A dose of Sinatra

Obama on stem cell research

Mike Tyson vs James Buster Douglas

February 11, 1990 Tokyo : Up to this moment in time, Mike Tyson had pulverized his opponents, some in a matter of seconds - his invincibility epitomized by not even once being knocked down in his previous 37 bouts...then, in the 10th round against one more obscure contestant, history unfolded:

The New York Times and General Musharraf

In light of this past month's universally chastised article regarding the sketchy wrong-doings of Senator John McCain, I've been compelled to construct my personal critique of The New York Times - specifically, its long-held antagonistic compositions on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in both its main pages and editorials - expressly its editorials as I shall attest to presently. The Times is arguably the most prominent and thus influential paper of record in the US, yet clearly it belies the notion of being objective most conspicuously with its constant and prevalent denunciation, even carping, of all things Bush. The most feckless illustration of this bias can be summoned by simply perusing the Times' editorials leading up to the invasion of Iraq, such as this one from February 2003 urging the UN to be forceful in disarming Saddam, and another actually touting the case for war. They followed the Bush doctrine when the public at large had starry eyes for a battle with Saddam. Now back to General Musharraf, whom the editorial page at The Times seems to have a bizarre obsession for judging by more than ONE HUNDRED entries spanning from the counter-coup of 1999 through its third writing of the new year this morning. Here is the listing of the postings. Except for the brief period following the Planes Operation of 2001, the editorials are universally vituperative toward this one leader, who they have opined on more than any other in the world save for Bush 43. I've personally written to The Times on multiple occasions questioning why they continually ascribe blame to Musharraf for the sorry state of affairs in a still third world country, who after all is in better economic shape following the corrupt two term regimes of the late Benazir and the now revived Nawaz Sharif, the latter being the designated suitor to ameliorate whatever affliction The Times believes Musharraf has caused these many years. When you study and glance over the many articles excoriating him for his supposed subverting of democracy in a state where militants are not only harbored, but are bred, how can you not conclude that a wretched bias persists. We all know that extremists existed in Pakistan years before 1999, being clandestinely cultivated by the United States during its Cold War engagement. My thinking on this is that Musharraf's ties to George Bush have earned him eternal ostracism in the eyes of The New York Times, for as the saying goes, you are judged by the company you keep, and how dare the president of Pakistan foment favorable ties with the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Perhaps he wouldn't have merited 10 editorials if he stayed disengaged until another Clinton had attained the reigns...The Times could finally revel in its political coverage then.

Encounter with John Edwards

In the midst of the most furious presidential election cycle in recent memory, I find most of my internal thoughts and outward discussions these days revolve around said topic. I spend my daylight hours at the local hospital parking scene - an assignment where ambitious people need not apply; however it does provide an opening into what real problems consist of as the constant parade of patients can attest. Today as I exited the building, I glanced around the corner and noticed a figure who I attribute my initial political interest in - the just-recently former candidate Senator John Edwards. He proved a larger than life image as he stood alone outside against the backdrop of the entrance, in comfortable jeans and blue shirt. I shook his hand and gave standard congratulatory remarks including the painfully obvious "Barack split the progressive vote". He asked me what my name was, and politely agreed to my fawning dissertations of his fate. He even thanked me at the end, smiling graciously the whole time. This was a genuine nobleman performance Mr. Edwards showed me. So it seems that when I selected the senator from North Carolina back in late 2003 as my favorite Presidential candidate, I clearly picked the man who would greet me no different than another of greater ambition, wealth and taste. I salute him for it!

Celebrity donors for Obama

On the eve of the utmost critical South Carolina primary, I thought it would be illuminating to post a list of well known Americans donating exclusively to the Barack Obama for President campaign, compiled from the excellent site newsmeat.com. The following people have contributed the maximum amount $2300:

• Jennifer Aniston
• Tyra Banks
• Halle Berry
• Zach Braff
• Richard A Clarke
• George Clooney
• Harry Connick Jr
• Cindy Crawford
• Babyface
• Michael Eisner
• Jamie Foxx
• Morgan Freeman
• Cuba Gooding Jr
• Grant Hill
• Bruce Hornsby
• Ron Howard
• Phil Jackson
• Samuel Jackson
• Michael Jordan
• Cedric Entertainer
• Julia Louis-Dreyfus
• Seth MacFarlane
• Natalie Maines
• Stephon Marbury
• Branford Marsalis
• Judge Mathis
• Eddie Murphy
• Craig Newmark (Craigslist)
• Leonard Nimoy
• Ed Norton
• Adrian Pasdar
• Tyler Perry
• Sidney Poitier
• Maury Povich
• Phylicia Rashad
• Paul Reiser
• Chris Rock
• Brooke Shields
• Emmitt Smith
• Jada Pinkett Smith
• Will Smith
• George Soros
• Isaiah Washington
• Forest Whitaker
• Gene Wilder
• Oprah Winfrey
• Jeffrey Wright
• George Zimmer (Mens Wearhouse)

Obama - Bloomberg Independent ticket 2008

There is increasing sentiment in the media that Senator Barack Obama's many policy proposals veer to the right, especially in comparison to that of his two main Democratic opponents. Added to that is the significant appeal he possesses outside of the Democratic party, which propelled his triumph in Iowa on January 3rd. This falls in line with the speeches Obama has given over the years, most prominently his keynote address at the DNC in July of 2004, in which he excitedly promulgated the insightful notion that "there is not a liberal America or a conservative America, there is the United States of America." Barack Obama truly believes that we can bridge the gap that has polarized the political masses, a rift that has been swollen by our last two administrations, who have provided us seemingly endless scandals in their 4 terms. Obama's main rival in his quest for the nomination is undeniably an heir to the factional governing that's made conciliatory politics an archaic practice. The divide and conquer technique has become full blown in recent days, leading to a bizarre accusation that Obama is the playing a race card in defending attacks based on racial arguments, both implicitly and historically. Unfortunately, these methods have a disturbingly inevitable way of benefiting its proprietor, in this case the Clinton group, which has firm residence in the Democratic party command center. Barring a much needed awakening in the voting public to the underhanded Clinton strategy, it will succeed in taking the nomination. It is then that a new alliance can be built, a formidable entry that can carry itself to the White House in January 2009. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has began canvassing the country for a national run. He has the financial resources to promote his candidacy, but lacks the ground swell that pushes every winner to the finish line. That's where Senator Obama completes the blueprint. America will be strengthened with leadership that will not be concerned about winning the next election, rather one that seeks pragmatic solutions that benefits the majority of the people, those grouped in the center of the political gathering. I heartily endorse an independent ticket of Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg, and believe this is not only a winning choice, but one that will give us the most sound, appealing administration we've had for a long time.