THE FIGHT GETS NASTY

Who really has the best interests of working people at heart—Clinton or Obama? In the Democratic debate in South Carolina, Barack charged that while he was working the streets as a community organizer, Hillary was a corporate lawyer on the board of Wal-Mart. Hillary then charged her opponent with representing a Chicago slum lord who later contributed to his campaign.

In the background (but not very deep background), Bill Clinton said that Obama’s statements about his opposition to the war were a “fairy tale.” He also called the Illinois senator a “kid.” Donna Brazile, who once was an advisor o both Bill Clinton and Al Gore, found the former president’s statements about Obama to be racially offensive. It does seem strange for Bill Clinton to call Barack Obama a “kid. Obama is 46 years old, a year older than Clinton was when he became president!

The problem is, too many politicians (including all three of the top Democratic candidates) are lawyers, and lawyers are not trained to seek the truth. They are trained to win—no matter what the cost.

What the country needs at its head is a truth seeker, a scholar, someone like former English professor Dr. Carl Perrin. Perrin will represent working people in a way that none of these lawyers can. If you want to get to the truth, don’t go to a lawyer. A lawyer will twist the facts to make them come out the way he or she wants. A scholar, on the other hand, will dig until he gets as close as he can to the truth.

$67.3 MILLION PANTS

You have to feel sorry for Roy L Pearson. The pants from his Hickey Freeman suit needed to be let out. He took them to Custom Dry Cleaner in Washington, D. C. Pearson, a lawyer, claims the cleaner lost his expensive pants and tried to palm off a “cheap knockoff.” Naturally, being a lawyer, Pearson sued. He devised a formula based on the consumer protection law that said he was due $18,000 a day to recompense him for his loss. Since the conflict had gone on for over four years, Pearson argued that he is due $67.3 million. He claims he is symbolically representing the underdog (like himself), who is being taken advantage of by greedy merchants. As he told how the dry cleaner tried to pass off the cheap pair of pants, he began to cry in court. And who can blame him? He asked for a recess and left the courtroom wiping away his tears. It was really sad. But you have to admire men like Pearson who are willing to stand up for what is right.

When prominent academic Dr. Carl Perrin read about the pants caper, he wondered, just for a second, if he could sue his dry cleaner if they lost his pants. Perrin is a professor, not a lawyer, so he wouldn’t think of suing for $67.3 million, but ten or twelve thousand sure would come in handy. Anyway, Perrin doesn’t own a thousand-dollar Hickey Freeman suit. He took the suit that he had bought at Burlington Coat Factory for $125 to the local dry cleaner.

A few days later Perrin went back to pick up his suit. The suit was there ready for him, pants and jacket. There was no question about the pants being a cheap knockoff because the whole suit was cheap when he bought it. He paid the dry cleaner and took the suit home. How are you going to sue people if they don’t cooperate?