Blatant Reality

I was perusing Barack Obama’s Environmental Fact Sheet when I stumbled on this paragraph and just decided to point some of the ironies that it presents.

Reduce Health Risks Caused by Mercury Pollution: More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood and approximately 630,000 newborns are born every year at risk. The EPA estimates that every year, more than one in six children could be at risk for developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother’s womb. Barack Obama fought a Bush administration rule that would have imposed very weak emissions reductions on utilities, delaying meaningful reductions in power plant mercury emissions for another two decades. Recognizing that one major cause of mercury also comes through the air from across the oceans, particularly from China, Obama introduced legislation to ban the export of elemental mercury, and he successfully pressured the U.S. Department of Energy to stop its proposed sale of large quantities of mercury to companies overseas. Obama also introduced legislation to phase out the use of mercury in the manufacture of chlorine.

 

(…)

 

As president, Barack Obama will continue his fight, begun as a community organizer, to protect our children from health hazards and developmental disabilities caused by environmental toxins, such as lead, mercury, particulate matter, and industrial land waste. Obama will fight to clean brownfields, restore abandoned industrial riverfront sites, and give communities the tools they need to eat healthy foods and expand livable, walkable neighborhoods.

Why is this ironic? Well, for one, he is a big fan of Compact Fluorescent Bulbs(CFL’s), ranking it among solar panels and wind turbines that other countries use as “clean” technologies (page 5) and supporting a phase out of incandescent bulbs (page 7).

It turns out that these CFL bulbs, contain mercury, the very substance he is railing about in the above paragraph. This means that upon breaking a CFL, one has to basically follow a hazardous waste procedure to remove the broken pieces from your house.

I don’t know about you but I have broken quite a few light bulbs and up until this point all I have had to worry about is getting cut by a piece of glass. Now, Obama wants to forcefully put a source of mercury, a chemical that he even admits is dangerous, into our homes. This sure sounds like he is increasing our children’s risk of coming in contact with mercury, not “protecting” them from it.

Oh, and another ironic thing, ALL Compact Fluorescent Bulbs are made in China, the very place where Barack Obama is worried about mercury coming from. See this speech by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) for more information about this (At 4:00 for China part).

Oh Obama, so many inconsistencies, so little time.

UPDATE (7/31/08): Looks like there is an alternative to CFL’s that will still cut down on energy costs. Huh. Who knew?

I was wandering around Obama’s website today, looking for anything that might be of interest when I stumbled upon this in the “Kids for Obama” section:

You read that right, that’s a list of 10 things that KIDS can do to help out the Obama Campaign.

Now when you think about it, this section is fairly disturbing. For one, its obviously targeting kids that are way to young to even be thinking about politics. I reached this conclusion just by looking at the picture located on the same page:

I guess Obama is following the same strategy that Tobacco companies used to use (still use?) to get people smoke: if you can get them hooked when they are young, you will have them coming back for more for life.

Anyways, another thing that was a little less disturbing but far more funny was the 4th bullet point in that list that asks kids to draw pictures of Obama in the White House. The only reason that is funny (other than the fact that it is obviously targeting the preteen audience) is because of the whole New Yorker incident that happened last week.

With the way that Obama reacted to that caricature of himself and Michelle, I don’t know if he will be able to handle pictures drawn with much less talent and much less tact.

I mean, these are kids, who knows what they might draw? Think about all the problems you could get if kids don’t get Obama’s skin color just right. I mean kids aren’t that good at blending colors let alone picking them (who in the world has ever seen a polka dotted pig in real life?). Should Crayola make a color called ‘Obama’ to help solve this problem?

What will happen if a picture from one of his ‘kids for Obama’ leaks to the press that portrays him as too black, too white or even too green (in the literal sense, not the environmental)?

And what about those ears? People think that George Bush looks like a monkey but Obama’s ears certainly make him a candidate for animal comparisons. Monkey? Elephant? Bush Baby? The jury is still out but what would Obama do if a kid just happened to draw a picture that made him look something a little bit more…errr…wild?

I mean the New Yorker looks tame compared to some of the pictures kids could draw. At least with the New Yorker you could explain everything away with positive meanings. Take a look:

• Obama could be in that style of clothing because he embraces multiculturalism,
• The picture of Osama is there to help remind him who the real enemy is
• The flag is burning because that’s the the only proper and honorable way to dispose of a flag
• Michelle is dressed like that to symbolize that she is a strong, feminist woman who can take care of herself
• The fist bump is just a way to minimize transmitting germs due to extended physical contact as in a hug, kiss, or handshake

Do you think a kid could put that much thought into a picture that? I doubt it.

Anyways I just wanted to throw that out there. What do you think?

Yesterday, MoveOn.org conducted over 200 different protests around the country to protest McCain receiving contribution from oil companies. I just happened to live by one of these protest so I headed over to check it out (and hope for something interesting to happen). This particular protest took place at the Shell Station on the corner of Skinker and Delmar (aka The Loop) which, I might want to add, is arguably the most liberal place in town.

And that fact got me thinking, what’s with Liberals protesting on their home turf anyways? Isn’t the point of a protest like this to get their ideas out to people who don’t already know/agree? Or do Liberals just like to protest in these areas so they can feel good about themselves when every other person who drives by honks their horn in support? Feel free to answer below.

Anyways, nothing really interesting happened but here are some picture I took of the event that I thought you might enjoy.

Here is one of the typical liberal cars that parked in the gas station parking lot as the owner of the car was out on the curb protesting. For those of you not from Missouri, the far left bumper sticker in the window is for Sam Paige, a democrat running for Lieutenant Governor and the middle is for Jay Nixon (no relation), a Democrat running for Governor.

This is the protesters lining the sidewalk in front of the Shell Station. They weren’t that active (aka no chants) and basically the protest was an hour and a half of them talking and commiserating about how bad McCain is and how wonderful Obama is.

Another protester who would yell at the cars driving by that McCain is a puppet to the oil companies.

Here is a sign that one of the protesters dropped on the ground. I never did check to see if it was picked up (I’m guessing it was but wouldn’t that be ironic)

And then we have the parents who dragged their children out to this event.

Mom on far left with her two kids.

Now for the group shot which was taken just as they were finishing. The group never did look like it ever reached the 49 people that had pledged to show up.

If you want to see the flier that they were handing out it can here see here(front) and here(back).

As you can see, the protest was pretty boring as I hinted at before because nothing really happen. Some people honked their support, some people flicked them off, and some people just plain ignored them. However, there were no verbal fights that you sometimes see at these kinds protests. Once again, I blame the lack of “action” on the fact that they held this protest in friendly territory.

Why didn’t I stir up some trouble? Well first off, I didn’t want and physical harm to come to my camera if things got ugly and secondly, I just don’t like picking fights. They left me along so I left them alone.

In all honesty, the main reason I didn’t mess with them is because they were attacking McCain on his energy policy and, the fact is, McCain has yet to prove to me he actually knows what he is talking about on this topic. What could I even attack them on since I don’t even believe McCain is going to do right by us with regards to energy? Is he going to be better than Barack, most likely, but that really isn’t saying much.

Anyways, if anyone else went to one of these things and they saw a little more action, please leave a link below.

As you might have already noticed, I am going in a somewhat new direction with the website by mainly focusing on Environmental, Energy, and Global Warming issues because I feel these topics will have great significance in the coming years. However, there will be times like this were I just can’t help but post an article about another topic.

This really just makes my blood boil to even think that some of these liberals who have been hooting and hollering for the past year that the surge isn’t working to finally admit that it has worked and that it was there idea the whole time. I refuse to even publish the outright lies that these liberals are saying on my blog but you can read all about it with commentary here.

I will republish this part of the commentary that highlights Obama’s foresight into the whole Surge situation.

And yet the Democrats whined, “We need more troops” in mantra like fashion, meaning not that the surge would be a success but that the additional “surge” troops in Iraq would be insignificant. Barack Obama’s comment at the time captured the prevailing lefty sentiment rather well: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

 

Wow! What judgment!

Obama seems to be in a little conundrum about whether or not to support ethanol subsidies. Better yet, he still hasn’t decided who these subsidies help: the nation which he wants to represent or corn-growing Illinois (my emphasis).

Today, in a New York Times article on Obama’s support for ethanol, Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s new economic policy director, is quoted saying that Obama’s stance on the issue was based on the merits, a determination that ethanol subsidies are in the national interest. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Furman said. The article continues: “Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, ‘He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.’”

 

It was the expected answer during a presidential campaign — except that it flies in the face of what Obama himself said on the issue a few months ago. Asked about his support for ethanol during a press conference at a gas station in Indianapolis in April, Obama was remarkably candid in explaining why he backed the subsidies: “Look, I’ve been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois … is a major corn producer,” he said. He went on to say that he was concerned about reports that ethanol was helping drive up food prices, and that he saw ethanol as merely a transitional option that would eventually give way to biofuels that were more efficient and has less of an impact on food prices, such as ones made out of switchgrass.

Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family has criticized Barack Obama for distorting the Bible’s teaching for his own political gain. Take a look at the article here:
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/rel_dobson_obama

It seems that Obama really doesn’t know what he wants to do about the whole Iraq situation. To the American public, he is sending the signal that he will get us out of Iraq. However, while he is telling us that, he is telling the Iraqi’s that he will stay there until the mission is completed. Mixed signals? I think so.

You can read more here:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/12141

He took his sweet time in deciding who to endorse but now Gore has finally paused to take a moment from his crusade to endorse Obama.

In a letter to be e-mailed to Obama supporters, the former vice president and Nobel Prize winner wrote, “From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected president of the United States.”

 

(…)

 

“Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action,” Gore wrote. “With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country’s most pressing problems.”

 

The former vice president also asked for donations to help fund Obama’s effort - the first time he’s asked members of his Web site AlGore.com to contribute to a political campaign.

It really does make me cringe to think of all the mayhem Gore is going to be able to accomplish with a Democrat President and a Democrat controlled congress.

A Boston Globe article today claims that such a phenomenon could exist.

“Barack Obama is no conservative,” Bacevich starts his article. “Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois. Given the alternatives — and the state of the conservative movement — they could do worse.

 

“The essential point is this: conservatives intent on voting in November for a candidate who shares their views might as well plan on spending Election Day at home,” Bacevich continues. “The Republican Party of Bush, Cheney, and McCain no longer accommodates such a candidate.

 

“So why consider Obama? For one reason only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival.

 

“For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one,” Bacevich concludes.

What? I can’t see how a conservative would be willing to trade in every other issue just to get us out of Iraq. Sure McCain is going to try to tax us on the Global Warming phenomenon but Obama would be worse. In fact, for a conservative, Obama is worse in everything.

McCain may not be a “true conservative” but he certainly isn’t the most liberal senator of 2007. Come on conservatives, we aren’t going to be happy with whatever the election results are but at least McCain has the potential to do something right once in a while.

In a recent poll conducted by CNN, Nader received 6%!

Ralph Nader’s campaign is trying to capitalize on his showing in a new national poll to argue that he might be on the stage for presidential debates and to seek more money needed to get on ballots.

 

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted June 4-5, Democrat Barack Obama had 47 percent, Republican John McCain had 43 percent, and Nader had 6 percent — “with virtually no mainstream national press coverage,” the consumer activist’s campaign told supporters today. (Without Nader in the race, Obama leads 49 percent to 46 percent.)

 

The 6 percent is an important threshold, Nader’s camp notes, because most debate organizers require at least 5 percent to invite a candidate.

Why is this such great news? Well it means that Nader could possibly be invited to several presidential debates which would boost his popularity even more! More votes for Nader would most likely mean less votes for Obama!

Another added benefit would be that we get a Ron Paul-esque candidate in the debates to spout out crazy ideas while the other two candidates completely ignore him. I might actually watch the debates if he is in them.