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!