the nomination.

"Now if every black person in North Carolina doesn't vote, AND Barack Obama punches an old lady, AND if every Hillary supporter gets two votes..."

However, no matter what the scenario, her chances rely solely on the superdelegates flipping to her.

In what world does she live in that she thinks that the superdelegates will somehow vote against the popular vote? In which situation does she think that it's ok for the democratic party to go against the wishes of its electorate by nominating her? Race after race proves that, while she has some appeal to a lot of voters, the general population prefers Barack Obama.

It is now absolutely clear to me that Hillary does not have our country's best interests at heart. All she is succeeding in doing is tearing down Obama's reputation. And to what end? She can't win the nomination. So, in essence, she's doing John McCain's work for him. She's painting the eventual democratic nominee as an inferior candidate.

If Hillary Clinton really cared for her country, she would bow out and go on the stump as an Obama surrogate. If she really wanted the working-class people to succeed, she would make sure that, her own aspirations aside, a democrat takes office in 2009, which becomes a more daunting task as she plays dirtier and dirtier. It's time to stop being selfish and start thinking about the good of the party.

Will this happen? Will Hillary finally quit? My prediction: No way.

Hillary is hell-bent on becoming the first woman president. She is as determined, stubborn, and delusional as Mike Huckabee was earlier in the primary season. Hillary will fight and fight and make ridiculous claims about "electability." She will hang on way past any conceivable "comeback" is possible, and will insist on having a brokered convention. This should be a sign to her supporters that she truly is merely another Clinton. She is a professional politician. She does not care about her country or her party, she is concerned with winning, and winning only.

Support the one candidate who isn't bought and paid for. Support the candidate that the voters actually want. Support Senator Barack Obama.

http://www.barackobama.com

Bittersweet Symphony

Well, it's that time again. Time to regale you with more of my ill-informed and hastily drawn conclusions.

The news story this week, as I heard it:

"Barack Obama, Illinois' elitist and condescending junior senator, has spewed utter hatred towards Pennsylvanians by calling them gun-toting, simple-minded people who are nothing but bitter. He will surely never live down this egregious statement and will be mocked for centuries to come."

Am I exaggerating? Maybe just a tad, but the point is, can we really blow up two badly worded sentences THIS MUCH and still hold peoples' attentions? I think Obama put it best when he said that we're getting into "silly season" of this election.

I mean, really, can we stop taking portions of quotes from the original context and repeating one word over and over?

I don't think that anyone would argue with MY version of the statement:

When people are completely frustrated with their inability to lead successful lives because of complicit governments, they often find comforts in the rights that they still have.

There. I said the exact same thing.

"But Mr. Garment, you didn't call them bitter, and you didn't say scary words like 'cling,' how do you explain that?"

Clearly I need to clarify:

Let's look at the original text of the quote.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Ok, I'm willing to admit that the wording is a little awkward. The word "cling" is really what made the whole statement sound judgmental. But, look at the actual substance, and try to put yourself in the frame of mind of someone who lives in a small town that's on the verge of insolvency.

It's pretty obvious to me that when peoples' morale is in the dumps, they try to find joy in the simple things that they can still appreciate. When candidates are running for office and people feel like no previous candidate has helped them at all, they focus on the remaining issues that they want to protect. To summarize, if you think that no candidate can save the economy, you might as well start focusing more and more on the other issues that are important to you.

Senator Obama was only trying to make the point to his donors that people who have lost their jobs and livelihoods due to poor management of the economy are jaded by the system of American government. Of course if you lose your manufacturing job in the northeast, you're going to blame NAFTA or illegal aliens, it only makes sense.

If I was an avid gun-owner and I believed that my government had forgotten about me, and that neither candidate could really improve my economic situation, I would probably take what I believed to be the lesser of two evils and vote republican, as they have traditionally supported gun-rights more than the democrats.

Again, if I was a deeply religious man, and thought that the government would be completely ineffective in doing anything to help my town, I would vote for the party that has been more traditionally conservative.

Let us now look at the intention of the quote:

What Obama was trying to say was that the real challenge is to convince people that, while Obama may have a few conflicting ideas, he is the only candidate who promises to try and improve their lot in life. Would you still hate the idea of free-trade agreements if they helped you and your community? Of course not. Would you vote against a candidate who could help stimulate the economy simply because he opposes assault weapons? I would hope not. (Do we really need assault weapons anyway? But I digress...)

It's ridiculous that we should pick apart and repeat the word "bitter" over and over like it's some curse word. If you lived in a town that had been literally almost bankrupted because of multiple free-trade at any cost administrations, bitter would be the gentlest way of putting it. There are far more offensive words that I would use to explain my disenchantment with my government.

Hillary has really latched on to this one word. She's passing out bumper stickers that say "I'm not bitter." Guess what Hillary, a lot of America IS bitter. We're bitter because your husband's administration rushed NAFTA through without making any provisions to keep it fair. We're bitter because the Bush administration has wasted money that could have been used to stimulate our economy on a stupid war with no point, and no end in sight. We're bitter because people like you have changed politics from government for the people, by the people, to government to the richest and most elite. When you make $109 million in 7 years, you have no right to call ANYONE elitist.

End of rant.

Just Another Rant

My apologies for the lack of posts recently, I have been in the middle of moving the Garment File corporate headquarters to a more secure and lavishly posh location. I've also been a little uninspired as to what topic to cover. In lieu of something creative and exciting, I decided to cover a topic that nearly everyone has been covering recently.

We have all seen the pro-Tibet, anti-China protests as of late. While a lot of people, myself included, do not know enough about the Tibet/China conflict to take a definitive side, I would like to offer alternate reasons that we should condemn the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

I recently got done reading a book called "China Shakes the World" by James Kynge. It details China's rise to power as a manufacturing giant in the world. It also details the perilous future that China faces as a country and as a player on the global stage. While a lot of what he said was common sense, he shed some light on some things that I didn't realize. To summarize, China consumes natural resources and pollutes at a greater rate than any other country in the world, while its laws allow even more subsidized pollution by ignoring international laws regarding imports of things like stolen scrap metal and illegally-harvested lumber.

While the magnitude of disregard that China has for the international community is alarming and upsetting, China's blatant disregard for basic human rights is even more appalling.

While it is true that China is still officially a communist state, China has migrated more and more towards capitalism every day. This move towards capitalism is what has allowed China's quick rise to power in the manufacturing and industrial sectors. While China still calls itself a "People's Republic," the days of true communism in China are long gone. Instead of government controlled agriculture and manufacturing, China's government has allowed more and more private enterprise. While this may seem like a move toward a progressive nation headed for democracy, it is instead just another symptom of a communist-controlled state.

When Deng Xiaoping started his financial reforms that allowed Chinese people to actually turn profits on surplus agriculture, it seemed to be the first step towards a completely free-trade based society. The problem was (and is) that nearly every aspect of private enterprise is still controlled by the Communist Party. Sure, you can get a small business loan, but the loan will be from a State-run bank. Sure, you can exist as an entrepreneur in a province, but that person who is in charge of your province answers directly to a hierarchy of Communist Party leaders.

As a result of expanded capitalistic opportunities, the government in China now has more control than ever. These powers, as a necessity of complete control, have evolved past just a national control of economics and politics, but have graduated into the absolute trouncing of almost all basic human rights.

Even some of the economic policies hurt the common man in China. As the government constantly manipulates the currency to keep it artificially undervalued, it keeps wages so low that a majority of the common people live in poverty. The government does this by subsidizing power and water costs to keep the perceived value of the Renminbi (China's currency) low. It works like this. If your power bill is $100 a month, making $400 a month seems pretty outrageous. If you had to pay those rates, you would demand higher wages. You would realize that you were not making nearly enough. What China's government does is eat a portion of the costs of the power bill, so that the customer only sees a $20 bill, making that $400 seem that much more of a paycheck. This allows China to stay on top of production by keeping wages lower than almost anywhere in the world.


This might seem like a pretty strong example of China's willingness to step on its people's rights, but it's merely the beginning. Since China entered the World Trade Organization it has been continually ranked in the top ten offenders of human rights worldwide.

While the Lou Dobbs's of the world will tell you that we should boycott China and Chinese products because of their subversive business practices that are "stealing American jobs," I would argue that the need to boycott the Olympics should be based solely on China's atrocious record of human rights violations.


Currently, China and its government:

• Rank 7th in executions per capita worldwide
• Ban words like "democracy" from online chat rooms
• Sentenced a man to 3.5 years in prison for writing essays about human rights
• Run almost all news outlets
• Filter all internet content that refers to human rights or anti-China rhetoric
• Limits membership of high-ranking offices to atheists
• Regularly turns a blind eye to forced abortions because of its benefit to the "One-Child Policy"
• "Misplaces" international mail that may not be pro-China
  
• Have ignored restrictions put on trade with genocidal Sudanese
  

Since the Olympics are meant to be a sign of friendship between the nations of the world, our support and participation in the Olympics signify our "friendship" with China. It seems to me that no country would support Hitler-run Germany's hosting of the Olympics. When the host city of the Olympics is based in a country that is, without any question, one of the worst offenders of human rights in the history of the world, it should be up to civilized countries like the U.S. to take a stand. It should be up to us to to tell the rest of the world that we don't support countries that don't embody the same freedoms that most of the world agrees should be universal. While I'm not advocating our intervention in foreign countries, I am advocating at least making an effort to not associate ourselves with them.

It is even more ironic that the theme of the Olympics is "One World, One Dream". Apparently this singular dream does not include the dream of fair wages, a clean environment, or the right to free speech.

I realize that this post is really scattered and "wandering". There is just so much information about China's history of injustices towards its people that it is hard to reduce it into a short summary.

Let me know what you think by leaving a comment!

The Media Inbalance

It was said months ago that the media was not being hard enough on Barack Obama. It was purported that somehow Hillary Clinton was getting all the scrutiny, and that he was getting a free ride in the press coverage. After this repeated assertion from Hillary and her surrogates, the media responded by bowing to her wishes. They put more and more efforts in attempting to dig up dirt on Obama. Unable to find any scandal or disgrace to report on, they decided to instead attack his relationship with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. We were repeatedly shown clips of him saying things like "America's chickens are coming home to roost" and "God damn America!" If you took these heavily edited videos at face value as they were run and re-run on the nightly news, you would immediately begin to question Senator Obama's patriotism. How could anyone who claims to be a patriot go to church every Sunday and listen to anti-American rhetoric? As has been said by many pundits, why did he not just "walk out"?

I will admit that I shared these same doubts and misgivings when I heard these remarks. I started to question the opinion of Obama that I had formulated. Could a man who claims he wants the best for America actually have a close relationship with someone who spews such hate towards it?

It wasn't until I was urged by a friend to watch the unedited version of those sermon clips that I understood the massive editing job that had been done. When Reverend Wright talked about the "chickens coming home to roost" he was referring to an interview with Ambassador Edward Peck on FOX News. In Wright's sermon, his point in quoting Ambassador Peck was to point out that those words, which were originally Malcolm X's, were being quoted by a white ambassador, not a militant black man. He was referring to the growing number of people who are dissatisfied with American policy, foreign AND domestic. Past and present. He wanted to point out that it wasn't just a black man preaching against violence towards other cultures, but a former ambassador to Iraq, a white man.

Taken out of context, this quote has the OPPOSITE meaning! That would be like me saying:

"I hate racism. Just the other day I heard a man say 'I hate Hispanic people.'"

but edited:

"I hate Hispanic people."

Taken out of context it has a completely different meaning. But the media has given no thought as to determining the context of Wright's remarks.

Check it out for yourself:


The other quote they play is Wright saying "God damn America!" What they don't show is the context of that quote. Again, taken out of context it sounds like he is anti-American. But if you watch the whole clip, he is trying to make the point that our history of putting Native Americans on reservations, putting Japanese in interment camps, and enslaving Africans is akin to the American government playing God. In that context he says "No no no, not God bless America, God damn America!" for it's reprehensible domestic human rights record. While it may not be the way some would choose to phrase such an opinion, I don't think anyone would disagree to condemning that portion of our history.

Check it out for yourself:



What amazes me even more is that while we are busy trying to bring down Obama for having a fiery and opinionated preacher, but are paying hardly an attention to Hillary's blatant lies about her trip to Bosnia:



At least Obama is truthful in saying that at times his pastor's remarks were heated and contradictory to his own beliefs. Instead of trying to slander Obama by proxy, let's focus on the complete fabrications that Hillary is passing off as "experience". If she is lying about her Bosnia trip to bolster her credentials, what else is she lying about? How many times will she lie to us as president, and about what?

I say that it is time to once again turn the spotlight of scrutiny back on the candidate who has backpedaled on her stance on NAFTA, has been passive-aggresive in her criticism of other candidates, and made up a story of "arriving under sniper fire" simply to boost public opinion of her "experience". Ever since Hillary accused Obama of getting a "free ride," the media has been clamoring to prove otherwise. In the meantime, they have had to soften their criticisms of her in order to appear "fairer". Let's bring back objectivity in the press. Let's hold Hillary accountable for the things she says, in the same way that we hold Obama accountable for his relationship with Reverend Wright.

No, I Don't Have Any Idea What I'm Talking About

It's been a while since I've posted anything, because I have had a laundry list of things I want to talk about, and I can never decide on anything. But since my rabid readership demands more high quality ranting and raving, I must not disappoint.

I'd like to talk about taxes and the economy in the United States. Doesn't that sound fun? No? What if if put it in terms of pizzas and beers....still doesn't sound fun? Oh well, I think if you read on to my completely baseless rant it will at least convince you that I MAY have something to say that is not complete conjecture, although it probably is.

I hear politicians continue to fight over John McCain's stance on Bush's tax cuts. The fact is, he voted against them and, now that he is running for the presidency, is a whole-hearted supporter of them. I think we all know that he is simply supporting them to garner support from a broad republican base. It seems to me that no self-respecting republican would actually oppose a tax cut. I mean, less taxes...does it get any better than that? Obviously less taxes HAS to be good for the common American, right?

Well, let's look at the largest constituency amongst republicans. For the most part, republicans are your average low to middle class blue-collar workers. The salt of the earth working in the heart of America. These people have been led to believe that democrats tax and spend, while republicans lower their taxes, cure cancer, and help old ladies cross the road. The truth of the matter is, 90% of these people cannot afford reasonable health care, are facing a diminishing dollar, and must hope daily that they can somehow manage to pay their mortgage.

You may be saying to me, "Mr. Garment, where are you going with all this?"

Here's my point:

With Bush's tax cuts, single people making $30k a year have seen a 13% decrease in total taxes in the last 7 years, which equate to about a $4500 difference. However, people making just $3,000 more than that, at $33k per year, have seen a 0% decrease. To most this would signify a victory for the lower class, as it puts a little more money in their pockets. At first glance, one cannot argue the value of saving the lower to middle class money. However, the real numbers add up when you look at the tax BREAKS that benefited the rich, and the impact that had on our entire economy.

Take, for example, a single person making $500k a year. Before Bush's cuts he was paying $198,000 in annual taxes. Since the cuts, he pays $175,000. This is a cut in tax revenue of $23,000!

So, in essence, we saved the average Joe $4,500, but we decreased our tax revenue by $23,000!

The only way that our economy survives is by relying on a progressive tax. When we offer a tax break to the wealthy and the lower class, the only adjustment that can be made is a reduction in federal spending. Some people argue that the only thing that this extra tax revenue goes to is more social programs and government waste. To this I would quote my friend "People who complain about social programs don't realize that social programs are responsible for interstate highways, police, firemen, public schools, unemployment benefits, etc."

To tie it all back together, the average republican who is struggling to survive reaps more of a benefit from social spending than he does from a tax cut. I guarantee that a large portion of republicans who fall into the lower and middle class are construction workers, teachers, policeman, and firemen who would ALL see their wages cut as a result of federal tax cuts. Even if they don't see the direct impact, the states would have to make up their decreased federal funding by passing those losses down the line.

Even if your job does not receive any state or federal funding, I'll bet it'd be a lot harder to get to work without a paved road. I would also bet that you'd have to pay a lot more for child care if there were no public schools to send them to.

This graph shows the disproportionate breaks under Bush's tax cuts:

In closing, when our economy is failing, the dollar is diving, and health care is nearly impossible for the average person to afford, it makes no sense to lower our tax revenue by giving breaks to people who don't need them, and by luring lower income people into thinking that paying taxes is somehow a disadvantage. When the tax cuts are repealed, I think economists will all share a collective sigh of relief as we reinsert a valuable portion of tax revenue back into our feeble economy.

Like it or hate it, click the link directly below that says "# comments" and leave a comment.

Like it or hate it, click here to Digg it!

I was a Republican until 2 months ago.

Yes. It is blasphemous. It is unheard of. Yes, I was once asked to park my car on the street because I had four, count 'em, four George W. Bush bumper stickers on my car. Am I proud? I was. I felt that re-electing G-Dub was the smart choice. I was, as the rest of America was, duped. Am I proud now? How could I be? How can anyone defend our current administration?

G-Dub has made a choice to increasingly trounce our rights. He has driven our economy into recession with ridiculous spending. The crazy thing is, some republicans actually defend him to this day. This shows an ever-increasing ignorance among Americans regarding not only politics, but the issues that drive modern day politics.

I had dinner with my brother-in-law this evening. Let me preface this by saying that he is clearly an intelligent individual. He works for the state/federal government in a capacity that is surely important to our well-being.

I will never say that his ideas are stupid. I won't say that about anybody's ideas. What I will say, is that there are some ideas out there that I can't believe I ever held to be true. If this sounds like a rant, it is. I am in awe at the way that some people can view our society.

Here is one such idea: Some people believe that homosexuality is a choice or, better yet, an excuse. I don't see why anyone in the world would choose to be a discriminated minority. How many Caucasian people do you know who would choose to be a minority? How many Caucasian people would choose to be people of color, knowing the persecution that those people have faced?

In that respect, why would someone choose to be gay when they understand that gay people face discrimination and hate? That is like saying that a person who is otherwise straight, DECIDES to be gay solely for the purpose of being persecuted. Clearly it isn't for financial or social gain, so why would one "choose" this path? I just don't believe that anyone would "choose" to be persecuted. The only other conclusion is that these people "choose" their sexual orientation merely to be rebels.

Some would say that same sex marriage "undermines" our society. One argument that I hear is that homosexual people can't reproduce. How can anyone sit there with a straight face and tell me that our planet needs more people? I think we should consider it a blessing that every person doesn't feel obligated to pop out another kid.

If your stance is that adding homosexual married couples to the mix places a burden on the insurance companies, I encourage you to look at the RECORD profits that each company nets. Insurance, specifically health insurance, is the biggest money-making scam of our time. So what if two homosexual people who are married want the same cost-saving family policy as heterosexual couples? Insurance companies already charge an exorbitant amount of money, why should homosexual couples not be allowed to take the tiny bit of savings that a family plan offers?

As an American people, we could NOT in anyway drive insurance companies to insolvency. These companies have made money by duping the public for years and years regarding the quality of care and the cost of premiums. They argue that they cannot handle the added burden of insuring homosexual couples. The way things work now, one pays exorbitant premiums only to pay again in co-pays and deductibles. Insurance companies post record profits while covering very little actual medical costs. Is it our country's goal to help profiteering companies dominate our failing national economy?

Barack Obama has set forth a health care plan that has some government funding and subsidies. Republicans actually question the merit of such ideas. They claim that it is the next step towards a socialist state.

Are we really going to oppose a partial nationalization of our health care in order to protect these companies that deny every claim that they can? Is it really a crime for our government to make it illegal for companies to overcharge us for sub-mediocre care?

Is anyone upset about this??!?!?!?


Ugh....

Check it out


Like it? Hate it? Post a comment by clicking right below this!