Dre's Opinion

A New Year, A New Website

2010-01-02T05:21:00.004-04:00

Happy New Year!

It's been a nice run on blogspot, but I've decided to move my blog over to the Wordpress platform which is effective immediately. But if you still want to read my past gems don't be alarmed because those are moving also! Everything has been transferred over.

I think you will find that Wordpress is more user friendly to the eyes and easier to navigate. Another factor in my decision was the ability create separate pages(for politics, sports, and entertainment) I intend to make good use of every section. Another factor in me wanting to move to Wordpress is that anyone can comment on a post without having to register with Wordpress which can provoke nice open discussion.

The new website is http://dresopinion.wordpress.com If you were an e-mail subscriber, or subscribed to the RSS feed then you have to do so again at the top right of the page.

Dre

Sayonara Democrats (2003-2009)

2009-12-22T04:58:00.003-04:00

I figured the day would come, but not this soon. I’ve now come to the definitive conclusion that the Democratic Party and President Obama no longer represent me or my values as a progressive. When I first registered as a Democrat at the age of 18 I never would have imagined how awful this party would turn in the years after 2003.

In 2006, when the Democrats won the House and Senate everyone was rejoicing at the fact they would stand their foot down and end the Iraq War. I was never one of those people that placed full faith in them to do that given that the Democratic Party supported the Iraq War in the beginning and has funded the Iraq War ever since. With the George W. Bush Presidency in front of them with plenty of scandals and possibilities for impeachment I placed some faith that they would consider impeachment when necessary. I was misled to believe that the Democratic Party would do the right thing and hold the Bush administration accountable in areas necessary whether it was the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, torture, poor Katrina response, or the trampling of civil liberties. The Democrats failed to hold the Bush administration accountable for any of those reasons. The problem with the Democratic Party is that they are gutless.

Instead of doing the right thing they are always worried about the next election. That was the reason given for not pursuing impeachment. Now how can you hold people accountable if you are always worried about political consequences in the next election? That’s what you call a corrupt and dysfunctional government. The reason why the Republican Party is able to accomplish their party goals is because they do what they think is right without fear. After all why should they be fearful? Democrats won’t do anything to stop them.

In November of 2006 I got a facebook invite to a student group that supported Barack Obama for President before he even formally announced his run. I decided to join to see what it was all about. A lot of people were touched by Barack Obama’s DNC speech in 2004, and supported Barack Obama on the basis that he opposed the Iraq War from the start. Those two things seemed to be the crux of 90% of the peoples support. I stayed around longer and built relationships with Obama supporters. I actually did a little organizing, and ended up watching his announcement for President with some college students. During this period of time I read literature of his positions, and frequented the facebook group discussion board to get more of a handle on Barack Obama’s various positions. I took it upon myself to research his U.S. Senate record and I saw many votes that disturbed me. His support for the renewal of the Patriot Act, his immigration policy, and his funding of the Iraq War under the guise of support for the troops were troubling enough for me that I had to sever my ties and resign from my NY grassroots position with the Barack Obama student support group. This was around March 2007, and for months ahead I was candidate free until I decided to support Dennis Kucinich for President. I agreed with him on nearly every issue so it was a perfect match.

I campaigned for Dennis Kucinich in New Hampshire and Las Vegas for a month total. Kucinich ended up dropping out the race and eventually Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were in a head-to-head battle for the Democratic nomination which he ended up winning. As much as I disagreed with Barack Obama on many issues he ran a great ground campaign. The campaign had many catchy slogans like “Change You Can Believe In” and a lot of rhetoric involving the usage of the words, “Change” and “Hope”. Not much substance in his speeches, but enough of a punch to attract support along with the potential to be the First African-American President in American history.

I debated with myself for a month or so before the election on who to vote for. I eventually decided to vote for Ralph Nader because I wasn’t in agreement with a majority of Barack Obama’s policies. Barack Obama was then elected President.

During the transition period from the time President Obama was elected to when he was sworn into office he announced many different Cabinet positions. The first sign of trouble was his decision to retain Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Another unsettling thing was his decision to appoint Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff who bears a lot of responsibility for moving the Democratic Party to the right. The last big unsettling thing was Obama’s decision to surround himself with Wall Street insiders like Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers. I didn’t like his appointment of Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State either, but it was much more tolerable than the other choices he made.

Months passed by and President Barack Obama was inaugurated to great fanfare to become the first African-American President in the nations history. While I was happy to live to see the first African-American President I had a gut feeling that a majority of the people who voted for Barack Obama didn’t know who they were voting for. But even with my great skepticism that President Barack Obama would be able to deliver any “change” I decided to give him a chance to prove it.

For someone who campaigned on his opposition to the Iraq War I found it deeply troubling that President Obama would not convene his military advisors to set up a plan that would start a withdrawal of troops from Iraq this year (2009). The common misconception of the anti-war movement is that we supposedly believe the troops can pick up and leave overnight, but that’s false. I’m aware this will take 6months + to complete, but President Obama decided to not even start that process for another year or two. I’ll believe it when I see it. But even with Obama’s campaign promise to end the Iraq War he never campaigned on the promise to “Bring the Troops Home”. He campaigned to bring the troops to Afghanistan which was the troubling aspect of that position.

In the first months of his Presidency Obama passed an “economic stimulus” bill that cost a $787 billion that was supposed to boost the economy. Well, 9months later and the economy is still in terrible shape. It also didn’t take long for President Obama to continue the use of military drones along the AfPak border which has killed countless civilians. President Obama has ordered more drone attacks in his first year than President George W. Bush ordered in his full 2 terms. Are you kidding me?

President Obama decided to use his first year to pursue healthcare reform. In the beginning it seemed to be fairly open in terms of the direction they were going, but it didn’t take long for President Obama to commit a broken promise on healthcare by negotiating a deal with big pharma privately when he had campaigned on televising negotiations on C-SPAN. President Obama and the Democratic Congress were also dead set against single-payer healthcare by refusing single-payer advocates a seat at the table when it came to discussing potential plans.

While dealing with healthcare President Obama also dealt with a couple other issues. He gave a nice fluff speech to the LGBT community promising to eventually overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. I’ll believe it when I see it. The Democratic Congress did pass a hate crimes bill named after Matthew Shepard and that was considered a token for the LGBT community. But deep within that legislation was more military defense spending to fund more war. Disgusting.

Throughout the summer and fall President Obama pondered a troop increase in Afghanistan. While most of the progressives and democratic community was opposed to an escalation in Afghanistan most of them knew full well when they voted for Barack Obama that he had campaigned on escalating Afghanistan. Now there is one line of thinking that says he campaigned on escalating Afghanistan so we shouldn’t complain about it. Well, just speaking for myself that was a large reason why I couldn’t support Barack Obama. It doesn’t matter whether he promised it or not because that doesn’t justify a shitty foreign policy. But I am of the line of thinking that if people were so against a troop increase in Afghanistan then why support him for President? It doesn’t make sense.

Eventually, President Obama announced a 30,000 troop increase in Afghanistan before a carefully chosen audience that wasn’t allowed to boo him in West Point. He spewed rhetoric that if George W. Bush gave the same speech the Democratic Party would be up in arms. Instead their guy, the man with the [D] next to his name delivered it so it was considered justifiable in the eyes of some. He also promised a beginning of withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011, but ill believe it when I see it. Even if that deadline stays it’s still a disgrace because he’s supporting more war and it will continue to increase the deficit and pound the economy into a deeper shithole than it already is. Not too long after that announcement President Obama claimed his unjustifiable Nobel Peace Prize, which should be re-named the “Anybody but Bush” prize. He was selected for the Nobel Peace Prize as a way to convince him to take a path towards peace. “Yea that really worked out well” says Afghanistan families being ravaged by his drone attacks… I couldn’t stand to watch President Barack Obama claim his prize and promote war at the same time. He was lecturing Europeans on Hitler and the necessities of war because Europeans must know nothing about Hitler and wars. Of course a “peace prize” celebration wouldn’t be complete without a performance by Toby Keith who famously does a song about Americans putting boots in people’s asses.

Now with the year of 2009 coming to a close President Obama had set a deadline that he wants healthcare reform done before January 2010. Now during this whole healthcare debate President Obama has held town halls across the country promoting this “public option” government healthcare plan that is meant to drive the costs down of health insurance companies and provide access to healthcare for millions of Americans who are uninsured. Not a terrible proposition, but in the grand scheme of things he still supports the health insurance companies and health insurance companies would still be in charge. The same broken system still stays in place. Now this “public option” scenario was tweaked and changed and eventually a weak public option passed the House of Representatives. But this didn’t happen without conceding Abortion rights for women in an amendment by Democrat Rep. Stupak and the removal of an amendment authored by Dennis Kucinich which would have allowed states to setup their own single-payer plans. This bill was largely seen as a success, but it in the end it was a big giveaway to insurance companies.

Now the healthcare debate moved to the U.S. Senate and time was running short with President Obama’s deadline to get it done before January 2010. An already weak healthcare reform plan was made weaker when the public option (that was seen as a compromise with progressives) was removed. President Obama, the man who promoted the “public option” stood by and did nothing as blue dog democrats requested and eventually had it removed from the Senate version. Then some democrats came up with a stepping stone in the right direction to expand Medicare from 55-64. Of course Senator Lieberman would have none of it and demanded it to be removed. What happened? President Obama and the Democratic leadership obliged. What a disgrace…Another big problem with the healthcare reform package is that it contains a mandate to force everyone to buy health insurance with a penalty if they don’t. This is essentially a bailout for the health insurance industry. Of course passage of the Senate version was not complete yet. The Democrats had a few more Senators to appease. They were able to buy out Senator Bernie Sanders, and even worse they continued the assault on Abortion rights by appeasing to Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. They included a provision that would force people to not only pay a premium for health insurance, but pay an additional premium for abortion coverage. The stars were now aligned for passage of “healthcare reform” that is just a bailout for the health insurance industry and assault on abortion rights. President Obama and The Democratic Congress had no problems throwing women’s rights under the bus. So now it’s time to combine both the House bill and Senate bill for a final version and I don’t expect the so called “healthcare reform” to get better.

Now there’s an argument amongst Democrats whether to support a flawed bill to make President Obama and Democrats happy or vote against this health insurance industry bailout to get a better bill in the future. I am of course in the camp of opposing this bill on the basis of opposing mandates and assault on women’s rights.

At this time I would like to address this common attack on progressives to vote for Democratic “compromises” that is “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. Well, in order to believe that statement you have to assume that the Democratic Congress views progressive policy as the “perfect” policy. Why should I believe that? The Democrats have governed to the right at LEAST since they became the majority in 2006. Progressives have been demonized by many whenever they threaten to vote against legislation because it’s not progressive enough. However, when Blue-Dog Democrats decide to hold Congress hostage to get what they want with a threatened “nay” vote it’s accepted? That’s hypocrisy. In addition to that, how many times have I heard that progressives can’t get elected to President? So what happens is that the Democratic Party nominates a centrist. Who’s in the driver’s seat here? Blue-Dog democrats are, and because of that the progressives have to fight harder.

Now as I wrap up I want to say that I didn’t go into detail on every issue President Obama has failed on. I haven’t even touched on his assault on civil liberties, the continuation of extraordinary rendition, his shitty climate change agreement in Copenhagen, or other issues. My decision to leave the Democratic Party is on the basis that President Obama and the Democratic Party have no respect for progressives. They’ve taken me for granted and assume that just because they have a [D] next to their name ill fall in line and vote for them. The ultimate deciding factor for me in leaving the Democratic Party was the continuation of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the assault on civil liberties, and the piss poor healthcare bill that is about to be passed and the process of how they arrived to the both Senate and House bills. What also played a contributing factor in my decision were the New York state level as well as the local level in New York City. A New York State government that is a big giant clusterfuck, and a New York City Council that is corrupt and led by Mayor Bloomberg serving an illegal 3^rd term that was endorsed by President Obama in his refusal to endorse the Democratic opponent. I’m aware ill no longer be able to vote in Democratic primaries, but I’m also aware that the Democratic Party has demonstrated that true progressives are not welcomed.

Recently, President Obama gave himself a grade of a B+ for his 1^st year in office. I nearly puked when I read that. What the hell has he done? The grade I would give him is a “W”. Only George W. Bush can create George W. Bush policy, but President Obama has rubber stamped Bush’s policies as his own. He’s delivered change alright…$Change$ for Wall St, $Change$ for more war, and $Change$ for health insurance companies. I’d be stunned if President Obama is re-elected for a 2^nd term because with the right candidate running in 2012 ill do my best to make sure he’s a one-termer. The day after the Democrats caved to Lieberman I registered my disgust the "official" way by going from Democrat to Independent. No longer will I be that beaten wife that keeps running back to her husband. I'm proud of myself that I had the correct foresight of not voting for this disgraceful, pro-Wall St., pro-war, anti-civil liberties President.

Sayonara Democrats,

Dre

President Obama, Democrats Love Playing the LGBT Community like a Fiddle

2009-10-13T00:50:00.004-04:00

Last Friday I watched the big speech by President Obama in front of the Human Rights Campaign [HRC], and I have to say that it was a complete failure as far as taking a next step towards gay rights. When President Obama was on the campaign trail he promised to overturn 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act, but during this speech he didn't take any steps forward. President Obama failed to offer any timelines. I would have liked to hear Obama say something like "We're working on healthcare reform now and after that issue has been completed we will work on overturning 'Don't Ask Don'l Tell', and DoMa." Didn't happen. Ok maybe that was asking too much. How about..."By the end of my first term..."? Didn't happen.

So what does the LGBT community exactly have to look forward to? Filibustering, from their 'friends' the Democrats. I get why the LGBT community has to cheer for Obama. Not because he's done squat for them, but he has the CHANCE to do something and McCain would have done nothing for them. That's all well and good, but at some point the LGBT community needs to tighten the reigns on the Democrats.

One of the many, and in my opinion insulting arguments is that the Democrats can't pursue any issues related to the LGBT rights because it will create an issue for the neocons to run wild with and possibly cause election losses for the Democratic Party. To me, that is very spineless of the Democrats. Never taking a big stand for the right issue. For the Democrats its always about the next election rather than the issues that need to be addressed. That's the reason why they didn't impeach President Bush.

So how should members of the LGBT community feel that their issue of civil rights is constantly being called a liability by a political party that's supposed to be their 'friend'? That's the question that needs to be addressed.

We know what President Obama might do, but he's done nothing yet. Right now the potential overturning of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and DoMa should be considered a broken promise until it happens. Obama gave no new hope for the LGBT community because he just told them to keep waiting longer. Haven't they waited enough?

Dre

The Bloomberg 3rd Term Enablers Must Go on September 15th --Here's How

2009-08-27T16:25:00.007-04:00

This is a listing of all the New York City Council Members who voted to extend term limits for Mayor Bloomberg and all New York City politicians by overturning the will of the people and their primary opponents for the upcoming election on September 15th.

Several incumbents on this list are running unopposed, but don't feel obligated to vote for them. You can still protest them by leaving that race BLANK when you vote on September 15th.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (Manhattan) Council District 3
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Maria Passannante Derr http://www.mariaforcouncil09.com/
Yetta Kurland http://yettakurland.com/

Maria del Carmen Arroyo (Bronx) Council District 17
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Israel Martinez (looking for website)
Robert Rosado (looking for website)

Maria Baez (Bronx) Council District 14
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Yudelka Tapia http://www.yudelkatapia.com/
Fernando Cabrera http://www.fernandocabrera.us/
Kevin Ennis (looking for website)
Miguel Santana http://www.votemiguelsantana.com/miguel-santana.html

Leroy Comrie (Queens) Council District 27
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Clyde Vanel http://www.clydevanel.com
Adrienne Hayes http://adriennehayes.com/

Erik Dilan (Brooklyn) Council District 37
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Darma Diaz http://www.darmadiaz.com/

Inez Dickens (Manhattan) Council District 9
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Landon Dais http://www.landondais.com/
Carlton Berkley (searching for website)

Lewis A. Fidler (Brooklyn) Council District 46
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Alan J. Sasson http://www.sassonalanj.com/
Ayo Johnson (looking for website)
Elias Weir (looking for website)

Simcha Felder (Brooklyn) Council District 44
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
OFFICIALLY UNOPPOSED!

Helen Foster (Bronx) Council District 16
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Daryl Johnson http://www.daryl2009.com/
Carlos Sierra http://votesierra.com/
Mark Escoffery-Bey http://www.escoffery09.com/

Alan Gerson (Manhattan) Council District 1
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Margaret Chin http://www.margaretchin.com/
Pete Gleason http://www.pete2009.com/
P.J. Kim http://www.pjkim.com/
Arthur Gregory http://arthurgregory.org/

Sara Gonzalez (Brooklyn) Council District 38
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Robinson Iglesias http://www.robinson.politicalgateway.com

Robert Jackson (Manhattan) Council District 7
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Victor Bernace http://www.bernace.com/
Juan Erazo (looking for website)
Manuel Lantigua (looking for website)
Fred Masson (looking for website)
Felix Jerez http://www.myspace.com/felixjerez

G. Oliver Koppell (Bronx) Council District 11
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Tony Perez Cassino http://www.cassinoforcouncil.com/

Miguel Martinez (Manhattan) Council District 10
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Resigned due to involvement in the slush fund scandal!

Darlene Mealy (Brooklyn) Council District 41
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Tulani Kinard http://tulanikinard.com/
Tracy Boyland http://boyland09.com/
Anthony Herbert http://www.herbert4change.com/

Michael Nelson (Brooklyn) Council District 48
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Simon Belsky (looking for website)

Domenic M. Recchia, Jr. (Brooklyn) Council District 47
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
OFFICIALLY UNOPPOSED!

Diana Reyna (Brooklyn) Council District 34
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Gerald Esposito http://www.gerryesposito.com/
Gladys Santiago (looking for website)
Maritza Davila http://www.votemaritzadavila.com/

Joel Rivera (Bronx) Council District 15
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Jose Padilla Jr - (looking for website)
Oscar Zorrilla http://www.oscarzorrilla.com/

James Sanders (Queens) Council District 31
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Marquez Claxton http://marquezclaxton.com/
Jacques M Leandre http://www.votejacques.com/
Frederick A. Lewis II http://lewisforcouncil2009.com/
Michael Duncan http://michaelrduncan.com/
Lou Grays http://lougrays2009.org/

Larry Seabrook (Bronx) Council District 12
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Jerome Rice http://votejeromerice.com/
Algernon Quattlebaum http://www.algernonquattlebaum.com
Sebastian Ulanga http://sebastianulanga.com/
Johnnie Goff (looking for website)
Andy King http://andyking2009.com/
Herbert Moreira-Brown (looking for website)
Krystal Zamilla Serrano http://www.krystalserrano.com/

Helen Sears (Queens) Council District 25
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Daniel Dromm http://danieldromm.com/
Stanley Kalathara http://www.stanleykalathara.com/

Kendall Stewart (Brooklyn) Council District 45
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Sam Taitt http://www.samtaitt2009.com/
Rodrick Daley http://rdaley.com/
Earlene King (looking for website)
Dexter Mckenzie http://www.mckenzie09.com/
Jumaane Williams http://www.jumaanewilliams.com/
Godwin Williams (looking for website)

Peter Vallone Jr. (Queens) Council District 22
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
OFFICIALLY UNOPPOSED!, But consider supporting
Lynne Serpe http://www.serpeforcouncil.com/ [Green Party] on Nov. 3

James Vacca (Bronx) Council District 13
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Irene Estrada Rukaj (looking for website)

Albert Vann (Brooklyn) Council District 36
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Mark Winston Griffith http://mwgriffith.com/
David Grinage http://friendsofdavidgrinage.com/
Saquan Jones http://www.saquanjones.com/
Robert Cornegy Jr. http://www.cornegy2009.com/
Adrian Straker (looking for website)
William Carrington http://www.friendsofwilliamcarrington.com/
Tremaine Wright http://www.changewrightnow.com/

Thomas White (Queens) Council District 28
PRIMARY OPPONENT(s):
Lynn Nunes http://www.lynnnunesforcitycouncil.com/
Allan Jennings (looking for website)
Ruben Wills (looking for website)
Robert Hogan (looking for website)
Stephen Jones (looking for website)
Mireille Leroy http://www.yesweare.net/

Don't forget to vote in the primary on September 15th!

I couldn't find websites for some of the primary candidates, but if you know any of them please contact me or leave a comment.

Oscars 2009 Picks

2009-02-22T00:25:00.000-04:00

Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Actor: Mickey Rourke "The Wrestler"
Best Actress: Melissa Leo "Frozen River"
Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger "The Dark Knight"
Best Supporting Actress: Viola Davis "Doubt"
Best Director: Danny Boyle "Slumdog Millionaire"
Best Original Screenplay: Courtney Hunt "Frozen River"
Best Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy "Slumdog Millionaire"
Best Animated Feature: Kung Fu Panda
Best Animated Short: Presto
Best Foreign Language Film: Waltz With Bashir
Best Art Direction: Changeling
Best Cinematography: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Costume Design: The Dutchess
Best Documentary Feature: Man on Wire
Best Documentary Short: The Witness-From the Balcony of Room 306
Best Film Editing: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Live Action Short: Spielzeugland(Toyland)
Best Make-Up: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Original Score: A.R. Rahman "Slumdog Millionaire"
Best Original Song: "Jai Ho", A.R. Rahman and Gulzar "Slumdog Millionaire
Best Sound Editing: Wall-E
Best Sound Mixing: Wall-E
Best Visual Effects: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for any sheckles lost! :)

My Oscar Analysis/Picks

2009-02-19T17:27:00.000-04:00

Here is my Oscar analysis for the Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Animated Film, and Best Original Screenplay categories.

Best Picture

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

I've seen all 5 of these movies. There are two movies nominated here that have no business being nominated; "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "The Reader". Benjamin Button just might be one of the most overrated movies of all time. If you were able to get through the first 30-40minutes of this movie without almost falling asleep then you deserve a prize. The only redeeming quality to this movie was Cate Blanchett and even she could not save this movie. If I as a 23-year old I could barely stay awake to see this movie then how do we expect those old Academy folks to not nod off on their rocking chairs? This movie was decent on the technical side, but as far as a total movie package this was a total snorefest.

On to the "The Reader"...I'm usually one for historical movies, but the first third of this movie was a porno and I didn't find the acting as a whole that great either. I don't know how else to describe this movie, but it just doesn't have Oscar calibur written on it. Harvey Weinstein definitely had to move his fanny to get this crap nominated.

I really enjoyed "Frost/Nixon" because of the historical significance, but it just doesn't have the total package as far as what I expect a "Best Picture" movie to have to win. Unless your into politics you probably wont enjoy it that much, and that's probably why it wont win.

"Milk" was a very good movie and very well put together. It's definitely in my top 10 of 2008. The problem with this movie is that it's an activist film, and that will ultimately be it's downfall. If "Brokeback Mountain" didn't win then this has no chance to win. I'll be shocked if it wins, but I wont be mad if it does either because it's deserving.

"Slumdog Millionaire" is the favorite to win and it should be. I would say this movie is my 2nd favorite movie of the decade behind "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King." This movie is just spectacular because it has EVERYTHING. It has drama, it has a love story, it has tragedy, and the most appealing part of this movie is the underdog/rags to riches aspect of it. Not only that, but the score is great, the cinematography is great, the film editing is great, and the directing is great. ALL those things make this movie the total package. This movie should win the Oscar, and the only movie it could lose to without uproar would be "Milk".

My pick: Slumdog Millionaire

Best Actor

Richard Jenkins "The Visitor"
Frank Langella "Frost/Nixon"
Sean Penn "Milk"
Brad Pitt "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Mickey Rourke "The Wrestler"

I've seen all 5 of these movies. It would be an absolute disgrace and insult to the acting industry if Brad Pitt wins. It is beyond comprehension how Pitt was able to secure this nomination, and should be win it will be one of the biggest heists in Oscar history. Richard Jenkins was good in the "The Visitor", but I think his performance was borderline as far as entering Oscar territory. I highly recommend "The Visitor" though. Frank Langella was very good as Richard Nixon even though he didn't look like him that much, but his voice and mannerisms were right on point. The Oscar nomination is well deserved, but I don't think he will win. Sean Penn was absolutely brilliant in "Milk." During the movie you forget you're even watching Sean Penn because he's completely immersed in his character as Harvey Milk. Mickey Rourke was great in the "The Wrestler", but the only knock on him that would cost him the Oscar is that he's acting himself.

I've been going back and forth on this category all week, but I'm pretty this one is going to Mickey Rourke. I think Rourke has the slight edge because the Academy tends to favor nominees who haven't won before. I do think Penn's performance was better and deserves it over Rourke, but at the end of the day I see Rourke getting the Oscar because of the great story of his career comeback.

My pick: Mickey Rourke "The Wrestler"

Best Actress

Anne Hathaway "Rachel Getting Married"
Angelina Jolie "Changeling"
Melissa Leo "Frozen River"
Meryl Streep "Doubt"
Kate Winslet "The Reader"

I've seen all 5 of these movies. This is the category where I break from the hype. I thought Anne Hathaway was pretty good, but borderline as far as Oscar territory is concerned. Her performance was similar to Ellen Page last year in "Juno". Good, but not good enough to win. I thought Angelina Jolie was pretty good, and if she hadn't won an Oscar before I would say she would be a top contender to win. There is a little element of phoniness to her acting that is sometimes evident. I thought Melissa Leo was absolutely brilliant in "Frozen River". She carried the whole movie on her shoulders and her character was very likeable. I thought Meryl Streep was good, but not great in "Doubt". Don't get me wrong Meryl Streep is a great actress, but to me her performance did not rise to that next level where Daniel-Day Lewis was last year with "There Will Be Blood." As far as Kate Winslet goes I am stunned that she is getting all this praise for her performance in "The Reader". She was fairly ordinary to me and when her character gets older in the movie her hair turns grey but the acting stays the same as when she was young.

This is the category that is very hard to predict. I did not think any one performance was head and shoulders above the rest. I don't buy into the Meryl Streep vs Kate Winslet battle because I don't think either deserve the Oscar this year. I know I am in the extreme minority, but I am also in good company with Roger Ebert who believe that Melissa Leo deserves the Oscar. The safe pick is Kate Winslet, but I'm gonna be naive and assume the Academy voters watched "Frozen River." Based on all the performances I believe Melissa Leo was the best and she carried the movie better than the rest of the nominees. Melissa Leo for the upset.

My pick: Melissa Leo "Frozen River"

Best Supporting Actor

Josh Brolin "Milk"
Robert Downey Jr. "Tropic Thunder"
Philip Seymour Hoffman "Doubt"
Heath Ledger "The Dark Knight"
Michael Shannon "Revolutionary Road"

The only movie I haven't seen here yet is "Revolutionary Road." Let's be honest we know who's gonna win this, but I'm gonna break it down anyway. Josh Brolin in "Milk" was good, but honestly he should have been nominated for his performance as President George W. Bush in "W.". I do think his performance in "Milk" is very borderline Oscar material, but I guess this is a consolation for not getting the "W." nomination. Robert Downey Jr. was absolutely great in "Tropic Thunder", and if there is a shred of hope for an upset it is him. Philip Seymour Hoffman was kind of ordinary, and I'm a little puzzled why he was nominated. I don't think his performance was Oscar materiall, but I guess that's name recognition doing it's trick. I can't speak for Michael Shannon because I haven't seen it yet (although I might by Sunday). Heath Ledger was absolutely brilliant in "The Dark Knight". He completely immersed himself into the character of the joker, and he totally deserves the Oscar dead or alive.

My pick: Heath Ledger "The Dark Knight"

Best Supporting Actress

Amy Adams "Doubt"
Penelope Cruz "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"
Viola Davis "Doubt"
Taraji P. Henson "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Marisa Tomei "The Wrestler"

I've seen all 4 of these movies. This is probably the toughest category to predict. I liked Amy Adams in "Doubt", but I thought the performance was fairly ordinary and borderline Oscar material. I didn't think Penelope Cruz was bad, but her performance was almost like watching a whining lady and was fairly borderline Oscar material. Viola Davis was only in "Doubt" for 10minutes/2 scenes, but she was great. Taraji P. Henson wasn't terrible, but I thought her acting was more phoniness than authenticity. Marisa Tomei was very good in "The Wrestler", but she probably wont win because she has already won before and is not very well liked.

This one is pretty tough, but I'm going with Viola Davis. The reason why Viola Davis deserves the Oscar is that her 2nd scene in "Doubt" with Meryl Streep walking through the park is probably one of the best scenes of 2008. Not only that, but that scene in the park added so much to "Doubt" that if it was taken away it would caused the movie to lose a lot of steam.

My pick: Viola Davis "Doubt"

Best Animated Feature Film

Bolt
Kung Fu Panda
Wall-E

I've only seen Kung Fu Panda and Wall-E. I can't speak for "Bolt" because I haven't seen it. I thought Kung Fu Panda was pretty good. This was a well put together movie that has a lot of replay value. I thought the animation was good and the story was good also. It had this Yoda/Splinter like character which can't be a bad thing. It had it's fair share of kid jokes, but they all came off well. For all the hoopla surrounding "Wall-E" I thought it would better. The robot animation was good, the emotions of the robot were good, and the sounds were excellent. As far as a total package I thought "Wall-E" fell short. The plot was scrappy at times and the humans element brought down the movie for me. I thought the first 30-40minutes of the movie were great, but it went downhill from there. Most people will pick "Wall-E", but Kung Fu Panda swept the Annie awards(Animation awards), and given the fact that I myself see Kung Fu Panda as a better overall movie I am going with Kung Fu Panda.

My pick: Kung Fu Panda

Best Original Screenplay

"Frozen River" Courtney Hunt
"Happy Go-Lucky" Michael Leigh
"In Bruges" Martin McDonagh
"Milk" Dustin Lance Black
"Wall-E" Screenplay by Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon
Story by Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter

I've seen all 5 of these movies. For me this is a very tough category to predict even though "Milk" is the favorite because it's a Best Picture nominee. I thought "Frozen River" was a very well written movie. The plot was flawless, and the dialogue was great. I enjoyed "Happy Go-Lucky" as a movie, but I thought the plot was a little sketchy. It had great dialogue. "In Bruges" was a great movie, and the plot was good and the dialogue was good. I thought "Milk" was a good movie, but I didn't think the strength of the movie was in the dialogue. I can't give it to "Wall-E" because there was very little dialogue in the movie, and I thought the plot itself was a little sketchy at times.

Everyone will say "Milk" will win because it's nominated for Best Picture, but I disagree. "In Bruges" is probably the 2nd best safe pick in this category because it had a good plot, good dialogue, and is not represented anywhere else in the Oscars. I will again be in the extreme minority and pick "Frozen River" because I believe it had the purest dialogue and an absolutely completely flawless plot.

My pick: "Frozen River" Courtney Hunt

I will pick the rest of the categories on Saturday night!

Disclaimer: I am not responsible for any sheckles lost by any readers. Trust at your own risk :)

My Inauguration and Obama Presidency Thoughts

2009-01-22T03:39:00.015-04:00

Even as someone who didn't vote for Barack Obama this inauguration ceremony was a must watch for obvious reasons. It only happens every 4/8 years, and most of all Barack Obama is the first African-American President in U.S. History. But I have to admit the reason why I enjoyed this ceremony most was not because of President Barack Obama, but because of George W. Bush.

Bush

To me Bush leaving office was more significant than Obama becoming President primarily because I believe (and others also) that he posed the most danger to the world. But of course there was a bittersweetness to that. I'm still not that happy that Bush was able to leave office in the fashion that he did. He was able to valiantly be escorted to a helicopter by Barack and Michelle Obama when he really should have been impeached and removed from office a whole lot sooner.

Regardless of how Bush left the presidency it meant the era of the worst President in U.S. history was over... which was really 1/3 of my life. This may not bear much significance to the older generations, but for people in my generation this is big. This was the era that introduced to me the art of protesting. While I'm proud that my courage to protest grew on me during the last 8 years it was done under circumstances that should have never happened. If there was anything mildly positive about Bush's presidency that I can think of it was that. As I was watching the inauguration ceremony I heard commentators talk about how they believe George W. Bush's presidency will be viewed in a more positive light in the future like other former presidents, but I honestly don't think so. Because of all the times Bush has gotten away with crimes watching him fly away in the helicopter was a "see it to believe it" moment for me.

President Obama

Watching President Obama get inaugurated was a nice thing to see because of the historical nature surrounding it with him being the first African-American President in U.S. history, but I had mixed feelings about the whole day and the coverage. I thought it was a very well done ceremony. The camera shot over the National Mall was great to see the millions of people there for such a historical moment. I didn't think President Obama's speech was as good as some of his previous speeches but I liked his "New Era of Responsibility" message when he was said:

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This to me was the most significant message in his speech. I know millions of people listened to the speech, but I am not convinced that many people will follow through on that. We'll have to see...

Where I had problems with the ceremony was the overall tone of the coverage of the ceremony as well as crowd opinion. Not to diminish such a historical moment, but I think I was able to figure out that President Obama was the first African-American president after the 1,635,565th time of it being mentioned. Furthermore, based on crowd reaction interviews it confirmed to me what I suspected all along that voting for the first African-American President was more of a determining factor for their vote than the issues which I can't support at all. People were saying things like "I couldn't pass up the opportunity to vote for the first African-American president."I'm a firm believer that votes should never be based on race, gender, religion, or ethnicity whether you are for or against. It's just not right. It should be issues first and then if that candidate happens to be the first African-American President then great. Not the other way around. Many people will say that Obama being African-American was more of a negative than a beneficiary during the election, but I believe the latter.

The coverage itself was very over the top particularly during the limo ride down Pennsylvania Avenue when Obama kept going in and out. "WHEN IS PRESIDENT OBAMA GOING TO GET OUT OF THE LIMO?!"...Hold on a second I have to turn down the volume on my T.V. Keith Olbermann just had another O-gasm... A little much. And then of course the nonstop news coverage of the Presidential balls. It's good to know that the world stopped for President Obama.

I guess to sum up everything in a nutshell I thought race was played up way too much to the point where it was sickening.

As I said in my previous posting I don't regret not voting for President Obama, but I believe those who didn't vote for him should give Obama a chance to prove himself. That being said, he's already done a few things that I don't like; appointing Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Rahm Emanuel makes my skin crawl, but appointing Hillary as Secretary of State is the most puzzling asinine decision Obama has made so far. Remember Obamamaniacs, any diplomatic screw up by Hillary is on Obama's watch. Plus after all the "one President at a time" excuses by now President Obama I'm still waiting for his forceful stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict. **crickets**

President Obama has done some good things so far though like ending torture and closing Guantanamo Bay. I have to give him credit for that.

In conclusion I will say that I'm not euphoric about Obama being President, but I'm glad it's not McCain. After watching the inauguration ceremony I'm just not sure that I believe many Obama supporters will be fair and objective about his Presidency. Will they criticize him when he screws up? I'm not sure, but what I can say is that I expect some 'buyers remorse'. For those that expect President Obama to govern from the far left you will very disappointed. For those supporters that knew he was a moderate (and in my opinion on the conservative side) you voted for him for the right reasons and you will probably see what you expected. It's really hard to detect what Obama supporters expect out of President Obama when they expect non-substantive things like "Hope" and "Change", but I guess that question will be answered in 4 years.

That's all I have to say about this subject right now. I hope President Obama proves me wrong, but so far he hasn't done anything that I didn't expect to happen.

Dre

Superbowl XLIII Prediction

2009-01-03T03:24:00.001-04:00

After 17 weeks of continuous football picks w/ spread I ended up batting .515 (132/256).

Let's see how I did with my pre-season playoff predictions...

NFC EAST - COWBOYS
NFC NORTH - LIONS
NFC SOUTH - SAINTS
NFC WEST - SEAHAWKS
WILDCARD - GIANTS, EAGLES

AFC EAST - PATRIOTS
AFC NORTH - BROWNS
AFC SOUTH - COLTS
AFC WEST - CHARGERS
WILDCARD - STEELERS, JAGUARS

Superbowl Prediction
COWBOYS vs BROWNS

Superbowl Winner: COWBOYS

As you can you see I did pretty bad in my pre-season playoff predictions. Some I got half right, but the wrong slot. I thought the Browns were going to be a top contender with the acquisitions they made in the offseason with Derek Anderson at QB. They fell flat....The Cowboys fell flat also. (And boy was I wrong picking the Lions to win the NFC North)
------------------------------------

Rather than picking the playoff games week to week I'm just going to make this a little harder and give my Superbowl pick with the teams in the playoffs....

NFC - As much as it pains me to say this it seems that Philly teams are getting a lot of breaks this year. The Eagles are now playing solid football and seems like all the "Get rid of Andy Reid/McNabb" talk has gone away. The Eagles will soar all the way to the Superbowl and in the process knock off the New York Giants. Giants fans will realize the hard way that Domenik Hixon is no Plaxico Burress on the football field.

AFC - The AFC seems to be much more competitive, but I see the Baltimore Ravens as the dark horse this year. The Ravens defense is great, and Ed Reed is having a great year along with rookie QB Joe Flacco. All year long I have told myself "The Steelers are overrated", but for some reason they just kept winning games. I see the Baltimore Ravens going through Pittsburgh and edging out a "Big Ben Concussioned" Pittsburgh Steeler team in a tough defensive battle to make it to the Superbowl.

Superbowl - So there I have the stage set for an Eagles/Ravens Superbowl. As many New York Giants fans will remember there was a point when they wanted to run coach Tom Coughlin and Eli Manning out of town...until they turned it around. I believe we will see a similar situation with the Eagles. Most of the time it's "defense wins championships", but I believe this time it will be Veteran vs Rookie QB. McNabb has been to the Superbowl before, but Flacco hasn't. I see Flacco wilting under pressure and Brian Westbrook running through the Ravens defense like the New York Giants did in the regular season. In the end McNabb will remember that Superbowls don't end in a tie and play the game of his life sending the Eagles to a Superbowl victory.

Superbowl XLIII Champions: Philadelphia Eagles

NFL 2008 Week 17 Picks

2008-12-26T13:37:00.001-04:00

It's been a very wild NFL season with many twists and turns! Down to the final Week....

My picks have been decent for most the season. I need 6 picks right to clinch a .500 record.

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Falcons vs Rams 14.5
RAMS
Patriots vs Bills 6.5
PATRIOTS
Bengals vs Chiefs 3.0
BENGALS
Packers vs Lions 9.5
PACKERS
Titans vs Colts 3.0
TITANS
Vikings vs Giants 6.5
GIANTS
Panthers vs Saints 3.0
PANTHERS
Steelers vs Browns 10.5
STEELERS
Buccaneers vs Raiders 13.0
BUCCANEERS
Texans vs Bears 2.5
TEXANS
Jets vs Dolphins 3.0
DOLPHINS
Eagles vs Cowboys 1.5
COWBOYS
Cardinals vs Seahawks 6.0
CARDINALS
49ers vs Redskins 3.0
REDSKINS
Ravens vs Jaguars 12.5
RAVENS
Chargers vs Broncos 8.0
BRONCOS

10/16

CORRECT WRONG PUSH

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13
Week 5: 8/14
Week 6: 9/14
Week 7: 6/14
Week 8: 6/14
Week 9: 6/14
Week 10: 8/14
Week 11: 11/16
Week 12: 10/16
Week 13: 9/16
Week 14: 10/16
Week 15: 7/16
Week 16: 8/16

NFL 2008 Week 16 Picks

2008-12-18T18:25:00.001-04:00

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Colts vs Jaguars 6.0
COLTS
Cowboys vs Ravens 4.0
COWBOYS
Browns vs Bengals 3.0
BENGALS
Saints vs Lions 7.0
SAINTS
Steelers vs Titans 2.0
STEELERS
Dolphins vs Chiefs 4.0
DOLPHINS
49ers vs Rams 5.5
49ERS
Patriots vs Cardinals 7.5
PATRIOTS
Buccaneers vs Chargers 3.5
CHARGERS
Broncos vs Bills 7.0
BRONCOS
Texans vs Raiders 7.0
TEXANS
Jets vs Seahawks 4.5
SEAHAWKS
Vikings vs Falcons 3.5
FALCONS
Eagles vs Redskins 5.0
EAGLES
Giants vs Panthers 3.0
PANTHERS
Bears vs Packers 4.0
BEARS

8/16

CORRECT WRONG

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13
Week 5: 8/14
Week 6: 9/14
Week 7: 6/14
Week 8: 6/14
Week 9: 6/14
Week 10: 8/14
Week 11: 11/16
Week 12: 10/16
Week 13: 9/16
Week 14: 10/16
Week 15: 7/16

NFL 2008 Week 15 Picks

2008-12-11T07:30:00.001-04:00

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Bears vs Saints 3.0
BEARS
Falcons vs Buccaneers 3.0
FALCONS
Redskins vs Bengals 7.0
REDSKINS
Colts vs Lions 17.0
COLTS
Chargers vs Chiefs 5.0
CHARGERS
Rams vs Seahawks Off(0)
SEAHAWKS
Dolphins vs 49ers 6.5
DOLPHINS
Jets vs Bills 7.0
JETS
Packers vs Jaguars 2.5
JAGUARS
Titans vs Texans 3.0
TITANS
Cardinals vs Vikings Off(0)
CARDINALS
Patriots vs Raiders Off(0)
PATRIOTS
Panthers vs Broncos 7.5
PANTHERS
Ravens vs Steelers 2.0
STEELERS
Cowboys vs Giants 3.0
COWBOYS
Eagles vs Browns 14.0
EAGLES

7/16

CORRECT WRONG PUSH

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13
Week 5: 8/14
Week 6: 9/14
Week 7: 6/14
Week 8: 6/14
Week 9: 6/14
Week 10: 8/14
Week 11: 11/16
Week 12: 10/16
Week 13: 9/16
Week 14: 10/16

NFL 2008 Week 14 Picks

2008-12-04T16:55:00.011-04:00

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Chargers vs Raiders 9.5
CHARGERS
Bears vs Jaguars 6.5
BEARS
Vikings vs Lions Off(0)
VIKINGS
Packers vs Texans 5.5
TEXANS
Titans vs Browns 13.5
BROWNS
Colts vs Bengals 13.5
COLTS
Saints vs Falcons 3.0
FALCONS
Giants vs Eagles 7.0
EAGLES
Bills vs Dolphins 1.0
DOLPHINS
Broncos vs Chiefs 9.0
BRONCOS
Jets vs 49ers 4.0
JETS
Patriots vs Seahawks 4.5
PATRIOTS
Cardinals vs Rams 14.0
CARDINALS
Steelers vs Cowboys 3.0
COWBOYS
Ravens vs Redskins 5.0
RAVENS
Panthers vs Buccaneers 3.0
PANTHERS

10/16

CORRECT WRONG

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13
Week 5: 8/14
Week 6: 9/14
Week 7: 6/14
Week 8: 6/14
Week 9: 6/14
Week 10: 8/14
Week 11: 11/16
Week 12: 10/16
Week 13: 9/16

The Reaction to Plaxico Burress Is Overblown

2008-12-02T07:31:00.001-04:00

I think I've seen and heard enough coverage about Plaxico Burress accidentally shooting himself in the leg in a nightclub with an illegally possessed gun to establish that Plaxico Burress is an idiot. That's a given. My problem is the reaction to this that he should be jailed for a long period of time.

Many New Yorkers may or may not remember that New York had weak gun laws, and that since Mayor Bloomberg has been in power he's been on a gun control crusade. In 2006 Mayor Bloomberg made criminal possession of a weapon a mandatory 3.5 year sentence. Is 3.5 years really necessary? I'm sure any illegal possessing gun owner(Plaxico Burress now included) realized their stupid mistake as soon as they got caught and the cuffs were put on their wrists. What is the exact purpose to put someone in jail for 3.5 years for just OWNING an illegal gun? Remember owning/possessing a gun does not mean he shot anybody.

I've heard a lot of talk about what could have been and a lot of "what ifs", but you can't punish anybody for a hypothetical situation. Yea Plaxico Burress was drinking at the club, and he COULD HAVE shot and killed somebody else...........but he didn't. And there was a time that I was angry and pissed at a family member that I COULD HAVE punched them in the face, but I didn't. Please let's be smart and only talk about what actually happened. Of course there is very little coverage about the fact that the club let Plaxico Burress in with a gun because he was a celebrity. The club doesn't take a significant part of the blame in this situation also? The club knowingly put the people in the club in danger.

Yesterday Mayor Bloomberg managed to shove his egotistical self in the headlines saying:

"It would be an outrage if we don't prosecute to the fullest extent of the law."

Hey Mayor Bloomberg, I understand you want to be the King of New York and King of gun control, but you shouldn't be holding press conferences about putting individuals in jail. That being said, I agree that everyone should be punished equally. I just don't think 3.5 years in prison is the right answer for this crime. There are more serious crimes where people hurt another person and they actually serve less. To me this gun control law is a minor version of the War on Drugs. I do agree that offenders should serve some jail time, but 3.5 years mandatory minimum is really excessive and in my opinion a waste of tax dollars regardless who it is.

In the end I do believe Plaxico Burress will end up serving time in jail. Mayor Bloomberg will be putting a lot of pressure to make sure Plaxico serves time because what better thing on Bloomberg's record would there be than to have a high valued celebrity figure become a poster boy to his gun law?

Happy Thanksgiving!!

2008-11-27T07:30:00.004-04:00

I want to wish a Happy Thanksgiving to my readers!

Of all the holidays I would say Thanksgiving is one that is very low on my totem pole in terms of relevance. Shouldn't we be thankful everyday and not just one day out of the whole year? The main problem with the holiday is that it emphasizes 1 day thankfulness and a ton of food consumption.

Thanksgiving is probably the one holiday that is "ultra American", and also portrays America in a negative light.

NFL 2008 Week 13 Picks

2008-11-27T03:13:00.011-04:00

I had another lucky double digit week last week. Let's see if I can keep it up...This week is kind of tough.

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Titans vs Lions 11.0
TITANS
Cowboys vs Seahawks 12.5
COWBOYS
Eagles vs Cardinals 3.0
CARDINALS
Bills vs 49ers 7.0
BILLS
Ravens vs Bengals 7.0
RAVENS
Colts vs Browns 4.5
COLTS
Packers vs Panthers 3.0
PANTHERS
Rams vs Dolphins Off(0)
DOLPHINS
Buccaneers vs Saints 3.5
BUCCANEERS
Giants vs Redskins 3.5
GIANTS
Chargers vs Falcons 5.0
FALCONS
Raiders vs Chiefs 3.0
CHIEFS
Patriots vs Steelers 1.0
PATRIOTS
Jets vs Broncos 7.5
JETS
Vikings vs Bears 3.0
BEARS
Texans vs Jaguars 3.0
TEXANS

9/16

CORRECT WRONG

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13
Week 5: 8/14
Week 6: 9/14
Week 7: 6/14
Week 8: 6/14
Week 9: 6/14
Week 10: 8/14
Week 11: 11/16
Week 12: 10/16

NFL 2008 Week 12 Picks

2008-11-20T01:50:00.007-04:00

Wow I was really lucky last week. I happened to be a victim of the Steelers/Chargers debacle last week with my pick, but luckily no money was at stake for me!

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Steelers vs Bengals 10.5
BENGALS
Browns vs Texans 3.0
TEXANS
Cowboys vs 49ers 10.0
COWBOYS
Buccaneers vs Lions 8.5
BUCCANEERS
Titans vs Jets 5.5
JETS
Bills vs Chiefs 3.0
BILLS
Bears vs Rams 8.5
BEARS
Dolphins vs Patriots 1.5
PATRIOTS
Jaguars vs Vikings 2.5
JAGUARS
Ravens vs Eagles 1.0
EAGLES
Broncos vs Raiders 9.5
BRONCOS
Falcons vs Panthers 1.0
PANTHERS
Giants vs Cardinals 3.0
GIANTS
Redskins vs Seahawks 3.5
REDSKINS
Chargers vs Colts 3.0
COLTS
Saints vs Packers 2.5
SAINTS

10/16

CORRECT WRONG

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13
Week 5: 8/14
Week 6: 9/14
Week 7: 6/14
Week 8: 6/14
Week 9: 6/14
Week 10: 8/14
Week 11: 11/16

An Ignorant Rant By Kos Against Nader and Supporters

2008-11-16T01:53:00.001-04:00

I'm not a big fan of the popular so called "progressive" (even though it's not) website called DailyKos, but every now and then I just check in to read some stories just to kill time. Today the founder of the site Markos Moulitsas made a mockery post about Nader:

2008: 695,446 (0.5%)
2004: 465,650 (0.38%)
2000: 2,882,955 (2.7%)

The good news (for him), Nader increased his showing from 2004. The bad news (for him), like in 2004, he's still irrelevant (as are his supporters). The worst news, too bad he wasn't irrelevant in 2000. Yet through it all, Nader's ego never fails to amaze.

We believe history will treat the Nader/Gonzalez initiative kindly in part because its reading of the necessities of the American people was accurate as was its condemnation of the concentrated powers that have for so long denied them livelihoods of decency, security and voice.

I doubt "history" gives a rats ass about the "Nader/Gonzalez initiative" (they used to be called "campaigns"), and after I hit submit "post" on this little piece, neither will I.

I did not have a big problem with this, but certain questions did come into my head.
A) Why is Markos bringing up Nader if Nader is "irrelevant"?
B) If Markos dislikes Nader so much what is he doing on the Nader website?

So after about a couple hours I decided to check back at this post to read some more comments about Nader and I discovered this post by Markos:

I recently mocked Nader and his supporters, and claimed that would be the last I'd think of him. But then I got a bunch of whines like this one in my inbox:
I'll go ahead and disclose that I voted for Nader this election cycle. I felt that Obama did not do an adequate job to reach out to progressives, a point to which I have no doubt we deeply disagree.

Nader certainly deserved heavy criticism for his disgusting Uncle Tom remark. I have no qualms for the Kos treatment of him on that issue. However, today I read a post that labeled me "irrelevant." You are more than welcome to criticize Nader, his policies, and his methodology; however, to disparage the hundreds of thousands of people who voted for him and the hundreds of thousands more who would have if not for fear of the false choice of the two-party system is uncalled for.

It is for this reason that I will no longer read the Daily Kos. If the Kos were to issue a retraction or apology, I would quickly reconsider my decision, as the Kos is one of my favorite sites to visit.

Ha ha, yeah, that won't happen. Anyone who sails with the Nader crowd deserves nothing more than ridicule.

Fuck Ralph Nader, and fuck his supporters. If the past eight years hasn't smacked any sense into their addled brains, then nothing will. This site caters to the reality-based community. No one else need apply.

I guess Markos didn't get the "unity memo" from Barack Obama..."Fuck Ralph Nader, and fuck his supporters"? I let the first diary slide as a desperate diary because it was a slow news day, but this was uncalled for. I guess this is supposed to convince me to vote Democrat in 2012...Ha ha ha Diaries like this piece of garbage by Markos are exact reasons why the DailyKos community can't be taken seriously.

I'm just amazed that Ralph Nader is a topic of discussion by Markos after Barack Obama just kicked John McCain's ass to become the 44th President of the United States.

No more analysis of this garbage post.

NFL Week 11 Picks

2008-11-13T01:38:00.001-04:00

Gotta get picks in early from now on. That damn NFL Network and their Thursday games....

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Patriots vs Jets 3.0
JETS
Falcons vs Broncos 6.0
FALCONS
Eagles vs Bengals 9.0
EAGLES
Packers vs Bears Off(0)
PACKERS
Colts vs Texans 8.0
TEXANS
Saints vs Chiefs 5.5
SAINTS
Dolphins vs Raiders 10.5
DOLPHINS
Giants vs Ravens 6.5
GIANTS
Buccaneers vs Vikings 3.5
BUCCANEERS
Panthers vs Lions 14.0
LIONS
49ers vs Rams 6.5
49ERS
Cardinals vs Seahawks 3.0
CARDINALS
Steelers vs Chargers 4.5
STEELERS
Titans vs Jaguars 3.0
TITANS
Cowboys vs Redskins 1.5
REDSKINS
Bills vs Browns 5.0
BROWNS

11/16

CORRECT WRONG

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13
Week 5: 8/14
Week 6: 9/14
Week 7: 6/14
Week 8: 6/14
Week 9: 6/14
Week 10: 8/14

Let's Give Barack Obama a Chance

2008-11-10T02:43:00.001-04:00

Now that Barack Obama has been elected the 44th President of the United States and the first African-American president I think it's fair that we give him a chance to prove himself.

Any conservative/Republican that may be reading this post I'm talking to you! As someone who frequents Facebook I was surprised find out that an "Impeach Obama" was created within a day of Obama winning the Presidency. I was even more surprised to see the group had 4,000 members at the time, and now it's almost at 7,000. I think this is decent enough evidence that proves that Republicans are clueless about impeachment. They were clueless about proper grounds for impeachment in the late 90s with Bill Clinton, and they still haven't learned 10 years later. Can Barack Obama be President for at least 1 day before these ridiculous "Impeach Obama" groups start popping up? I guess that's too much to ask from divisive mud-slinging Republicans.

As for myself, I take no shame in voting for Ralph Nader, but I will give Barack Obama a chance to prove himself. That being said, I hope he gets criticized when he deserves to be criticized. I'll be curious to see what barometer Democrats will use to criticize his presidency. Will George W. Bush be the low bar and Bill Clinton be the high bar?

Barack Obama will have four years to deliver with a near filibuster proof Congress. Should he fail to uphold his promise of "Change" there is no doubt in my mind that he will be a 1 term President. Let's see what he can do.

Dre

NFL Week 10 Picks

2008-11-09T07:35:00.003-04:00

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Browns vs Broncos 3.0
BROWNS
Falcons vs Saints 1.0
FALCONS
Titans vs Bears 3.0
TITANS
Jaguars vs Lions 6.5
LIONS
Dolphins vs Seahawks 8.5
DOLPHINS
Vikings vs Packers 2.5
PACKERS
Patriots vs Bills 3.5
PACKERS
Jets vs Rams 8.0
JETS
Ravens vs Texans 1.0
RAVENS
Panthers vs Raiders 9.0
PANTHERS
Steelers vs Colts Off(0)
STEELERS
Chargers vs Chiefs 15.0
CHIEFS
Eagles vs Giants 3.0
EAGLES
Cardinals vs 49ers 9.5
CARDINALS

8/14

CORRECT WRONG

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13
Week 5: 8/14
Week 6: 9/14
Week 7: 6/14
Week 8: 6/14
Week 9: 6/14

NFL Week 9 Picks

2008-11-02T07:15:00.001-04:00

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Bills vs Jets 5.5
BILLS
Bears vs Lions 12.5
LIONS
Jaguars vs Bengals 7.5
JAGUARS
Browns vs Ravens 1.5
RAVENS
Titans vs Packers 5.5
TITANS
Buccaneers vs Chiefs 8.5
BUCCANEERS
Cardinals vs Rams 3.0
RAMS
Vikings vs Texans 4.5
TEXANS
Broncos vs Dolphins 3.5
BRONCOS
Falcons vs Raiders 3.0
FALCONS
Giants vs Cowboys 9.0
COWBOYS
Eagles vs Seahawks 6.5
EAGLES
Colts vs Patriots 6.0
PATRIOTS
Redskins vs Steelers 2.0
STEELERS

6/14

CORRECT WRONG

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13
Week 5: 8/14
Week 6: 9/14
Week 7: 6/14
Week 8: 6/14

NFL Week 8 Picks

2008-10-26T07:15:00.001-04:00

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Cowboys vs Buccaneers 2.5
BUCCANEERS
Redskins vs Lions 7.5
REDSKINS
Bills vs Dolphins 1.5
BILLS
Patriots vs Rams 7.0
RAMS
Chargers vs Saints 3.0
CHARGERS
Jets vs Chiefs 13.0
JETS
Eagles vs Falcons 9.0
FALCONS
Panthers vs Cardinals 4.0
PANTHERS
Ravens vs Raiders 7.0
RAVENS
Jaguars vs Browns 7.0
BROWNS
Texans vs Bengals 9.5
TEXANS
Steelers vs Giants 3.0
GIANTS
49ers vs Seahawks 5.0
49ERS
Titans vs Colts 4.0
TITANS

6/14

CORRECT WRONG PUSH

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13
Week 5: 8/14
Week 6: 9/14
Week 7: 6/14

Democracy Successfully Attacked in New York

2008-10-24T16:38:00.001-04:00

Yesterday the New York City Council approved Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to extend term limits without a voter referendum even though a voter referendum to keep term limits at 2 terms was passed in 1993 and 1996. The final vote was 29-22.

I hope the result of the vote is not forgotten by New York City voters, and voters around the country. This vote has set a terrible precedent for states around the country. All 29 of the people that voted for this undemocratic measure should be voted out of office in 2009 to send a clear message that turning your backs on democracy is unforgivable. The 29 snakes against democracy are:

Maria del Carmen Arroyo (Bronx)
Maria Baez (Bronx)
Leroy Comrie (Queens)
Erik Dilan (Brooklyn)
Inez Dickens (Manhattan)
Lewis A. Fidler (Brooklyn)
Simcha Felder (Brooklyn)
Helen Foster (Bronx)
Alan Gerson (Manhattan)
Sara Gonzalez (Brooklyn)
Robert Jackson (Manhattan)
Melinda Katz (Queens)
G. Oliver Koppell (Bronx)
Miguel Martinez (Manhattan)
Darlene Mealy (Brooklyn)
Michael Nelson (Brooklyn)
Christine Quinn (Manhattan)
Domenic M. Recchia, Jr. (Brooklyn)
Diana Reyna (Brooklyn)
Joel Rivera (Bronx)
James Sanders (Queens)
Larry Seabrook (Bronx)
Helen Sears (Queens)
Kendall Stewart (Brooklyn)
Peter Vallone Jr. (Queens)
James Vacca (Bronx)
Albert Vann (Brooklyn)
Thomas White (Queens)
David Yassky (Brooklyn)

Once I find out primary opponents for each district I will put it on my blog. I encourage everyone to help fund primary opponents to the above council members for overturning the will of the people. This attack on democracy should not be tolerated and every single one of them should be held accountable.

I will be covering this issue extensively in the future on my blog.

Dre

Democracy in Serious Danger in New York

2008-10-21T16:28:00.014-04:00

Democracy is in serious danger in New York because Mayor Bloomberg is trying to overturn the will of the people by extending term limits without a vote by the people. Referendums were passed to keep term limits at 2 terms in 1993 and 1996.

The Mayor contends that a majority of New Yorkers support the extension of term limits through the City Council, but this Quinnipiac poll says otherwise:

By an 89 - 7 percent margin, New York City voters say the issue of term limits should be decided by voters in a referendum, not by an act of the City Council. Even Republican voters prefer a referendum 85 - 11 percent.

Today it was made clear Mayor Bloomberg's true intentions from the start. According this NY1 article:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that if the council votes down the legislation, he will not push to have it overruled by a voter referendum, despite a new poll out today showing the New Yorkers overwhelmingly want to have a say in the matter.

This is clear evidence that Mayor Bloomberg intended from the start to go around a voter referendum by having the City Council overturn the will of the people. If Mayor Bloomberg is that serious about extending term limits and really truly believes he is the only New Yorker capable of fixing the financial crisis wouldn't it make sense that the Mayor support a voter referendum?

A vote for the Mayor's proposal is set for Thursday. The current count FOR the proposal is 18 and the count AGAINST is currently 23. [UPDATED Oct. 23 9:05pm]

The 10 City Council members that remain undecided are:

Maria del Carmen Arroyo (D) Bronx
Gale Brewer (D) Manhattan
Inez Dickens (D) Manhattan
Simcha Felder (D) Brooklyn
Helen Foster (D) Bronx
Alan Gerson (D) Manhattan
Melinda Katz (D) Queens
James Sanders (D) Queens
Tom White (D) Queens
David Yassky (D) Brooklyn

Please call or email these council members stating your opposition to the Mayor's proposal on grounds of democracy. This is not about whether you like Bloomberg or not. It's about democracy.

Even if you live outside of New York passage of this proposal will set a terrible precedent.

NFL Week 7 Picks

2008-10-19T07:15:00.002-04:00

Last week I had a great week let's hope I can keep it up. Luck seems to be on my side right now...

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Bills vs Chargers 1.0
CHARGERS
Bears vs Vikings 3.0
BEARS
Steelers vs Bengals 9.5
STEELERS
Titans vs Chiefs 8.0
TITANS
Cowboys vs Rams Off(0)
COWBOYS
Dolphins vs Ravens 3.0
DOLPHINS
Giants vs 49ers 10.5
49ers
Panthers vs Saints 3.0
PANTHERS
Texans vs Lions 9.5
LIONS
Colts vs Packers 1.0
COLTS
Jets vs Raiders 3.0
JETS
Redskins vs Browns 7.5
BROWNS
Buccaneers vs Seahawks 10.5
BUCCANEERS
Patriots vs Broncos 3.0
BRONCOS

CORRECT WRONG

6/14

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13
Week 5: 8/14
Week 6: 9/14

Text of My Testimony in Front of the New York City Council Governmental Operations Committee

2008-10-17T21:04:00.002-04:00

Last night at around 11:30pm I testified in front of the New York City Council Governmental Operations Committee to oppose Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to extend term limits for himself and the City Council without going through the people(a referendum).

Here is the text of my testimony:

I come here today as a very concerned citizen, American, and New Yorker. I’m here today to urge you, The City Council to vote against this bill. This is not an issue about whether Mayor Bloomberg was a good mayor or a bad mayor. This is an issue about democracy and about whether you, The City Council, will overturn the will of the people. This is a vote for or against democracy.

The Mayor has been given most of the attention about this bill, but I want to focus on the City Council. It is my understanding that this bill not only extends term limits for the Mayor, but it also extends term limits for the City Council. I find it very outrageous that some City Council members are naïve enough to believe that should this bill pass they will get re-elected after overturning the will of the people. If this bill passes, we, the people will not forget those who voted against democracy. The passing of this bill will not only set a terrible precedent for the rest of the country, but it will increase voter cynicism.

This bill is an insult to New Yorkers and a direct attack on democracy. Please vote no.

For those people that may not know what it is at stake here New Yorkers voted two times to support term limits through referendums in 1993 and 1996. This is not an issue about whether you like Mayor Bloomberg, or not. This is a process issue, and a democracy issue. If this bill passes the City Council which would extend term limits for both the Mayor and City Council it would be overturning the will of the people.

Every American should be outraged. (Especially the people of California where referendums are put on the ballot routinely) If this bill passes in New York imagine the precedent it would set for the rest of the country.

Dre

Presidential Debate Part III Preview

2008-10-15T18:19:00.001-04:00

Here is my preview of tonights final debate between Barack Obama and John McCain moderated by CBS anchor Bob Schieffer at 9pm:

Will we learn anything "new" in this debate that we didn't already know in the first two debates?
My answer is No.

End of preview.

(I'll have to write another piece later about how all these debates are just plain awful and bad for democracy. )

Dre

NFL 2008 Week 6 Picks

2008-10-12T07:17:00.002-04:00

Week 6

Last week I had a great week let's hope I can keep it up. Luck seems to be on my side right now...

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Vikings vs Lions 13.0
LIONS
Redskins vs Rams 13.5
RAMS
Saints vs Raiders 7.0
RAIDERS
Texans vs Dolphins 3.0
DOLPHINS
Jets vs Bengals 5.5
JETS
Bears vs Falcons 3.0
FALCONS
Colts vs Ravens 4.0
COLTS
Buccaneers vs Panthers 1.5
PANTHERS
Broncos vs Jaguars 3.5
BRONCOS
Cowboys vs Cardinals 5.0
COWBOYS
Eagles vs 49ers 5.0
EAGLES
Seahawks vs Packers 2.0
PACKERS
Chargers vs Patriots 5.0
CHARGERS
Giants vs Browns 7.5
GIANTS

CORRECT WRONG

9/14

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13
Week 5: 8/14

Review of "Religulous"

2008-10-11T16:30:00.003-04:00

This is a review of a new documentary by Bill Maher called "Religulous". I know there's a segment of people that can't stand him, but this film took a ton of guts to make and Bill Maher should be credited for that alone. The central theme of "Religulous" is not to take down Christianity (for those keeping score at home the Christian Science Monitor gave this a B-), but to ask questions about all religions. The beginning of the film seems like it will be a life story of Bill Maher, but then it shifts gears fast so if you plan on walking out at that point please don't.

Bill Maher interviews many different people of different religions at many different locations throughout the film. The interviews are very "Borat"esqe with jokes sprinkled in, but the film has a Michael Moore style to it. During interviews throughout the film many film clips are played to add humor, but some people may find it annoying. Personally, I thought the film clips were a great part of the film. The beginning of the film could have been edited better and the end monologue could have been shortened, but from an overall picture it was well produced and edited.

Bill Maher has a lot of critics that call him a Religious bigot, but "Religulous" doesn't do anything to support that argument. Maher also touches on the world effects of religious extremism, and to me that is another interesting subject that another film could be about. Just how much violence throughout the world has been the cause of religion? The answer is a lot. Maher's harshest critics will probably steer clear of this film, but I think even his harshest critics would tolerate the message of this film. There's nothing wrong questioning religion.

Tens of Thousands of Voters Purged/Taken off Voting Rolls; Obama May Be in Trouble

2008-10-10T07:13:00.002-04:00

According to an investigation by the New York Times tens of thousands of voters in battle ground states have been purged from election rolls or have been illegally blocked from registering to vote. Here is part of what Raw Story reported yesterday:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Tens of thousands of voters in at least six battleground states have been removed from election rolls or have been illegally blocked from registering to vote, according to an investigation by the New York Times published Thursday.

The anomalies, which are violations of US federal law, are largely bureaucratic mistakes in record keeping, and "do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules," said the newspaper.

The states affected -- Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina -- are among the most crucial states that could swing either way in the November 4 presidential election between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama.

The article also cites the fact that this will also likely hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans because the Democrats registered more voters than the Republicans. The article says they are"largely bureaucratic mistakes" with no intent of breaking rules. Largely? What about the rest of that percentage? Isn't it just a BIG "coincidence" that this problem happened in all states that Barack Obama is either leading, or in a dead heat? Why don't we see this problem in states that McCain is leading in like Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas? Just a question....

This story should send chills down not only every Obama supporter' spine, but every American spine regardless of political affiliation. There were problems like this in 2000 and 2004, and the same types of problems are happening again. Americans need to start paying serious attention to election integrity because our democracy is at serious risk and both the Democratic party and Republican party are not enough to defend our right to vote. There is absolutely no excuse as to why we should have this type of problem.

I highly recommend anyone in those affected states, and especially those that are new registered voters to confirm your right to vote.

Dre

Presidential Debate Part II Review: A Waste of Our Time

2008-10-09T07:35:00.000-04:00

I watched the first Presidential debate and apparently I watched the first Presidential debate again on Tuesday night. The second Presidential debate was a complete waste of our time.

What new thing did we learn in the second debate that we didn't already know from the first? Basically nothing except John McCain referring to Barack Obama as "that one." I couldn't believe that the CNN reporters said before the debate how the candidates wont be able to use their talking points because of the town hall format. Turns out the candidates were still able to use their same scripted answers from the first debate in this "town hall" format. Shocker? Welcome to American politics.

Another factor about this debate was moderator Tom Brokaw. His moderation was just plain horrible. He literally had no control over Obama or McCain. As much as I despise time limits for answers because time limitation hinders the ability of candidates to give full substantive answers, it's the moderators job to cut off the candidates when they go over time. Instead of doing his job Brokaw decided to just let the candidate know of time limitations rather than enforce them. If the debate gods had a choice Tom Brokaw would never host another debate again.

Let's also not forget that 1/3 of the questions came from Tom Brokaw himself. I thought this was supposed to be a town hall debate...All the questions were hand picked by Brokaw himself. What's supposed to make a town hall debate successful is the element of surprise. There was basically none of that at the debate. The questions were filtered, the answers were the same as the first debate, the moderator sucked again, third party candidates were excluded again, and in the end it was just another political charade. Nothing new.

I don't like to declare winners in a debate because that's all subjective bullshit, but John McCain didn't himself any favors last night. I will also say that if Barack Obama was up against a more competent Republican like Ron Paul he would been in deep trouble right now. John McCain is shooting himself in the foot more than Barack Obama himself beating John McCain(if you get what I mean...)

Dre

VP Debate Review: Grandfather vs Granddaughter

2008-10-06T17:33:00.000-04:00

I know this may be a couple days late, but I have to give my take on the Joe Biden/Sarah Palin Vice-Presidential debate. I've been thinking of the best way I could frame the debate, and I think I've found a perfect way...

This Vice-Presidential debate was like a grandfather playing a game against his young granddaughter. The grandfather knows all the tricks in the book, has all the experience, can deliver the knockout blow whenever he wants, but because he's playing against his granddaughter he goes easy on her. Because it's his granddaughter she can never be considered a loser, and no matter the outcome it's spun into an accomplishment.

That is basically what went on at the VP debate. The bar was set so low for Sarah Palin that if she completed a sentence it would have been considered a victory. The media and this country has gone so far down the drain that the benchmark for criticizing Sarah Palin was her interview with Katie Couric. This should speak volumes about the state of journalism in America today.

As far as substance goes both of them ran circles around a lot of the questions, but Sarah Palin was more of a culprit than Joe Biden was. Gwen Ifill was a decent moderator, but not great either. The problem with these moderators is that they don't press each candidate on the issues as hard as they should. During the primaries the moderators from each news network had a clear agenda, and pushed certain candidates over others. The way these debates need to be moderated is to have the candidates positions in front of them, ask the question, and if they lie then hold their feet to the fire. The "Fact checks" should not come AFTER the debate when not everyone is watching. It should happen DURING the debate. Obviously it's hard to know what statistics will be thrown out there, but you would have to be out of touch to not know that a vote on taxes would be used during the debate.

As far as myself I'm not impressed with either of them. I find it very disturbing that the benchmark for criticism of Sarah Palin are the lower expectations of her rather than the office of the Vice-President itself.

Dre

NFL 2008 Week 5 Picks

2008-10-05T03:44:00.001-04:00

Week 5
Wow I am just doing just HORRIBLE...maybe I should just quit now? Just goes to show that picking games in the NFL is a crap shoot.

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Eagles vs Redskins 6.0
EAGLES
Panthers vs Chiefs 9.5
PANTHERS
Bears vs Lions 3.5
BEARS
Packers vs Falcons Off(0)
FALCONS
Titans vs Ravens 3.0
TITANS
Chargers vs Dolphins 6.5
CHARGERS
Colts vs Texans 3.0
COLTS
Giants vs Seahawks 7.0
GIANTS
Broncos vs Buccaneers 3.0
BRONCOS
Cardinals vs Bills 1.0
BILLS
Cowboys vs Bengals 17.0
BENGALS
Patriots vs 49ers 3.0
PATRIOTS
Jaguars vs Steelers 4.0
STEELERS
Saints vs Vikings 3.0
SAINTS

CORRECT WRONG PUSH

8/14

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16
Week 4: 4/13

NFL 2008 Week 4 Picks

2008-09-28T07:35:00.001-04:00

Week 4
I had a rough week last week because of a lot of surprises. This week I am sure I will make better picks.

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Bengals vs Browns 3.5
BENGALS
Buccaneers vs Packers 1.0
PACKERS
Panthers vs Falcons 7.0
FALCONS
Titans vs Vikings 3.0
VIKINGS
Jaguars vs Texans 7.0
JAGUARS
Broncos vs Chiefs 9.0
CHIEFS
Saints vs 49ers 5.0
SAINTS
Jets vs Cardinals 1.5
JETS
Chargers vs Raiders 7.5
CHARGERS
Bills vs Rams 8.0
RAMS
Cowboys vs Redskins 11.0
COWBOYS
Eagles vs Bears 3.0
EAGLES
Steelers vs Ravens 5.5
STEELERS

CORRECT WRONG

4/13

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14
Week 3: 5/16

NFL 2008 Week 3 Picks

2008-09-21T02:02:00.008-04:00

Week 3

So far I have a .500 record let's see if I can keep that up.

Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Falcons vs Chiefs 5.5
FALCONS
Patriots vs Dolphins 12.5
PATRIOTS
Bills vs Raiders 9.5
BILLS
Giants vs Bengals 13.5
GIANTS
Bears vs Buccaneers 3.0
BEARS
Titans vs Texans 5.0
TITANS
Redskins vs Cardinals 3.0
REDSKINS
Vikings vs Panthers 3.5
PANTHERS
Broncos vs Saints 5.5
BRONCOS
49ers vs Lions 4.0
LIONS
Seahawks vs Rams 9.5
RAMS
Eagles vs Steelers 3.5
EAGLES
Colts vs Jaguars 5.0
COLTS
Ravens vs Browns 2.5
BROWNS
Cowboys vs Packers 3.0
COWBOYS
Chargers vs Jets 9.0
JETS

CORRECT WRONG

5/16

Past Results
Week 1: 8/16
Week 2: 7/14

"The View" Deserves Some Credit For Taking on McCain

2008-09-16T07:17:00.001-04:00

Now I'm not a natural "The View" watcher, but they do deserve some credit now. I don't watch the "The View" because I find the dialogue very amateurish and they usually don't bring much to the table in terms intelligent discussion, but last week they had John McCain on the show and they deserve a pat on the back for holding John McCain accountable. I know since Whoopi Goldberg joined the show she has been tapped as sort of the headmaster to move things along, but during the John McCain segment Barbara Walters took charge challenging John McCain about what he means about being a "reformer" in Washington. John McCain kept squirming avoiding a straight answer with a silly grin on his face as if he though was ambushed. Whenever McCain gave an evasive answer Walters kept hitting him back with follow up questions, and that is what made the interview good. It almost seemed as if Barbara Walters told everyone before the show that she would be the "special enforcer" and hold John McCain accountable while all the other hosts step aide. You also can't say enough about Joy Behar and her willingness to say what's on her mind. During the interview she challenged McCain for the lies in his ads, and he really just shrugged it off and said the tenor of the campaign was due to Barack Obama's unwillingness to accept McCain's town hall meeting request (I do agree with that to some degree) This doesn't excuse McCain for making slimy ads though. Even right winger Elisabeth Hasslelbeck asked a tough question to McCain on Roe v. Wade. WOW!

It was funny to see Cindy McCain upset with interview saying "they picked our bones clean", but can we blame her? The interview was tough no question about it, but if you look at the interview in the context of the show it was really "un-View like". As I mentioned above they really don't have a reputation for giving great interviews, but if I was betting man before the interview I would have expected this. "The View" needs ratings, and what better thing to do than grill John McCain and attract new viewers. I still believe "The View" round table discussion is like the "Fisher-Price" version of "Realtime with Bill Maher" because some of those characters on the show you can't take seriously. Whoopi Goldberg made the show better, but even she comes off very "above the fray" a lot of the time trying to play peacemaker. Even though this type of interview from "The View" might not be the norm for the show there's no reason why we can't tip our hat to them.

Click Here to watch the interview if you missed it.

Dre

Did Barack Obama Deliver the Slime on 9/11? You be the Judge

2008-09-15T00:55:00.006-04:00

Did Obama break his 9/11 agreement to not air attack ads against John McCain? You be the judge.

As someone who has followed this election very closely and every dirty ad put out by the McCain campaign it was much to my surprise to see a dirty slimy ad coming from the Obama campaign. As expected this ad received very little coverage in the mainstream media and prominent liberal blogs. It was even more surprising that when I saw the date of upload it was "September 11, 2008"

First take a look at the ad for yourself:

First of all this ad might be one of the most stupidest ads ever created attacking a political candidate. Just how on earth does Barack Obama expect to get votes from senior citizens with this ad? This ad is extremely distasteful, and there should be outrage against this ad. The message in this ad is basically that John McCain is unfit for the Presidency because he can't use the internet or email. I don't know about you, but I know many people that aren't computer savvy and they aren't stupid people. Quite frankly if someone didn't know how to use a computer it wouldn't bother me, and shouldn't bother you. How this is even an issue is beyond me.

My second point being that this ad was uploaded on 9/11. Why is this relevant? Well, supposedly Barack Obama and McCain made an agreement to "suspend all TV ads critical of each other for the day." The Barack Obama campaign might contend that because this ad was uploaded on YouTube it shouldn't count, but realistically it should because all throughout many of the campaigns ads were put out through YouTube and played on TV from YouTube. I haven't heard any major thing about this ad, and quite frankly it bothers me. It doesn't bother me because I like to see bickering over ads, but this is a case of Barack Obama getting away with a dirty slimey ad.

I don't like John McCain, but this ad is inexcusable. Obama likes to contend that John McCain is not focusing on real issues facing America(which is true), but when Obama turns down town hall meetings with McCain and puts out ads like this one his argument becomes null and void.

NFL 2008 Week 2 Picks

2008-09-14T02:58:00.007-04:00

Week 2
Favorite vs Underdog bold=Home team
My pick

Redskins vs Saints 0.0
SAINTS
Panthers vs Bears 3.0
PANTHERS
Packers vs Lions 3.0
PACKERS
Jaguars vs Bills 5.5
BILLS
Chiefs vs Raiders 3.5
CHIEFS
Giants vs Rams 8.5
GIANTS
Colts vs Vikings 2.0
COLTS
Bengals vs Titans 1.0
BENGALS
Seahawks vs 49ers 7.0
SEAHAWKS
Buccaneers vs Falcons 7.0
FALCONS
Chargers vs Broncos 1.5
BRONCOS
Jets vs Patriots 1.5
JETS
Cardinals vs Dolphins 6.5
DOLPHINS
Steelers vs Browns 6.0
BROWNS
Cowboys vs Eagles 7.0
EAGLES

7/14

I left off Texans vs Ravens because that will be replayed in November.

CORRECT WRONG PUSH

Past results
Week 1: 8/16

Ron Paul Promotes Third Party Unity Against Obama/McCain

2008-09-11T07:12:00.000-04:00

Yesterday Republican Ron Paul held a press conference with third party candidates Bob Barr(Libertarian Party), Ralph Nader(Independent), Cynthia McKinney(Green party), and Chuck Baldwin(Constitution Party) urging voters to vote for a third party candidate this election instead of Barack Obama or John McCain. Ron Paul presented an agenda which is at odds with the two major parties, but that the third party candidates have agreed on:

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.
We support opening up the debates beyond the two parties and the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a private corporation co-chaired by former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic Party. It is time for our Presidential Debates to once again be hosted by a truly non-partisan civic-minded association.

I know some supporters of some the candidates may be angry that all of them are standing together supporting each other even though they may support different things other than the above, but this really is a win-win situation for everyone. First of all this generates publicity for all the third party candidates, and calls to attention the above agenda which John McCain and Barack Obama don't support. Second of all, because attention is given to this event it lets voters become more aware of their candidacies and hopefully it puts pressure on networks to allow them into debates. When Americans see the main agenda put forward by the third party candidates there's no question in my mind voters will realize that they are supporting the wrong candidate(McCain/Obama).

Dre

Video of Ron Paul's opening remarks can be found here.

Do National Presidential Polls Really Matter?

2008-09-09T21:02:00.001-04:00

If you are an avid watcher of the mainstream media you may notice them bringing up many different poll numbers. While it adds great drama to political punditry the fact remains that national polls do not matter. All this over the top commentary about who's ahead by how many points means nothing. I give you two words: Electoral College

Everyone should know by now that the popular vote means nothing, and the electoral college is what determines the winner. So why do we give a crap about national polls? Like I said above I believe national polls are just used for causing a stir in the media. The only false relevance for national polls is to determine who is "viable" enough to be allowed to be in debates. For example for the upcoming Google Presidential debate a candidate has to be polling 10% nationally to be allowed in which in my personal opinion is a disgraceful rule for the sake of democracy.

But let's get back to the real point...The fact remains that state presidential polls are the only polls that matter because the electoral college is supposed to vote by the popular vote of their state.

NFL 2008 Week 1 Picks, Playoffs/Superbowl Predictions

2008-09-07T07:37:00.003-04:00

I figured I would add another dynamic to this website and every week for the rest of the season ill make my NFL picks just to take a break from the drag of politics. I'm the type of person that likes to make picks on certain things. Not to brag, but a day or two before the Giants/Packers NFC Championship game I put money on the Giants(during my Las Vegas trip) to win the Superbowl at 12-1 odds. We know how that one turned out...Let's see if I continue to have the hot hand:

Week 1
Favorite vs Underdog bold=home team
My pick

Giants vs Redskins 4.5
GIANTS (understand I didn't post my picks before this game, but I did pick the Giants... who didn't?)
Patriots vs Chiefs Off(0)
PATRIOTS
Saints vs Buccaneers 3.0
SAINTS
Eagles vs Rams 7.5
EAGLES
Steelers vs Texans 6.5
STEELERS
Lions vs Falcons 3.0
LIONS
Bills vs Seahawks 1.0
SEAHAWKS
Bengals vs Ravens 1.5
BENGALS
Jaguars vs Titans 3.0
JAGUARS
Jets vs Dolphins 3.0
JETS
Chargers vs Panthers 9.0
CHARGERS
Cardinals vs 49ers 2.5
CARDINALS
Cowboys vs Browns 5.5
BROWNS
Colts vs Bears 9.5
COLTS
Packers vs Vikings 2.5
VIKINGS
Broncos vs Raiders 3.0
BRONCOS

8/16

CORRECT WRONG

Playoffs Prediction

NFC EAST - COWBOYS
NFC NORTH - LIONS
NFC SOUTH - SAINTS
NFC WEST - SEAHAWKS
WILDCARD - GIANTS, EAGLES

AFC EAST - PATRIOTS
AFC NORTH - BROWNS
AFC SOUTH - COLTS
AFC WEST - CHARGERS
WILDCARD - STEELERS, JAGUARS

Superbowl Prediction
COWBOYS vs BROWNS

Superbowl Winner: COWBOYS

There you have it folks! My Week 1 picks, and Superbowl picks.

Dre

Save as Draft

Please Stop Shoving McCain's POW Status Down Our Throats

2008-09-06T03:05:00.000-04:00

It's been 24 hours and I still have a headache from listening to that non entertaining, non substantive Republican Presidential nomination acceptance speech by John McCain on Thursday night. There was nothing really interesting about McCain's speech except a very detailed description of him being a POW in North Vietnam, except to me it was uninteresting because we heard the summarized version during a few of the keynote speeches in the previous nights of the convention. Throughout the convention "Country First" along with John McCain's POW status became a central theme as if McCain's POW status made him the best candidate to be President of the United States.

I know some of you reading this may call me "unpatriotic", but honestly and seriously is someone being a POW a major qualifier to be President of the United States? I think not. We thank McCain for his service during Vietnam, but please let's not politicize it. It reminded of the Republicans politicizing 9/11 during the 2004 Bush re-election campaign. Simply disgusting. I was waiting for McCain to criticize the use of torture after his POW story because the use of torture is a danger to National Security and also because he himself was tortured, but nothing. And supposedly this is the guy that is breaking away from Bush? This must be the "maverick" in coming out in McCain to pander to the much bigger neocons because he once was against waterboarding, and in February 2008 he voted against a ban on waterboarding.

I hope for the rest of the campaign McCain's POW status wont be used as a tool to gain votes, but just as biographical information. What the RNC did during this past week was disgusting, but you know as well as I do nobody had the guts to call them out on it's politicization except Wesley Clark. After that Wesley Clark was basically black balled by the Obama campaign and they told him not to come to the DNC because his services weren't needed. I'm sure they agreed with Clark, but Barack Obama is too gutless to say it himself.

Every time the McCain campaign uses McCain's POW status as a tool to gain votes we know it's a tactic to stray away from talking about actual issues like let's say the economy, health care, or Iraq.

Dre

Palin Comes Up Big in a Big Spot

2008-09-04T07:19:00.001-04:00

Last night I watched Gov. Sarah Palin's Republican Vice-Presidential nomination acceptance speech, and I have to say putting all my personal political differences aside she knocked it out of the park. Her speech probably drew big ratings and deservingly so. I actually think that Gov. Palin's speech last night was more critical than John McCain's speech tonight. We know enough about McCain, and not enough about Gov. Palin on a national stage. The few reservations I had about her speech were that she didn't mention any social issues, and we didn't really learn anything new from what we knew about her already.

I was a little surprised about the arrangement of Palin's speech, but it seemed to work in the end. I kept asking myself during the speech(and probably social conservatives also) "When will the talk of abortion come?" Palin painted herself as a reformer, and listed accomplishments during her career as Governor of Alaska. She also indirectly criticized Obama saying that being a mayor is being a "community organizer with responsibilities". She attacked Obama some of the time, and promoted McCain throughout her speech.

What she did very good was paint herself as a regular American(a Hockey mom) with a large family. There is no doubt in my mind that this aspect of Palin will resonate with voters around the country. That fact of the matter about this speech was that the delivery and her command of the speech was superb. I don't agree with any of her positions, but at the end of the day she came up big in a big spot. Palin proved last night that she's ready for the main event, and even if the McCain/Palin loses in November she will be a major face within the Republican party in the future.

Dre

What the Ron Paul Convention Meant to Me

2008-09-03T07:12:00.001-04:00

I won't do a speaker-by-speaker review like I did for the DNC because everyone that I heard at the the Ron Paul Convention was spot on. I will give my overall opinion regarding what this convention meant to me.

For starters I am not a huge Ron Paul supporter, but I have a great amount of respect for him because of the positions he takes within the Republican Party which has drifted away from traditional conservatism. Yesterday I turned on the Ron Paul Convention "Rally for the Republic", and I listened to the various speakers, and I thought to myself "Why am I watching this and why is this a big deal?" I was watching it because the Campaign for Liberty was a movement that came about from the Ron Paul campaign for President. It was also a movement that built itself up by utilizing YouTube, and other means of communication to get out it's message because mainstream media wouldn't give Ron Paul fair coverage and would be trashed by Republican commentators for not supporting the neocon agenda. This is a much more remarkable accomplishment than Ron Paul is being given credit for. Not only that but there was also a big age barrier between Ron Paul and his supporters. As you watched the convention and you noticed all the young faces in the audience sometimes you still couldn't believe that they would support a candidate three to four times their age.

This convention was the culmination of a great, exciting, and fun to watch(at least for me) Ron Paul campaign, and also a "passing of the torch" (so to speak) to the younger generation to continue to fight for liberty and never give up. When I was campaigning for Congressman Dennis Kucinich in New Hampshire it was always fun to talk to a Ron Paul supporter. We obviously had our differences, but you could tell they were passionate. What I also found was that they were very knowledgeable on the issues, and that's basically what put the Ron Paul campaign above most of the other campaigns. The mainstream campaigns like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and John Edwards may have had strength through number of supporters, but the Ron Paul campaign had strength through the quality of supporters that ultimately helped the campaign be very successful.

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican you can't discount the success of the Ron Paul campaign. Ron Paul received more votes than mainstream backed Rudy Giuliani! If there was anything that I was left with after this convention it was that the movement will only get stronger over time. Even though I am a very liberal Democrat, and I disagree with Ron Paul on social issues I would still consider voting for him in the future just on the basis that he is a principled candidate. It's hard to find those kind of politicians nowadays.

As this election cycle is coming to an end I will have many memories about everything that has happened the past couple years. For me I will have many memories about campaigning on the streets of New Hampshire for Kucinich. One thing I know I'll miss is seeing the Ron Paul sign waves that happened frequently on the campaign trail, and their enthusiasm no matter where they were. I will look back at everything and realize that I experienced something special, and possibly the beginning of something much bigger in the future.

Dre

Freedom of Speech Under Fire at Yankee Stadium; Fan Ejected for Bathroom Break During 'God Bless America'

2008-08-31T22:33:00.004-04:00

Yes, you read the headline correctly... Can you believe that a man was ejected from Yankee Stadium for trying to use the bathroom during the "God Bless America" 7th inning stretch! When it comes to civil liberties in this country it seems like our rights are being taken away day by day. Here's the scoop from WCBSTV:

During the patriotic 7th inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, nature called on Bradford Campeau-Laurion. When he tried to leave his seat during the traditional singing of God Bless America, however, he says he was stopped by a NYPD officer who said he'd have to wait until the song was done.

"I then said to him, 'I don't care about God Bless America. I just need to use the bathroom.' As soon as I said that, he immediately pinned my arm behind my back," Campeau-Laurion told CBS 2.

The 29-year-old says two officers pinned both of his arms behind his back and ejected him from the stadium.

"He shoved me out the front gate and told me get out of their country if I didn't like it," he said.

The NYPD version contradicts Campeau-Laurion's version saying:

"The officers observed a male standing on his seat, cursing, using inappropriate language and acting in a disorderly manner while reeking of alcohol, and decided to eject him rather than subject others to his offensive behavior.

When told the NYPD version of events here is what a friend attending the game with Campeau-Laurion said:

"That's ridiculous," said the fan, who asked not to be identified. "That's completely false."

The Yankees have a rule restricting movement in the stands during the playing of God Bless America. The rule is enforced by ushers, stadium security and the NYPD. Here is what the NYCLU had to say about that:

"Because they are enforcing a rule of that imposes political correctness through refusing to let somebody go to bathroom while a patriotic song is playing, that violates Constitutional rights," said Donna Lieberman, a spokesperson for the NYCLU.

The New York Yankees and New York Mets started playing "God Bless America" during the "7th inning stretch" after 9/11, and I've always that was ridiculous and went too far. The Mets have been lenient about playing it by only doing it once in a while, but the Yankees have always been very strict about it. I've always had a problem with the playing of 'God Bless America', because I don't think that should be played during sports games. The 'Star Spangled Banner' is the national anthem, and NOT 'God Bless America' so that should be the only song being played. I've never been to a Mets or Yankees game where an incident like this happened, but I've always felt that it was a very tense atmosphere at Yankee Stadium and something like this could happen so I'm not entirely surprised.

Campeau-Laurion hasn't decided whether to seek legal action. I'll keep you updated if he does. This could get interesting.

Remember, "Dissent is Patriotic".

Dre

McCain Picks Gov. Palin for VP; Dems, Be Careful What You Wish For

2008-08-30T07:16:00.002-04:00

So the news came down yesterday that Sen. John McCain picked Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate. This selection has caused many so called "political analysts" to scratch their heads as to why she was picked, but the most surprising and startling reaction that I have seen has come from Democratic voters supporting Barack Obama and Joe Biden that are laughing off the choice as if the election in November is a guaranteed victory now.

Many Democrats have chosen the lack of experience in foreign policy argument against Gov. Palin saying that if John McCain died of cancer she would have to replace him. I found it really unfortunate that rather the Democrats talk about her record they are focusing their attention on a grim circumstance that quite frankly should not be talked about in the manner the Democrats are doing. Obama spokesman Bill Burton released the following statement criticizing the pick:

Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same.

Personally, I think there's no place for rhetoric like "heartbeat away from the presidency" in politics. They could have said that in a more civilized manner. Sure McCain is old, but do they have some intelligence that McCain is DEFINITELY going to die within the next 4 years? Because of this rhetoric the debate turned into "Biden vs Palin" as commander & chief without focusing on Palin's record in politics as Governor in Alaska.

So while Democrats on various liberal blogs were welcoming the choice of Palin yesterday by gloating with confidence that they "had the election in the bag" they ignored the real reasons why she was picked. First of all, it was no secret that John McCain was not well liked among social conservatives, and this pick immediately fixes that. Second of all, this is a pick of John McCain tapping a Republican for the future that is a true conservative. Republicans will eat that up. Thirdly, Palin has a family story that can appeal to many voters.

Lastly, and the most controversial reason for picking her is that Palin is woman and the first ever woman on a Republican Presidential ticket. Many Democrats are spinning this as though it's solely to try to grab disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, but I firmly disagree. They are ignoring the fact that she is a social conservative. There's probably no doubt that the fact of appealing to disgruntled Hillary supporters was a factor, but the Democrats need to stop reacting to this pick as if they have a monopoly on picking woman Vice-Presidents. Another major factor why this pick is good is that it causes the Obama campaign to watch out how they attack her. With Sarah Palin as the VP by McCain this should give the Obama campaign concerns about a possible gaffe by Joe Biden that could offend the female voter.

It's a bit surprising that Democrats are being this ignorant in celebrating an early victory. If I were a Democrat I would not put my house on the line this election because winning Presidential elections has proven to not be in the Democratic Party' pedigree. If there's anyone that knows what happens when social conservatives turn out to vote it's the Democrats. Be careful what you wish for.

Dre

Democratic National Convention Day 4 Review

2008-08-29T07:04:00.000-04:00

This will be a brief review of the speeches that I saw. Today I only managed to see Barack Obama's nomination acceptance speech, and Al Gore's speech through YouTube due to being busy so please forgive me!

Former Vice-President Al Gore- This speech was not good. He had one good line about John McCain "recycling" Bush, but that was it. He's a very flat speaker, and after watching his speech today I can sort of understand why he "lost" in 2000. Yes he added his take on the environment, but it's really a tough watch.

Sen. Barack Obama- The crowd went nuts in Invesco Field when Obama came out, and they played this dreamy tune which fit the moment very well. This speech was masterful, and carefully crafted and delivered. It contained a lot of jabs at McCain that were unlike any other Obama speech before this. He laid out his platform, and made a great case as to why he is a better candidate than John McCain. Not only was this great, but it was memorable and reminded me how much of a piece of shit John Kerry's speech was in 2004 (I don't remember Gore's). I don't know if I can say anything else about this speech except this was something that was sorely needed for Obama to get elected, and it lived up to my expectations and exceeded them. The only downside about delivering such a great speech like this is that people will always compare every speech he does from now on to it.

Wrap Up: I can't comment on the flow or anything like that, but I'll just say Obama did what needed to be done with his speech. Invesco Field had a packed house and had the most people to ever attend a Presidential nomination. That's something. The visual from above was great along with the pyros. You could definitely sense something special within the venue. There was talk about the set with the Roman columns, but on camera you couldn't see it. The background of Obama speaking was great. The Obama definitely get's an A+ for theatrics for this speech.

Did it change my mind?
I was not supporting Obama before the speech he gave, and--I'm still not supporting him. As I stated above Obama laid a great case as to why he was better than McCain. I and many other progressives opposing Obama's candidacy have stated many times that Obama is better than McCain. But the question is, is Obama the BEST candidate running? The answer is simply no.

I'll explain this equation in terms of a test. If 65 is just passing, and McCain is failing then Obama is a 65-70. When you take a test do you try to "just pass" or do you try to go for the best possible score and get a 100? Obama is just not the best candidate running in the general election. I can't explain it any better than that. More on that later...

Dre

Democratic National Convention Day 3 Review

2008-08-28T07:23:00.001-04:00

Here is a brief review of the speeches that I saw and remembered the best. I didn't see that many today so please forgive me!

The Roll Call Vote - I started watching during the beginning of the roll call vote. I've always found this process to be one of the most interesting parts of the convention. Every state gets a chance to say "We are the great state of ____ , the state that invested laziness" ...you get the point. Some of the things were interesting like New Jersey saying "home of the Superbowl Champion New York Giants". Well the stadium(Meadowlands) is, but not the team. The clerk was hilarious, and I had to ask myself if she was a long lost twin of ex-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris because she sure looked like it.

The roll call vote got interesting when Illinois chose to pass, and I thought that it was choreographed so Hillary Clinton would come out to cast the nomination clinching votes for Barack Obama later on. Partially true...Hillary actually came out motioned that the roll call vote be suspended and Obama be given the nomination by acclamation. It passed. The media did clarify that even though the vote was suspended delegates that hadn't cast their votes yet would have the chance to.

Former President Bill Clinton- Bill Clinton came out to a huge ovation with the crowd waving American flags. The crowd wouldn't stop cheering and Bill started to tell the crowd to settle down and stop. Actually at one point when he said it, it sounded like he was being irritated and wanted to get the speech over with. It wasn't a bad speech because he said all the things that needed to be said to promote Obama. I didn't think it was a great only because it didn't sound like something extra special from Bill Clinton. Just a Bill Clinton speech.

Sen. John Kerry - His speech was very interesting and ironic because he criticized John McCain for changing positions. Hmm...Does that sound like some familiar? Kerry came on the stage after(not right after) Bill Clinton, and I actually thought Kerry's was better. For someone who gaffed his way to losing to President Bush in 2004 he sounded very different, and much better.

Vice-Presidential Nominee Sen. Joe Biden - Joe Biden was introduced by his son Bo Biden (Delaware Secretary of State). Bo Biden's introduction was actually VERY GOOD he talked about Joe Biden the father, and moved many in the audience to tears. Personally I didn't think it was THAT touching, but it was a damn good introduction.

Joe Biden's speech accepting the Vice-Presidential Nomination was very good, and the best of the night from a political perspective. What he had in his speech lacked in Hillary's speech. He gave personal anecdotes about Barack Obama which was a much more effective sell than just saying "Vote for the Democrat, and Obama happens to be the Democrat this year"(summary). Biden also hit "his friend" John McCain very hard with forceful language in his normal screechy yelly exclamation point voice.

At the end of his speech Biden's wife Jill came to the stage and said she had a "surprise", and it was Barack Obama. Obama came out to a HUGE ovation, and said a few words praising the speeches given by Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden. After Obama spoke Joe Biden's extended family came on the stage, and it was a great moment for the Biden family. Unlike other family groupings on stage in other political events, you could definitely sense the close knit relationship in the Biden family.

Wrap Up: I actually saw other speeches, but I don't recall on the top of my head who they were. From what I saw it DNC Day 3 seemed to run pretty smoothly. The momentum wasn't broken with music like last Day 1, and I think they might have realized that problem. Gov. Bill Richardson was slated to speak before Joe Biden, but he never came out. Turns out they re-scheduled him for Day4. I was actually looking forward to his speech. Day 3 was probably the best day of the convention because Biden's speech had great lead-ins by Kerry, and Bill Clinton.

After Day 3 of the convention I still haven't been convinced to vote for Senator Barack Obama for President. Will Barack Obama convince me after he gives his Presidential nomination acceptance speech? We'll find out later!

Obama Campaign Blocks Haymaker from Kucinich to Bush

2008-08-28T00:46:00.003-04:00

According to TheHill:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who was asked by Obama to speak about the economy, was scheduled to deliver his speech Tuesday afternoon. The Obama campaign struck just one line from his speech, which slammed the Republicans and the Bush administration, according to a Democratic source.

That line, addressing Republicans, read: “They’re asking for another four years — in a just world, they’d get 10 to 20.”

Now I know the Obama campaign wants to control the message of the convention, but if this line was delivered I have no doubt in my mind that Kucinich would have gotten a standing ovation, and major headlines. It would have been the harshest thing any Democrat has said about the Bush administration. Censoring this line didn't take away the awesomeness of Kucinich' speech Tuesday, but it should worry Democrats that the Obama campaign blocked a major blow to Bush that could have helped Obama's standing among progressives at the very least.

Democratic National Convention Day 2 Review

2008-08-27T07:06:00.001-04:00

Like the first day of the convention I didn't see everything. This is a brief review of the speeches I saw and remembered.

Governor David Paterson-I turned on the TV as he was starting to speak. His speech focused on Americans with disabilities, and took shots at McCain. The speech was delivered well considering he didn't use a teleprompter for obvious reasons. He got a huge ovation from the crowd that he deserved.

Congressional Black Caucus Tribute to Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones-Members of the Congressional Black Caucus came up to the podium to pay tribute to Stephanie Tubbs Jones. After speaking they played a video package of politicians that have died. It was a great segment, but I think it should have been in a better time slot.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich - His speech was one of the best of the night. He gave a great speech on the economy, and the crowd got into it. As the camera scanned the crowd you could see some people with what I would say was a "stunned smile" as if they've never seen him before but were pleasantly surprised. With the media blackout of his campaign during the primary it's not surprising some may not know who he is. Why they gave him an early time slot is beyond me. The Democratic Party underestimates his popularity among Democrats.

Governor Brian Schweitzer- He had the slot before Hillary Clinton, and I have to admit his speech was great. I never heard of the guy before, but the speech he gave was very well crafted and whoever wrote it should be compensated well. I will say that his speech was the best written speech so far. The crowd was totally into it, and gave him a huge ovation at the end.

Senator Hillary Clinton- Now I'm gonna be extremely honest and objective here. I am not a Hillary fan and I will never vote for her, but from a political perspective this was a great speech. All of her shots against McCain were memorable. Before the speech they played a great video tribute to her, and after she came out she got a huge ovation for like 5minutes.

Now I don't know if many of you saw this, but on the C-SPAN feed during the ovation they kept showing Bill Clinton and he was near tears. At one point during the ovation they showed Bill and he was mouthing the words "I love you" several times, and I honestly think that was a great moment that not many people may have seen. The reason why it was a great moment is because people always question his loyalty towards Hillary as a husband, and I don't ever recall seeing Bill Clinton get that emotional.

I think Hillary Clinton said everything she had to say. She tried her best to unite the party while at the same time attacking John McCain. She could have said more positive things about Barack Obama, but for what she was supposed to do she did good enough.

Wrap Up: I think Day 2 of the DNC went much better than Day 1. Things seemed to be moving much smoother, but the time slots were the main issue for me. First of all Dennis Kucinich should not have been buried in the daytime. I also think the Stephanie Tubbs Jones tribute should not have been buried and it should have been on prime time along with the tribute to the politicians that have died. Have you ever seen the video they do at the Oscars of all those that have died in the movie industry and when they play it? The Democrats should have followed suit and put that on prime time to honor their memories the best way possible. Hillary Clinton did pay tribute to Stephanie Tubbs Jones, but I still think something bigger should have been in prime time. In something like this time slots are crucial because they should be putting the best speakers when more are watching. I might have even put Governor David Paterson on prime time also. All in all it was a good day because they spent the day attacking McCain.

Democratic National Convention Day 1 Review

2008-08-26T07:07:00.000-04:00

Here's a brief review of the speeches that I saw on the first day of the Democratic convention. (The order may be off)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi-She gaveled in the prime time part of Day 1 of the Democratic Convention. and I have to say her speech was AWFUL!. The whole flow of her speech was off, and she made several failed attempts to get the audience to chant something anti-McCain (I forget the exact words).

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. - I'm surprised he's not getting more praise because his speech was one of the best of the night. I don't know much about him and his positions, but Jackson was forceful and honestly sold Barack Obama really well. A great pick up off of the crappy speech Pelosi gave right before him.

Former President Jimmy Carter- They showed a video package of him, and then Carter and his wife came out to wave to the crowd and do their impressions of a museum exhibit...meaning they didn't speak. Democratic Party what were you thinking? Is this how you treat a former Democratic President, and man that preaches peace? Bad job by the Democratic Party here.

Sen. Edward Kennedy - Edward Kennedy was introduced by Caroline Kennedy and this may be looked back on as one of the best moments in the whole convention. The crowd was on it's feet waving Kennedy signs and Edward Kennedy gave a great speech. This speech is a "Must Youtube" if you missed it.

Michelle Obama- A video package was played before Michelle Obama was introduced by her brother Craig Robinson. Michelle's speech was good, but not great. She said what she "had to say", and focused on Barack Obama the family man. During the speech she threw a bone to Hillary Clinton, and emphasized her love for America. I didn't see this speech as a great speech because it seemed very ordinary, but it accomplished what it had to.

After the speech Barack Obama was on a live video feed from Oklahoma and their two children gave the convention another moment by speaking back and forth with their daddy. The media is saying this was unscripted but I'm not sure I buy that. Why did the kids have mics in their hand in the first place? It still was a good moment scripted or unscripted.

Wrap Up: After the first day of the convention it had the Kennedy moment, and the Michelle Obama speech which many are acclaiming as great, but I wont. The problem with the first day of the convention was the flow. Nancy Pelosi gave the prime time part of the convention a rocky start. (Is it me or should the Speaker of the House have a more prominent speaking role in the convention? Oh yea I forgot we're talk about the Democratic Party here...) Another problem was that the music would be blaring in the background for long periods of time in between speeches, and it would leave me wondering when the next speaker would come. That flow is partly the reason why I missed some of the prime time speeches.
Bottom Line: Less downtime please.

Obama/Biden: A Disastrous Train Wreck

2008-08-24T03:34:00.016-04:00

Finally Barack Obama has selected his running mate and it's......Sen. Joe Biden!.....**Yawn** Well, Biden is better than Sen. Evan Bayh so I have to give Obama credit there, but this pick is riddled with problems and contradictions.

When Barack Obama first announced his candidacy one of the most appealing parts of his campaign was the "Judgment(Iraq War) vs Experience(Washington politician)" aspect. That part of his message was one of his biggest selling points during the primary election cycle that I would argue got him most of his support, and ultimately helped him defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton. As many people have noted Barack Obama has had a lot of position changes since he won the nomination, but this pick of Joe Biden to be his Vice-Presidential nominee might be the icing on the cake.

First of all, Joe Biden (like Hillary) voted to give President Bush authorization to use force against Iraq which breaks the "Judgement" part of Obama's message. As far as experience goes, Biden is as Washington as a politician can get with 36 years of being a U.S. Senator which is more "Washington style politics" than what John McCain has. Many people say Biden is some foreign policy guru, but how does the fact that he was a supporter of going into Iraq which is arguably the biggest foreign policy failure in U.S. history not come into the equation? From what I've read so far many people are having selective amnesia on that fact. Let's not forget that during the Democratic Primary debates Biden was adamant about not leaving Iraq quick so that should raise immediate red flags for Democrats who are expecting Obama to get the U.S. out of Iraq by the end of his term.

The Announcement

If you watched the big rally with Barack Obama introducing Joe Biden as his running mate you should have noticed during Biden's speech that it was not written by Biden. You could clearly notice the Obama speech formula in the beginning. Biden's speech was nothing short of a train wreck. First of all there was nothing exciting about Biden's speech, and he was stumbling over the words at times. He said things about McCain that were already said before, but the most shocking thing was that he did not even mention Iraq. Day 1 with Biden as VP couldn't have gone any worse given the fact that outside of the Democratic Convention from now until November he may have had the most attention today. Voters are going to vote for Obama/Biden after watching that?

Many people see Biden as a "gaffe machine", and the fact that the Obama campaign forced a speech on Biden that was clearly not his style showed that they did as well. If the Obama campaign expects Biden to be giving Obama campaign written speeches from now until November then the Democratic Party is in trouble. Not to mention the fact that Biden already has a few gaffes like "Obama is clean and articulate", and the "711/Indian accents" one. Even hours after the announcement the McCain campaign already had ads out of Biden criticizing Obama during the primary season. Did the Obama campaign not have enough foresight to see that would happen?

The Outcome/Hillary

When picking a VP the question is always gained votes vs loss of votes. I honestly don't see how picking Joe Biden as VP will gain many votes for Obama. In fact, I think it might lose votes for Obama. Since conventional wisdom suggests Biden is some foreign policy guru this pick by Obama screams "I suck at foreign policy". Will people want to vote for a candidate who's VP pick is a BIG admission of failure at foreign policy in the midst of a War in Iraq and Afghanistan?

As someone who is strongly opposed to Hillary Clinton recently I decided to check that at the door and honestly think if Hillary would be a good VP pick for Obama. Sure picking Hillary will probably lose votes, but I think picking Hillary there would have been more of a net gain of votes than by picking Biden. If you look at Hillary's record and Biden's record they are very similar. Why not go for Hillary then? It's bold, shows guts, and unites the party. I can think of many reasons why I wouldn't because of Obama's campaign message, but picking Hillary could be spun easily. Like I said, I'm not a Hillary supporter and even if Obama picked Hillary I could still not vote for Obama, but at the end of the day I think the right political move was to pick Hillary. Barack Obama simply couldn't get past his ego to make that happen.

Based on this Vice-Presidential pick, Barack Obama's shift in positions to the right, the continued feud between Obama/Hillary supporters, and Obama's alienation of progressive Democrats I am going to have to go on record and predict that John McCain/??? will be the next President of the United States.

Dre

Unconditional Support of Barack Obama Will Hurt the Democratic Party

2008-06-29T07:37:00.000-04:00

This will be short and to the point...I'm sure many people have heard from Barack Obama supporters when speaking about Obama say "He isn't perfect, but he's better than McCain". After that they usually state their full committal where the only thing that will stop them from pulling the lever for the great and almighty Obama in November would be death.

At what point do imperfections and alienating principles outweigh your support?

This is the question that many democrats need to start thinking about. Democrats like to dismiss pandering in the general election cycle as "trying to win", but in reality it's running away from principles. How would you like it if you registered for an organization, or signed a paper and once that organization had you fully committed they changed their policy for the next guy just to get their support? That's basically what Barack Obama is doing by changing his position on NAFTA, and waffling on whether he would vote for a bill giving FISA retroactive immunity or not (as well as other issues). Since many Obama supporters are unwilling to hold their vote over Obama's head they are basically giving him the freewill to alienate as many principles as he can to achieve victory in November without any reprucussions. (To be fair, this doesn't just happen with Obama but it's a product of the mode of thinking by Democrats that they must pull the lever for the candidate with the letter [D] next to their name without examining positions on important issues.)

It's no secret that the Democratic Party is moving further right year by year. If Democrats don't start standing up for the party principles this party might be all but lost. If I were an Obama supporter I wouldn't publicly state my full committal. Instead I would make sure pressure is put on Obama for my support and then Obama would think twice about alienating principles without reprucussions.

Think about it...

Quit Whining About the ABC Debate You Hypocrites!

2008-04-20T07:38:00.001-04:00

For the past couple days I've read stories about boycotting ABC, and every insult possible against George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, but for the life of me I can't understand why the outrage now. You won't find me defending the debate because I thought it was bad also, but to me what made this debate terrible had to do with the timing of the debate and the questions asked. Given the fact that we are down to two candidates and we've heard all the basic positions at least 19 times before I was expecting to hear questions that went into those positions in much greater detail. That of course did not happen...

The hypocrisy about this whole whine fest about the ABC debate is astounding considering what had gone in the previous 19 or so debates. The way everyone is treating this ABC debate is as if the other debates were "good". Now all of a sudden we are the debate police after all the bullshit that happened before this ABC debate? Where was the outrage when Senator Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich were being excluded from debates? Where was the outrage when Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards were given more time and questions in the debates than any other candidate? I don't recall any outrage against Wolf Blitzer, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, or Anderson Cooper(forgive me I may have missed someone). Honestly, please tell me because I might have missed it...

What makes this situation more hypocritical is the fact that Obama supporters are whining that the questions were slanted against Obama. Sorry "Yes We Can"ers, but Obama can't be given a pillow in every debate. I don't recall any outrage from Obama supporters about the questions in that MSNBC debate hosted by Tim Russert not to long ago where it was visibly apparent the questions were slanted against Hillary.

I appreciate the fact that the quality of debates has reached a forefront, but it's a little late and for the wrong reasons. For the record I thought the Tavis Smiley debate on PBS was the best Democratic debate, and every other debate failed for various reasons.

Another Debate; Another Waste of Our Time

2008-04-17T02:34:00.002-04:00

I'm just about a couple hours or so removed from just watching one of the most uninformative, and boring debates of this election cycle on ABC. There's really not a whole lot to add to that. The first hour of the debate featured mostly tabloidesqe type questions, and while answering Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama looked like they accidentally drank a bottle of NyQuil. This disaster was created by moderators George Stephanopoulous and Charles Gibson, and believe me they will hear that from everyone.

I didn't like almost all of the recent debates because quite frankly none of them brought any new ideas to the table. I find that these debates are more meant for the American that has been living in a shell and not paying attention. These Hillary vs Obama debates are tough to watch because they are hardly debates at all. Both of them generally have the same policies, and the reason we are at this deadlock in my opinion is because some want the first woman president now and others want the first black president now.

If you entered this ABC debate undecided there was nothing in this debate that would have swayed you one way or another. Thank you ABC for wasting our time.

(My apologies if you were expecting a more in-depth critique)

Congestion Pricing Rejected; Brains Do Exist in Albany After All

2008-04-07T21:26:00.000-04:00

As a New Yorker and someone that lives in Brooklyn a big victory was won today. Today the New York State Assembly rejected a "congestion pricing" proposal by Mayor Bloomberg(recently passed by the NY City Council)that would have charged cars and commercial vehicles 8 dollars and trucks 21 dollars to enter certain zones within Manhattan during peak hours from 6am - 6pm. The plan was seen as an environmental plan to reduce pollution. The money collected from congestion pricing would theoretically have been used to pay for upgrades and more service within the MTA.

The NY Daily News reports the major contributing as factor to why the congestion pricing plan was killed:

Its fate was sealed after Bloomberg refused to negotiate major changes in his plan to charge cars $8 to enter Manhattan below 60th St. on weekdays to raise money for mass transit, ease traffic and improve air quality.

I guess Mayor Bloomberg isn't such a great negotiator after all.

Citing the fact that Mayor Bloomberg wined and dined many Councilman in Gracie Mansion to get his plan to pass the City Council, Assemblyman Richard Brodsky of Westchester said:

"And it should be no surprise that the combination of strong-arm tactics and Jedi mind tricks that he used didn't work up here."

Given the fact that this proposal received little attention nationally or locally I was very scared that this proposal might get passed. This proposal was a direct attack on the middle class, and on New Yorkers from Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, Staten Island, and people commuting from New Jersey. Just imagine how many businesses would have been effected by this. It may work in other places in the world like London, Singapore, and Stockholm, but with the U.S. economy in shambles and the price of gas high this plan should have never been proposed in the first place. I'm shocked it actually got this far. On another front, this was also a victory for civil liberties because cameras would have been placed around the city to take pictures of license plates. Who knows what else those cameras would have taken pictures of, and where that data would have been transmitted too.

Brains do exist in Albany after all.

Air America Radio Wrongfully Suspends Randi Rhodes

2008-04-03T21:56:00.002-04:00

Last night I read a blog post on DailyKos pointing out that Air America radio host Randio Rhodes had called Geraldine Ferraro a "whore"and Hillary Clinton a "big fucking whore". I hadn't seen this anywhere except that one blog post on DailyKos. In that blog post was a link to a video of the Randi Rhodes "rant" which today got her suspended. See where I'm going with this? This Randi Rhodes case seems to have some parallels to the Don Imus scandal almost a year ago. The Don Imus scandal brewed from a website(I wish I knew which site it was) that was the first place to raise an issue about Don Imus' remarks. Had that website not raised the issue it's extremely likely that the Don Imus remarks would have went unnoticed. (Seriously, who listens to Don Imus anyway?)

Even though Don Imus and Randi Rhodes said obscene things the difference between the two is that Don Imus used his air waves to say the things he said and Randi Rhodes didn't! Many people are overlooking this fact. Which brings me back to the "brewing from a website" argument. Randi Rhodes was suspended for her remarks from a stand-up comedy routine! The only reason this story has gained any traction is because of a video of the stand-up comedy routine posted on YouTube(posted below). Had this video not been put up
would we be talking about this story today? I'm willing to bet the house on "No!".

If we really want to get technical we need to look at this from a stand-up comedy routine perspective. If you look at it from that lens then there's no problem with it. The remarks were below the belt, but it's nothing we haven't heard from a comedian before. Are people bound to feel uncomfortable about these remarks? Of course, but since she wasn't on-air this was not worthy of a suspension.

2007 YouTube Victim of the Year: Don Imus
2008 YouTube Victim of the Year: Randi Rhodes (so far at least)

The Democratic Party Dumps Mike Gravel

2008-03-26T22:33:00.000-04:00

Today Democratic Presidential candidate Mike Gravel announced that he plans on leaving the Democratic Party for the Libertarian Party. He released the following statement to supporters:

I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.

The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views.

I don't blame Mike Gravel for this move. Any Democrat should be furious with the way the Democratic Party is acting. By moving away from core Democratic values the Democratic Party is the one dumping Mike Gravel and not the other way around. Not to mention that during this election he was marginalized and treated like crap by the Democratic Leadership. Mike Gravel should be saluted for this brave action.

If only more Democrats were willing to take fellow Democrats to task we wouldn't be in this situation. The fact remains that most Democratic voters don't have the courage to vote for a third party when it calls them too. When Democrats vote based on party loyalty this enables the Democratic leaders to move further and further away from Democratic values without being held accountable in elections.

Bill Richardson Endorses Obama; Avoids "Kingmaker" Status

2008-03-21T21:00:00.002-04:00

Yes!! Finally Bill Richardson up his mind. He has decided to endorse Barack Obama. Since he had ended his campaign Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had many conversations with Bill Richardson in order to try to secure his endorsement. I am one of those people that thinks his endorsement is significant, but since he did it this late in the game I think the value of his endorsement has diminished. It's better late than never though.

I believe the reason why Bill Richardson did it at this time was to avoid being called a "Kingmaker". We all know he served in the Clinton administration and has a very solid relationship with them. What better to make a good friendship go sour than to deal the crushing blow of Hillary Clinton's dreams by sending her back to Chappaqua, NY as a U.S. Senator and not the 2008 Democratic nominee. As great as this endorsement is to Obama I believe this endorsement was very calculated on Bill Richardson's part. He could have very well endorsed Barack Obama the Sunday before the Texas and Ohio primary when he appeared on CBS "Face the Nation", but he chose not to. In his endorsement speech today Bill Richardson referred to "The Speech" by Barack Obama as what put him over the edge. I don't buy it. I believe he was for Obama all along, but didn't want to damage his friendship with the Clintons. Had Richardson endorsed Barack Obama before the Texas and Ohio primary it's very possible that Texas could have been tipped in favor of Obama. I generally don't believe political endorsements mean a great deal, but Richardson is a big deal in the Hispanic community.

Had the Richardson endorsement happened directly followed by a close win in the Texas primary he would have been viewed as a "Kingmaker". Remember Bill Clinton and pundits around the country said Hillary had to win Texas AND Ohio to stay in contention. I think she still would have hung around to see what happened with Michigan and Florida, but the topic of discussion would have changed dramatically. Instead of the discussion being "Hillary Clinton wins 3/4 states and has the momentum now" it could have been "Hillary Clinton is now being pressured to drop out of the race", "Super delegates are now all pledging to support Obama", or even the remote possibility of "Hillary Clinton has conceded".

Bill Richardson accomplished two things by endorsing Barack Obama now. He endorsed Barack Obama while keeping his friendship with the Clintons intact(although they are probably still unhappy), and it shows me that he's leaving open the possibility of being a VP to either of them.

Why Hillary Clinton Shouldn't Concede

2008-03-20T18:46:00.001-04:00

...because she still can win. Seriously, why on earth would a candidate who still has a chance to capture the nomination via super delegates concede the Presidential race this late in the game? It's a little weird because there's a movement brewing online to try to convince Hillary Clinton to concede, but I know and everyone else should know that it's in Hillary Clinton's best interest to keep going. I think by now you and I should know that Hillary Clinton wants this nomination real bad, is willing to do anything to get it, and will keep going until she's officially eliminated.

Most Barack Obama supporters will contend that she is already eliminated because there's no way she can catch up to Obama in pledged delegates. But what Obama supporters will conveniently omit is that even he can't win the nomination with pledged delegates so that will leave the nomination in the hands of super delegates. I've read many comments from Obama supporters that it would be a travesty if the super delegates decided to nominate Hillary Clinton over the "will of the people". (Super delegates aren't obligated to vote with the popular vote). What if Hillary Clinton is the "will of the people"? What Obama supporters also conveniently omit is that it's still possible for Clinton to catch Obama in the popular vote. This is why Florida and Michigan are very important to the Clinton campaign, and would explain why the Obama campaign is hesitant to openly speak out about the possibility of new primaries in either of the states.

Either way, Barack Obama has not wrapped up the nomination yet. His failure to give Hillary Clinton the crushing blow in Ohio or Texas only gives Clinton more of a reason to continue and not to throw in the towel.

"The Speech" That Will Sink Obama

2008-03-19T16:50:00.001-04:00

Yesterday Barack Obama delivered what most people are calling "The Speech" because it was considered to be the most important speech during his campaign which addressed race relations in the United States. After watching "The Speech" I agreed that not only was this speech the most important speech of his campaign, but it will be the turning point of the campaign.

I do not believe that this speech accomplished what it was supposed to accomplish by addressing the issue of race relations in the United States. Instead I found this speech was more of a "In Defense Rev. Jeremiah Wright" as a person while distancing himself from his actual quotes. Even though Rev. Wright is no longer part of the Obama campaign, at no point did Obama actually disown Rev. Wright (although at one point he did utter the words "former pastor". Anyone else catch that?). It featured a lot of bobbing and weaving to try to sell to voters to accept Rev. Wright as a good member of the black community, and at the same time condemn Rev. Wright's crazy quotes.

The problem with this speech is that it will be remembered by most as Barack Obama defending Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and not a speech on race relations in general. While this speech doesn't even enter the stratosphere of Martin Luther Kings "I Have A Dream" speech, it might possibly enter Barack Obama into the "Al Sharpton Stratosphere" (by some, but not by me) for defending Rev. Wright. The appeal that Barack Obama wasn't a "crazy white blaming African-American" may now have been lost.

I don't expect this speech to affect Barack Obama in the Democratic primary that much, but I'm sure it will still hurt him a little. The major damage will come if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination. What was Barack Obama's greatest strength in attracting Republicans and Independents may have been lost also. That was considered to be a major contributing factor into the appeal over Hillary Clinton. Expect a lot of those supporters to give Barack Obama a second look now because of this speech. On top of that expect the Republicans to use this speech as a catalyst for most of their attacks.

When Democrats wake up on November 5 and realize that they will have 4 more years of Bush-like policies with John McCain they will all look back at this speech as Barack Obama's "John Kerry moment" which will have ultimately caused his candidacy to go belly up.

"The Speech"

SpitzerGate: A Democratic Double Standard

2008-03-17T17:15:00.001-04:00

Now that we've heard all the raunchy details from the Eliot Spitzer scandal from every media outlet in America it's time to take a step back and look at the reaction from fellow Democrats. Some things seem to never change among the Democratic party elite. Democrats hate Republicans, and every scandal that involves a Democrat it's always a Republican conspiracy against that Democrat. When this Spitzer scandal first broke I read various Democratic blogs, and most of the comments I read from Democrats seemed to dismiss what Spitzer did as no big deal.

Many of them immediately jumped to the conclusion that what Spitzer did was the product of a Republicans targeting him. In fact, Spitzer was caught because of suspicious bank withdrawals. Democrats defended Spitzer saying the government shouldn't interfere in his personal life, and because it was his business. It's funny that they take this approach because I didn't hear any of this during the Sen. Larry Craig foot tapping scandal, or the Sen. David Vitter mistress scandal. Would you call this a Democratic double standard? I certainly would. I even read Democrats saying Spitzer shouldn't resign because Larry Craig and David Vitter "didn't have to resign". I guess they never got the memo that resigning is a personal choice, and not imposed. Technically if Spitzer had decided not to resign would it be considered eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth? According to that logic two wrongs would then make a right.

When reading various opinions on the Spitzer scandal I was stunned that Democrats thought he should stay on the job as Governor after breaking laws that he prosecuted as New York State Attorney General. Would it be in the best interest of New York State to have a Governor who will most likely get indicted on violating the Mann Act, and bank structuring? Am I the only sane Democrat that thinks this would have had a negative impact on his job performance with this hanging over his head? Would it be in the best interest of the New York State Democratic Party to have a scandal ridden Governor in office while being 1 State Senator away from taking the majority in the New York State Senate? These are the questions that most Spitzer defenders have not fully thought out.

The Democratic double standard is something that I believe has plagued the party for a while, and it doesn't look like it's changing anytime soon.

The Democratic Party is Screwed in November

2008-03-06T04:48:00.012-04:00

Up until this point I thought if Barack Obama was the Democratic nominee he would beat John McCain in a landslide in November, and if Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee(which I think will happen) McCain wins in a landslide. Now with Hillary back in the race because of winning Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island her supporters are no longer demoralized. I expect Hillary to make a huge push to the Democratic nomination with the power of her many now fully fueled "Hillbots". As many have stated the longer this epic battle goes on the easier the battle will be for John McCain in November. I now think it's reached the point where the Democrats are officially screwed for November even if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Here are the reasons why I think this:

The Democratic primary process will have gone on long enough to give McCain the advantage in campaigning. Not to mention the fact that the Republican party is united now, and the Democratic party isn't.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have given McCain the "cheat sheet" to run against them. What do I mean? If Obama is the nominee McCain can say, "Look, even half of your own party agrees Obama is inexperienced, or not tough on national security." If Hillary is the nominee McCain can say, "Look, even half of your own party has agreed you have bad judgment".
If Obama can't counter a national security ad by Hillary then how can we expect him to defend against what the Republicans could potentially throw at him in November?
Hillary will lose because she's Hillary Clinton and not Hillary Rodham.
Hillary is now saying on the campaign trail that she and McCain are "experienced", but Obama isn't. (Another McCain talking point. Add that to #2?)

I'm sure there are other reasons, but these are the primary reasons I can think of.

So when the Democrats fall in November who will be blamed for the choke job? Nader? Obama? Hillary? the DNC? Congress? Let's remember that the reason for the Democratic Leadership not putting up certain pieces legislation(impeachment for example) was to make sure the Democrats won in 2008. I will not forget that, and if what I think will happen turns out to happen it will be a November to misremember.

The Democratic Party will have failed us, and it will be time to clean house starting with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

The "Test" for Barack Obama on March 4th

2008-03-01T03:46:00.000-04:00

On March 4th there may be a special test for Barack Obama that will not come in the form of a paper test, but it will come in the form of election integrity. While I'm the first one to say that African-Americans shouldn't vote for Obama just because of his race it will be no surprise that many African-American Ohioans will cast their votes for Obama this Tuesday. As much as we may want to forget what happened in Ohio in 2004 the sad reality is that it's bound to happen again. Ohio still has electronic voting machines, and they are still proven to be hackable.

So what is this "test" I speak of?

Democrats should realize by now that Hillary Clinton is willing to use any means possible to win the Presidency, and Ohio will be right in the thick of things again. Many people have stated that Hillary Clinton needs to win Texas and Ohio this Tuesday to continue her quest for the nomination(I don't), and on Tuesday don't be shocked if we read reports of shenanigans at Ohio polling places. If there is indeed cold evidence that voters were disenfranchised then Barack Obama HAS to challenge the results. He has to fight it out because most likely it will be in precincts with strong African-American support.

This time around Barack Obama can't count on Congressman Dennis Kucinich to challenge the results like Kucinich did in the New Hampshire primary which exposed voting disparities. On Tuesday Barack Obama will have to step up to the plate in the name of democracy. If he fails to do so you can bet that there will be new question marks about whether Barack Obama's relationship with the African-American community is really authentic. Let's hope this does not happen.

Democrats Continue to Choose Nader over Election Integrity

2008-02-28T01:42:00.000-04:00

Oh no, that evil consumer advocate Ralph Nader just entered the Presidential race! You know who he is....the only politician in America that's running because of his or her ego because we all know Obama, McCain, and even Hillary Clinton don't have an ego...

Time for a snap back into reality Democrats.

First let's debunk the myth that Democrats have been perpetuating since 2000 that Nader "spoiled" the 2000 election for Al Gore and "handed" it to George W. Bush. It's simple and it goes like this...Every American citizen has the right to run for President, and no candidate is ever entitled to your vote. So the question remains... Why did 97,000 voters in Florida decide to vote for Nader? We don't know, but I can probably bank on the fact that they agreed with Nader more than Gore or Bush. So now that we've established that fact we can also establish that the Democrats were advocating for voters to vote AGAINST their principles. Some Democrats even blame Nader for every bad thing that Bush has caused for example the Iraq War, or the poor response to Hurricane Katrina(even though that happened in 2005). The Democrats seem to blame Nader for everything since 2000, but by using the "Nader spoiler logic" from 2000 Nader was actually a non-factor in 2004 when Bush squeaked out a victory over Kerry.

The reality is that the Democratic Party is blaming Nader to take attention off of their own shortcomings like a bad Gore campaign, and failure to get rid of Bush in 2004. Common sense would say that since Gore lost because of the electoral college, and that the election had major voter fraud issues you would have thought the Democrats would have spent the last 7-8 years trying to fix our electoral system, but instead they have done nothing. In fact, because the Democrats have failed to address this issue it's gotten worse. So after 2000 the Democrats did nothing, and after the Ohio debacle in 2004 what did the Democrats do? Nothing. John Kerry didn't even bother spending any of the millions of dollars in unspent campaign money to investigate the election in Ohio. If that wasn't enough to make you puke in the name of democracy...What have the Democrats done for election integrity since they became the majority in the House and Senate? Nothing. Since the Democrats didn't challenge Ohio in 2004 because of voting "irregularities" more states have adopted electronic voting machines which have been proven to be hackable putting our democracy at very serious risk.

Had the Democrats actually taken action then I have no doubts we would have a better safeguarded electoral system today. Election integrity should be a non-partisan issue, and while the Democratic Party continues to stay mum on this issue our democracy is being hacked away day by day.

Oscar Predictions 2008

2008-02-23T04:44:00.006-04:00

A small break from politics...

I've been doing Oscar picks with friends and family since I was little(I usually don't do that bad), and this year is no different. Here are my picks, and feel free to put your picks in the comments.

CORRECT WRONG

Best Picture: "No Country for Old Men" (Miramax and Paramount Vantage) A Scott Rudin/Mike Zoss Production: Scott Rudin, Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, Producers

Best Actor in a Leading Role: Daniel Day-Lewis in "There Will Be Blood" (Paramount Vantage and Miramax)

Best Actress in a Leading Role: Julie Christie in "Away from Her" (Lionsgate)

Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Amy Ryan in "Gone Baby Gone" (Miramax)

Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men" (Miramax and Paramount Vantage)

Best Director: "No Country for Old Men" (Miramax and Paramount Vantage), Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

Best Original Screenplay: "Juno" (A Mandate Pictures/Mr. Mudd Production), Written by Diablo Cody

Best Adapted Screenplay: "No Country for Old Men" (Miramax and Paramount Vantage), Written for the screen by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen

Best Animated Feature Film: "Ratatouille" (Walt Disney): Brad Bird

Best Documentary Feature Film: "No End in Sight" (Magnolia Pictures) A Representational Pictures Production: Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs

Best Original Song: "Falling Slowly" from "Once" (Fox Searchlight) Music and Lyric by Glen Hansard and: Marketa Irglova

Best Film Editing: "No Country for Old Men" (Miramax and Paramount Vantage) Roderick Jaynes

Best Cinematography: "There Will Be Blood" (Paramount Vantage and Miramax): Robert Elswit

Best Art Direction: "There Will Be Blood" (Paramount Vantage and Miramax): Art Direction: Jack Fisk; Set Decoration: Jim Erickson

Best Costume Design: "Atonement" (Focus Features) Jacqueline Durran

Best Original Score: "Atonement" (Focus Features) Dario Marianelli

Best Animated Short Film: "Peter & the Wolf" (BreakThru Films) A BreakThru Films/Se-ma-for Studios Production Suzie Templeton and Hugh Welchman

Best Sound Editing: "Transformers" (DreamWorks and Paramount in association with Hasbro): Ethan Van der Ryn and Mike Hopkins

Best Sound Mixing: "Ratatouille" (Walt Disney): Randy Thom, Michael Semanick and Doc Kane

Best Visual Effects: "Transformers" (DreamWorks and Paramount in association with Hasbro): Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Russell Earl and John Frazier

Best Live Action Short Film: "Le Mozart des Pickpockets (The Mozart of Pickpockets)" (Premium Films) A Karé Production: Philippe Pollet-Villard

Best Makeup: "La Vie en Rose" (Picturehouse) Didier Lavergne and Jan Archibald

Best Foreign Language Film: "The Counterfeiters" Austria

Best Documentary Short Subject Film: "Sari's Mother" (Cinema Guild) A Daylight Factory Production: James Longley

I haven't seen everything, and the picks above are what I think will win. That being said, I have to say that "No Country For Old Men" is the best movie I've seen in a very long time. On a different note I have to say that "Michael Clayton" has no business being nominated for "Best Picture".

UPDATED: So I went 14/24. Who would of thought Transformers would lose "Best Visual Effects"...

Election Fatigue Anyone?

2008-02-20T00:55:00.001-04:00

Maybe it's just me, but lately I've been having a rare case of "election fatigue". As someone who enjoys following politics a lot I'm finding everything to be somewhat boring because the primary process is basically down to two questions:

Will the Democratic nominee be Obama or Hillary?
How much longer until Mike Huckabee drops out?

Without over dramatizing these two questions like the media loves to do I will give my predictions because for some reason I love predicting things.

Hillary will be the Democratic nominee: While the media is all caught up into Obama's latest winning streak, we must not lose sight that this is a delegate battle. It WILL come down to super delegates. While the Obama supporters say super delegates should go with the "will of the people" super delegates are allowed to vote anyway they want. We should also not lose sight that a mass majority of the super delegates are already part of the Democratic establishment. To me that will be a major factor into why Hillary will pull it off in the end. Remember Obama's whole campaign is on this "new kind of politics" thing? (which is a load of bullshit, but that's a discussion for another day). That should not sit well with a majority of the super delegates considering they are already part of the kind of politics Obama is supposedly fighting against. Could the super delegates change their mind to the will of the people if Obama sweeps the rest of the states? It's possible, but they aren't obligated to do anything. I believe if Hillary is able to win Ohio or Texas(doesn't have to be both) it will give her enough momentum to keep super delegate support and secure the nomination. (Please note: I'm not a Hillary supporter meaning this is NOT wishful thinking, but I think this will happen)

Mike Huckabee will wait until the Republican Convention to drop out: He's financially stable, and he won't stop preaching until he's forced to stop.

There you have it! DRESOPINION!*

What do you think?

*(If it adds anymore credibility to my predictions I predicted the Giants were going to win the Superbowl a few days before the Giants-Packers game. And I have a Vegas receipt to prove it!)

The Las Vegas Experience; MSNBC - Enemy of Democracy

2008-01-30T15:50:00.000-04:00

After I spent almost a month in New Hampshire I went to Las Vegas, Nevada to work on the Kucinich campaign. As most of you may know Nevada has a caucus system, and not a primary. Because Nevada had a caucus my tactics in trying to get support for Kucinich were different than New Hampshire.

I had never been to Las Vega before until now, and before I continue let me say that Las Vegas may be one of the worst places to campaign in the country because it's very hard to distinguish tourists from residents. Because of this obstacle I spent most of my time on the phones speaking to potential caucus goers instead of staying on the streets. Around the time I arrived in Las Vegas the campaign got notice that Dennis Kucinich was going to be excluded from the NBC debate after he was originally invited and sent an invitation. The Kucinich campaign ended up taking NBC to court and winning a court injunction to allow him in the day before the debate. NBC decided to appeal the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. Before the decision was made many Kucinich supporters like myself protested outside of the Cashman Center(where the debate was to take place, see picture) to show our support for Dennis Kucinich. Every campaign was forced into pig pen areas called "Free Speech Zones". Since when did our freedom of speech become restricted to zones? While every other campaign seemed not to care that their freedom of speech was being trampled on, our Kucinich contingent made it immediately known that this was a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. We chanted "MSNBC - ENEMY OF DEMOCRACY" for their attempt to silence Dennis Kucinich.

About 1 hour before the debate was to start Dennis Kuicnich came out to address his supporters telling us that he was ready to enter the debate if a decision wasn't made in time, or if a decision was made in our favor. About 30 minutes before the debate was to start the Nevada Supreme Court decided in favor of NBC to exclude Dennis Kucinich from the debate, and at the same time causing devastation among many Kucinich supporters. Kucinich came out to address his supporters again after the decision to explain how undemocratic NBC was, and the connection between General Electric and NBC(see picture). This was a major blow to our campaign because it prevented our message from getting out, but it may also have been a blessing in disguise. This Nevada Supreme Court decision gave the Kucinich campaign the most media coverage of the entire campaign.

As I mentioned in the beginning, because of the caucus system the campaign had to change the tactics in getting the message out to voters. We had to rely on phone banking and visibility(signs and sign waving). For the rest of the week until the caucus I spoke to at least 500-1,000 caucus goers in the Nevada. A large percentage of the people I talked to were aware that Dennis Kucinich was excluded from the NBC debate. The one issue that turned on a lot of voters about Kucinich was his single-payer not-for-profit health care position. A LOT of the people I talked to on the phone were unaware of what this was, and after explaining to them everything they were immediately interested. A lot of other people were also part of the "I like Kucinich, but..." crowd. I managed to get a lot of people to at least strongly consider supporting Kucinich in the 1st alignment, and if he did not make it out of the 1st alignment then they could choose someone else in the 2nd alignment.

At the end of the Nevada caucus Hillary Clinton emerged as the winner, but not without a few observations of the caucus system itself...More on that in my next blog.

Dre

Back from New Hampshire (and Nevada)

2008-01-26T21:56:00.000-04:00

Back from another long break of blogging. Please forgive me. I was actually in New Hampshire and Nevada campaigning for Dennis Kucinich. It was a great experience for me because I had never worked on a Presidential campaign before, and I had never been to New Hampshire or Nevada before.

New Hampshire was absolutely insane because it was the first primary in the country. I talked to a lot of people on the streets and they were very nice. Even people from other campaigns like Ron Paul, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, and John Edwards were very fun to talk to on the streets even though we had our political disagreements. (I avoided Hillary supporters at all costs....) I was based in Concord, New Hampshire, and did a lot of canvassing there. I would say of everyone I talked to about 85% of them agreed with Dennis Kucinich on the issues, but every one of those people refused to vote for him based on "electability". I don't understand why someone would not want to vote for someone they agree with. I always tried to explain to people that Kucinich can't win if you don't vote for him, but most of them don't budge.

During the time in New Hampshire I met Dennis Kucinich, and I have to say he is a VERY VERY nice person. Before coming to New Hampshire I had never heard him speak before, but the first time I heard him speak in person it was very inspirational. It's hard to explain through text without experiencing it yourself, but when you hear him speak in person you can immediately feel as though he cares about you, and that he's not like the rest of politicians in Washington. After one of his speeches he actually brought a Ron Paul supporter to tears.

Oscar nominated actor Viggo Mortensen came to New Hampshire to help out Dennis Kucinich once he learned that Kucinich was excluded from the ABC debate at St. Anselm's College. Viggo was very nice to everyone, and the day before the election he managed to convert an Edwards supporter to a Kucinich supporter. The Edwards supporter traded his button for Viggo Mortensen's Kucinich button. (see picture!)

Even though Dennis Kucinich was excluded from the ABC Presidential debate at St. Anselm's college, and many people I spoke to while canvassing refused to vote for Dennis Kucinich it never brought me down. The New Hampshire experience was fun, but frustrating at the same time. It tested my limits as to how far I was willing to go for Dennis Kucinich based on terrain, and weather conditions. Every time I saw that I had to walk up a hill to get to just one house while canvassing I kept telling myself, "This is for Dennis Kucinich". Every time a door slammed in my face it never kept me from going on to the next house.

I'm proud to have worked on the Kucinich campaign in New Hampshire, and I would do it again for him in 2012 if asked. I'll talk about my Nevada experience in another blog later.

If you have any questions about my New Hampshire experience feel free to ask. Leave a comment and I will gladly answer!

Dre

Republican CNN YouTube Debate Review

2007-11-30T00:56:00.000-04:00

As a Democrat and someone who is interested in politics I watched this Republican CNN YouTube debate with little emotion invested, but I wanted to see if CNN made improvements to this debate since the Democratic debate. The show--I mean debate started off with introductions of all the candidates. After the introductions Anderson Cooper took the helm and told the audience that 2,000 more YouTube videos were submitted for this debate than the Democratic one. Not a surprise to me. Given the fact that the Democratic YouTube debate was the first one of its kind I think Americans might have felt a little unsure about what it would be like, but after seeing how easy it is to upload a YouTube video I think that might have been a factor into why there was an increase. Ron Paul supporters could have made up that difference also. After laying out that stat Anderson Cooper played a video montage of videos that would not be played like from snowmen, aliens, talking dogs, and anything else that would make Mitt Romney's hair stand up in fear. Let's not forget that many of the candidates refused to participate in the debate for this very reason causing it to be canceled and re-scheduled to 11/28. To me this ruined the entire concept of the debate itself that users submit questions that come from left field. After Anderson Cooper said that these videos would not be seen the audience cheered as if this was a great thing. And then Republicans wonder why they are seen as a party that doesn't support artistic freedom.

(No debate play-by-play...sorry)

After this "debate" finished it felt like democracy just got kicked in the nuts. The format was nothing different, or better than the Democratic debate. In fact I thought this debate was even worse. Very few "curveball" type questions were picked, and most of the questions sounded like they would just be asked in a "regular debate". Time wasn't equally distributed so this debate was no different than others.

The YouTube concept was good, but failed miserably. With CNN picking the questions it defeated the whole purpose of a debate that was supposed to be owned by the people. CNN defended this decision by saying that they didn't want candidates to know what questions were coming so the most popular questions were shelved for stale ones. You would think in the times we live in today CNN/YouTube would be able to put together a system to make sure the popular questions are asked while shielding them from the candidates. We can't ignore the fact that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani played a prominent role in fixing this debate to their liking, but we can't give CNN a pass for being a spineless media network.

I could go on and on about the flaws of this debate, but most of them are already evident. The Democratic YouTube debate was a flop, but the Republican YouTube debate was floppier.

Dre

DailyKos Disrespects Dennis Kucinich

2007-11-26T19:34:00.000-04:00

You read the headline correctly. Last night I was on DailyKos and I noticed a diary slamming Kucinich titled "Dennis Kucinich: Great Ideas, but still a damn bozo". Usually I only visit DailyKos to read the diaries and recommend the good ones, but this was one I had to comment on because it was just plain disrespectful and many of the comments were also. For a while I have had problems with DailyKos, but never felt the need to vent my frustration up until last night. Rather then retyping everything I'm just going to quote what I said. You can find my comments near the bottom of the page under the name "TrueProgressive".

Me:

Kossacks; Democrats taking Kucinich for Granted

I've lost respect for the Kos community because I always thought this site was to fight for progressive Democrats. Markos himself said that the reason why he made this site was to be an alternative to mainstream media. To an extent it is, and to an extent it isn't. What does Kos and the MSM have in common? Obama, Edwards, and Hillary all the time. It's sad.

I don't believe Kucinich will ever change his positions, but I bet we can find some hypocrites in here who support Obama. Isn't Obama the same guy who's running on an image of working together and finding a common ground with Republicans? But if Kucinich tries to do that it's a bad thing. Makes no sense. Keep in mind Dennis never said he would change any of his positions.

Now I have to read about Democrats wanting to kick him out of the party. The fact is Democrats are taking Dennis Kucinich for granted. So Dennis Kucinich gets no credit for being against the Iraq War from the beginning? So Dennis Kucinich gets no credit for supporting a single-payer health care system? So Dennis Kucinich gets no credit for standing up with a backbone and supporting impeachment when the people want it?

My question to all of you Kucinich haters is...If Dennis Kucinich leaves Congress which Democrat will replace him as a Democrat who stands up for the people? He's done more good than bad in his time in Congress. He's taken unpopular positions that were right, and I feel he's irreplaceable at this point.
If we ever lose him from Congress I bet that over time we will regret it. Stop and think about that.

A response:

whether he stays in Congress

is up to the people of his congressional district. But I don't want him to be president.

Anyone can espouse progressive ideas. But it takes much more courage and political skill than Kucinich possesses to actually get those ideas enacted into law.

I don't see that Kucinich risks anything by his outspokenness. He has a fairly safe congressional seat, which he can return to when he loses the primary. He can promise the moon, knowing he'll never be called on to keep his promises.

This is a political blog. Expect people to have diverse and passionate opinions, and expect them to say things in the heat of anger. Not everyone thinks your favorite candidate is the best, and they may have perfectly valid reasons for supporting someone you think is less liberal.

Your screenname indicates you think that you're a true progressive--and that, by implication, others are only pretending to be progressive. That mindset is one reason I don't look favorably on Kucinich.

Me (response to the above):

It's about Respect; Kos doesn't respect Kucinich
I don't think Kucinich will lose in his primary, but that was more directed to those who want to kick him out of the Democratic party.

It's not about Kucinich taking "risks" with being outspoken. It's about him taking the right position at the right time. Kucinich can't force politicians to vote with him. He's had his single-payer health care bill, and his bill to withdraw from Iraq for YEARS. Don't blame Dennis for others not wanting to sign onto that, or for Nancy Pelosi not wanting to bring it up for a vote. Which Democrat running right now took the right position on the Iraq War from the start with votes to prove it? Dennis Kucinich. At what point do we start to respect at a candidate who has a clean record on many Democratic issues and stop supporting candidates with smears on their record? I'd like to know. It's about respect.

Listen, I never said I had a problem with diverse political opinions. Maybe I have terrible luck, but before he introduced the impeachment resolution I don't recall seeing ANYTHING on Kucinich. Maybe once in a blue moon. I thought this was a website that supported Democratic candidates. I'll be fair. I haven't seen much on Biden either. I have problems with someone like Markos who goes on shows and talks about Kucinich like he's crazy which isn't much of a difference from the mainstream media. It starts from the top down.

About being progressive...I don't think every other candidate is pretending to be progressive. I just think some are more pure than others. Just from this comment it shows me you are just trying to dig for reasons not to support Kucinich. If you don't agree with his positions that's a reason not to support him. I can respect that. But if you agree with his entire platform like many Obama supporters do and not support Kucinich then that is mind boggling.

I've got some problems with Kucinich also, but none those have to do with his positions or ability to stand up for the people. It's more along the lines of him being "too nice" and not criticizing the other candidates(by name) enough, and not running a more effective campaign.

That diary was supposed to be about criticizing Kucinich for talking up Ron Paul (which I don't necessarily have a problem with, but ill talk about this later), but it ended up as a diary full of insults towards Kucinich. You will see above that I'm criticized for not liking diverse opinions, but my criticism is exactly that! Not enough diverse opinions! So my question is....Am I overreacting? Do others feel the same way I do about DailyKos becoming too mainstream? Anyone else fed up with with Hillary, Obama, and Edwards all the time on DailyKos?

Thanks for reading,

Dre

[UPDATED 11/27 6:12pm]

new response to me:

you have a fundamental misunderstanding

of politics. It's very easy to espouse progressive ideas. It is extremely difficult to enact one's ideas into law in any form that one finds acceptable. Politics, despite the public's impression of it, is hard fucking work if you're serious about it. It takes time, effort, and the ability to compromise and eat a lot of shit.

Any congressman can introduce a resolution for impeachment. Anyone. It takes zero courage or effort to do that. But it takes much more work to figure out sensible, realistic policies, communicate one's ideas effectively to the public, and to build political support for one's proposals. Kucinich is either unwilling or unable to do any of those things.

Like it or not, Pelosi's the Speaker of the House. Kucinich should respect that fact. But he didn't meet with her to try to persuade her this was the right thing to do, he didn't build a coalition in support of his resolution, he didn't check to see whether there was sufficient support for impeachment in the Senate. He just sent a big fuck you to Pelosi by putting out a resolution that has zero chance of accomplishing its stated purpose. It's simply irresponsible to introduce a bill that has no chance of passing and waste everyone's time.

Your word choice--"pure"--is once again telling. This isn't a contest to see who can say the "purest" and most progressive things. We elect those who have the best chance of getting a reasonable number of our proposals enacted. Our system of government was set up to make radical change very difficult. No one, not even our most visionary and politically skilled presidents like Lincoln and FDR, got all the changes they wanted. Kucinich, who isn't nearly as talented as those men were, has very little chance of making any real change.

I agree with many of Kucinich's positions. But he is neither a persuasive spokesman for his ideas, nor is he capable of getting them enacted into law, and so I cannot support his campaign for the presidency. That he is strident and abrasive towards anyone who disagrees with him is further reason why I don't want him as president.

Back in Business

2007-11-26T00:41:00.001-04:00

My apologies for not having written anything on this blog for a while, but I've been busy with other things.

I Support Dennis Kucinich

You will notice on the side a logo for the Dennis Kucinich campaign for President. From this point up until the 2008 Election I'm going to be writing some blogs about Dennis. That's not to say that I won't talk about other subjects, but don't be alarmed if you see a bunch of blog posts about Kucinich in the near future. I apologize to any readers that have accepted my style of being straight down the middle on everything, but because the media is against Dennis Kucinich I have to take matters into my own hands and try to make change.

Dre

Michael Vick Will Play in the NFL Again

2007-08-22T02:54:00.000-04:00

With the recent plea deal by Michael Vick in his dog fighting case everyone is so quick to say that he should be banned for life from the NFL. I agree that its way too premature to give him forgiveness right away even before he has begun his sentence no matter the length, but while we are so quick to say ban Michael Vick for life we are forgetting a man named Adam “Pacman” Jones.

The shooting that Pacman Jones was involved in during the NBA All-Star Weekend in Las Vegas in a nightclub was way worse than what Michael Vick did. Let’s be honest folks, being involved in harming human beings is worse than harming animals. Now given the fact that Pacman Jones had an arrest record prior to the Las Vegas shooting, and that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell handed Pacman Jones a a 1-year suspension it would be inconsistent of him to ban Michael Vick from the NFL for life on the charges known already.

Penalty Inconsistency

What should annoy a lot of people is the fact that Pacman Jones is getting a 1 year suspension and not anything longer. Not to mention the fact that the Tennessee Titans still want Pacman Jones on their team even with the arrest record Jones has. Remember Ricky Williams getting caught with marijuana in his system and being banned a year? Personally I do not understand how Pacman Jones and Ricky Williams get the same penalty. It simply does not make sense. Being caught with marijuana can not be possibly worse than the Las Vegas shooting incident.

So while I understand emotions are running high in this Michael Vick case, we must not forget the standard NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has already set. Goodell has already set a precedent when he dealt Pacman Jones his 1 year suspension. Unfortunately a lot of people and organizations like PETA will have to come to the realization that if Michael Vick still has the ability to play in the NFL after his sentence then he will play in the NFL again.

CNN Riggs YouTube Debate

2007-07-29T22:24:00.002-04:00

Below is a quick visual statistical analysis of the rigged CNN/YouTube Democratic debate. The first chart was provided by the Chris Dodd campaign(Thanks!), and then I listed the number of responses each candidate got.

NUMBER OF RESPONSES

PART 1

Mike Gravel 1
Chris Dodd: 3
John Edwards: 5
Hillary Clinton: 4
Barack Obama: 6
Bill Richardson: 2
Joe Biden: 1
Dennis Kucinich: 3

PART 2

Mike Gravel: 3
Chris Dodd: 3
John Edwards: 3
Hillary Clinton: 6
Barack Obama: 4
Bill Richardson: 3
Joe Biden: 3
Dennis Kucinich: 2

PART 3

Mike Gravel: 4
Chris Dodd: 2
John Edwards: 4
Hillary Clinton: 2
Barack Obama: 4
Bill Richardson: 2
Joe Biden: 4
Dennis Kucinich: 2

PART 4

Mike Gravel: 3
Chris Dodd: 4
John Edwards: 4
Hillary Clinton: 4
Barack Obama: 6
Bill Richardson: 5
Joe Biden: 5
Dennis Kucinich: 3

TOTAL

Mike Gravel: 11
Chris Dodd: 12
John Edwards: 16
Hillary Clinton: 16
Barack Obama: 20
Bill Richardson: 12
Joe Biden: 13
Dennis Kucinich: 10

Notice the number of responses don't equal to more time. There is no proportion either, and we clearly see the debate was rigged to favor Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.

Example:

Chris Dodd 12 Responses 8:39
Mike Gravel 11 Responses 4:10

PBS, Tavis Smiley Put on Democracy Clinic; No Coverage?

2007-07-08T03:17:00.000-04:00

Even though this news is a week old I feel this is something that cannot be forgotten for a couple reasons. Last week PBS hosted a debate between the Democratic candidates for President and Tavis Smiley was the moderator. All of the questions were based on The Covenant with Black America, which is a book full of chapters about issues facing the black community. Not only did they host a debate, but what they did should not go unnoticed.

Why do I say this was a "democracy clinic"? That's because each candidate basically got the same amount of time. Unlike the MSNBC or CNN debates, this debate was fair and actually the closest thing to a real debate. Every candidate got a set amount of time, and it was actually enforced! Tavis Smiley was an absolutely brilliant moderator. I don't know a whole lot about Tavis Smiley, but how he moderated this debate was how Brian Williams or Wolf Blitzer should have moderated their debates. There were a couple times when a few of the "front runners" went over their time limit, and instead of letting them ramble on he put the hammer down. When "front runners" aren't getting special treatment and the debate is fair you will notice that results turn out to be different. That is quite evident by the "pre-forum" and "post-forum" poll results done for this debate:

The most notable statistic on that chart is Dennis Kucinich who went from 2% - 13%, and actually ends up polling higher than "front runner" Hillary Clinton!

I don't know about anyone else, but I saw little to no coverage of this debate leading into the debate and after the debate itself. If I did not have any political friends I would have never known this debate was going to take place. When the other debates were clearly skewed, and this one was actually fair I find this troubling. Thankfully PBS had the courtesy to put this debate on their website so people can watch it who missed it.

WATCH THE DEBATE HERE

CNN Endorses Clinton, Obama

2007-06-05T08:02:00.000-04:00

On Sunday night CNN hosted the second Democratic debate which included all of the Democratic candidates for President. I wanted to see a fair debate, but instead I ended up watching "The Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Show". That is because they were both given more time to speak than any other candidate. Let's give credit to the Chris Dodd campaign for providing this disturbing table:

Looking at the table you can clearly see that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were given more time to speak. Another notable statistic from this table is the fact that CNN debate moderator Wolf Blitzer had more speaking time than any other candidate except Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Ironically, if you look at the order of who had the most speaking time (Barack Obama) to who had the least speaking time (Mike Gravel) it almost directly relates to the order of poll data. Another thing I noticed immediately at the opening of the debate was the fact that all three of the "frontrunners" (John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama) were staged front and center while Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich were placed at the ends of the stage.

I did think this debate was better than the debate hosted by MSNBC, but not by much. A good chunk of the questions were not even debate worthy. Questions like "How would you use Bill Clinton in your administration?", "Define Rich", and hypotheticals like the one Wolf Blitzer asked Dennis Kucinich about killing Osama Bin Laden are all completetly ridiculous. But I have to address that question Wolf Blitzer asked Dennis Kucinich about whether he would kill Osama Bin Laden. If there was any time I felt Wolf Blitzer had an agenda it was this question. Hey Wolfy, this is AUDIENCE asking questions time! Wolf Blitzer pulled this question out of right field clearly trying to sack Dennis Kucinich during a point in the debate where questions were supposed to come from the audience.

I can go on and on about how bad the content of this debate was, but if you were watching this debate and you didn't get the impression that CNN wanted Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be the Democratic nomination than I don't know what debate you were watching. Wolf Blitzer was a better host than Brian Williams in the first debate, but in the end Wolf Blitzer was still a terrible moderator. He silenced the lower tier candidates when they wanted to talk about the important issues, but let them speak on awful questions like "How would you use Bill Clinton in your administration". This debate was just another sad example of media manipulation.

The Republican Debate Tonight at 7pm

Tonight is the Republican debate and I expect similar CNN tactics. Don't be surprised to see "frontrunners" Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney staged front and center. I'm also going to go out on a limb and take a guess that Congressman Ron Paul will be staged at one of the ends. Let's see if my predictions prove to be true. I hope im wrong.

I Support Cindy Sheehan

2007-05-30T11:56:00.000-04:00

When the news came down on Memorial Day that anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was resigning as the "face" of the anti-war movement it was painful to read, but it didn't surprise me that much. Like Cindy, I am opposed to the Iraq War which led me to join the Jonathan Tasini campaign for U.S. Senate in January 2006. He ended up as the only candidate opposing Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary to challenge her support for the Iraq War. Cindy Sheehan endorsed his candidacy and I had the privilege of meeting her last June. Why do I say privilege? No other American citizen who opposed the Iraq War tried as hard as her to help bring an end to the Iraq War. In her resignation letter on her DailyKos blog titled "Good Riddance Attention Whore" she points out for everyone exactly what she sacrificed:

I have spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.

Besides the reasons above, it basically comes down to the two party system in this country called Democrats and Republicans. During her campaign to end the Iraq War she held Democrats to the same standard as Republicans which led her to receive the same treatment from Democrats that Republicans gave her. Cindy is absolutely right when she says: .

It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?

When the Democrats won control of the House and Senate in November 2006 they won the election based on opposition of the Iraq War. Even though not all of the anti-war Democrats won their primary, Cindy Sheehan was still responsible for the jolt in the anti-war movement that ultimately helped put the Democrats over the top. Everyone expected a Democratic Congress to put effort into helping end the Iraq War as soon as possible, but sadly this week they backed down by providing more funding for the war without any withdrawel date. The day after the Democrats passed more war funding Cindy Sheehan announced she was leaving the Democratic Party in her DailyKos blog titled "Dear Democratic Congress". She was absolutely right when she said:

There is absolutely no sane or defensible reason for you to hand Bloody King George more money to condemn more of our brave, tired, and damaged soldiers and the people of Iraq to more death and carnage. You think giving him more money is politically expedient, but it is a moral abomination and every second the occupation of Iraq endures, you all have more blood on your hands.

Cindy ended her blog by saying she was leaving the Democratic Party. Here is exactly how she put it:

The Camp Casey Peace Institute is calling all citizens who are as disgusted as we are with you all to join us in Philadelphia on July 4th to try and figure a way out of this "two" party system that is bought and paid for by the war machine which has a stranglehold on every aspect of our lives. As for myself, I am leaving the Democratic Party. You have completely failed those who put you in power to change the direction our country is heading. We did not elect you to help sink our ship of state but to guide it to safe harbor.

When you are a Democrat and you disagree with the Democratic party you have a tough choice to make. Would you hold your nose, sacrifice your personal principles, and pull the lever for a candidate just because of party affiliation, or would you ignore party affiliation and vote for a candidate that you agree with? That's a tough decision to make because if you decide to vote for a "Third Party" and talk about it you are treated like shit. Just imagine if someone asked what your favorite color was on a survey and the only choices given were Red or Blue when your favorite color was Green. Wouldn't you feel like you cheated yourself?

Cindy Sheehan is absolutely justified for holding Democrats to the same standard as Republicans, and I wish more voters were like that. Unfortunately for the anti-war movement there is a lot of blind party loyalty and blind candidate loyalty that damages candidates who take real stands on issues to change the world. For example, Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War and beat an anti-war Democrat (Jonathan Tasini) in New York, which is one of most liberal states in the country where the majority of New Yorkers oppose the Iraq War. In the two days between the blog posts of Cindy quitting the Democratic Party and her resignation as the face of the anti-war movement I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that the decision to resign was based on the fact that she had sacrificed so much already and if she were to continue the same path she would have to deal with more personal attacks from Democrats. It just wasn't worth it for her, and I am not surprised.

In conclusion, Cindy Sheehan was a regular citizen just like everyone else who set out to make change to the best of her ability. She was a mother grieving the death of her son that tried to channel that grief into something positive. Ending the Iraq War. Before anyone thinks of attacking Cindy Sheehan just ask yourself, (whether you are a Democratic, Republican, or any party) would you make the same sacrifices as Cindy Sheehan?

Why the "Opie and Anthony" Suspension Scares Me

2007-05-25T06:41:00.000-04:00

When Don Imus was fired a little over a month ago this action sent a direct message to radio hosts around the country to watch what they say or else they will be fired. When the firing happened I thought this was just a one time scenario that was bad and the issue of policing the radio waves would be swept under the rug. I was wrong. Since the firing of Don Imus two other shock jocks have been fired. Jeff Vandergrift and Dan Lay who hosted "The Dog House with JV and Elvis" were fired by CBS Radio because they made a prank call to a Chinese restaurant which was offensive. I don't have much of a problem with this, but what I do have a big problem with is the recent suspension of "Opie and Anthony" on XM satellite radio.

"Opie and Anthony" were suspended for 30 days for airing a segment in which a guest expressed desire to have sex with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as well as First Lady Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth. I don't listen to "Opie & Anthony" at all, but I cannot understand how this is a problem on satellite radio where it's supposed to be a safe haven for free speech. Here is what XM radio had to say regarding the suspension:

According to XM "comments made by Opie and Anthony on yesterday's broadcast put into question whether they appreciate the seriousness of the matter." The decision to suspend the duo was "to make clear that our on-air talent must take seriously the responsibility that creative freedom requires of them."

My big problem with that explanation is the fact that it wasn't even "Opie and Anthony" that made the comments, but it was one of their special guests named "Homeless Charlie". So does this suspension mean that radio hosts are now vulnerable to being suspended or fired for comments not even being made by them? This question applies to "terrestial" radio as well as satellite radio. This should not even be an issue though because this is satellite radio with no federal restrictions. You can analyze what was said about whether you think it's disgusting or not, but the bottom line is that it should be fair game because it's on satellite radio. XM customers are paying money to listen to "Opie and Anthony", and more likely than not everyone who was listening knew what to expect from their show.

Since this suspension was on satellite radio where it's supposed to be free from regulation I am starting to get nervous about our freedom of speech. Have we come to the point in society where we can't accept or turn the dial when we hear something edgy we don't like? The way I see this whole thing is that this will cause suppression of freedom of speech that put's radio hosts on egg shells whenever they want to express something out of the norm or with edgyness.

With our freedom of speech starting to get attacked on the radio waves let's hope this does not spread to the internet.

UPDATE 6:30pm: My apologies to those that wanted to leave a comment. I didn't realize comments were disabled. They are now enabled and feel free to comment!

The Democrats Should Debate...on Fox

2007-04-10T19:19:00.000-04:00

First let me say that I am currently a registered Democrat, but there are certain things that get under my skin no matter what party is attached to it. Refusing to debate is one of them.

When I first heard that the Democrats were going to stage a boycott against the Fox network my knee-jerk reaction was "great!" because I understand everything Fox has done to smear Democrats. But after a while of thinking about this my position has changed. There comes a time and a place when one must reach out to the other to try to make good, and I believe Fox is attempting to do just that. There is also a bigger and broader picture in this issue that has been lost in all of the "Fox hating". It is the concept of candidates getting together and discussing issues which has been lost because of the role of money in politics.

Let's do a quick recap of the Democrats who pulled out of both Fox Debates:
John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton (in that order).
Now what do all three of these candidates have in common? They have all been anointed as the top three candidates to be the Democratic nomination for President in 2008 by the mainstream media. Those three candidates receive all the mainstream coverage leaving out the less funded candidates like Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd. Because these candidates receive very little coverage they can't afford to miss a debate, and it's no coincidence that the top three funded candidates dropped out of both debates.

Now let's examine the individual reasons why each candidate would want to drop out of a Fox debate pushing aside the fact that is Fox right leaning(I will get to this in a little bit). John Edwards may not want to go on the Fox network because Ann Coulter called him a "faggot" at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Barack Obama may not want to go on the Fox network because he is constantly being referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama", and Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes made a bad joke about Obama while accepting the Radio-Television News Directors Association and Foundation's First Amendment Leadership Award. Hillary Clinton may not want to go on Fox because Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for her Senate re-election campaign in July 2006. Wait a minute that's a reason to go! I am guessing the reason she dropped out of the Fox debates is because she had to "go with the flow"and also because she has a track record of avoiding debates from as recent as last year when she refused to debate her Democratic primary challenger Jonathan Tasini.

Now let's get back to the subject of the right-wing slant on Fox. What do all the of the reasons I stated above have to do with preventing a candidate from stating their opinion? Absolutely nothing. From everything that I know of about both of the debates there was absolutely no indication that the candidates would have been asked "When did you stop beating your wife" type of questions. Here is the reason why the top ranking Nevada Democrats scheduled the first Fox debate in the first place:

This was done because the Nevada Democratic Party is reaching out to new voters and we strongly believe that a Democrat will not win Nevada unless we find new ways to talk to new people.

And the reason why they decided to cancel the debate:

To say the least, this was not a popular decision. But it is one that the Democratic Party stood by. However, comments made last night by Fox News President Roger Ailes in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far. We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments.

The big problem with this excuse is that Fox news has been attacking Democrats for years, and attacking Barack Obama before this statement on actual newscasts rather then just dinners. Another problem with the excuse for cancellation is the reason for scheduling it in the first place. So what the Nevada Democrats are trying to tell us now is that they don't "need to find new ways to talk to new people to win Nevada."

As of now the second scheduled debate on Fox which is sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus(CBC) has not been cancelled and the CBC says they are still going on with it even without John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, but many people are speculating the debate will be cancelled because the "top tier" candidates won't attend nobody will watch the debate. From a strategy standpoint I can understand why Edwards, Obama, and Clinton would not want to be left solo with the "lower tier" candidates because they don't want to make themselves vulnerable and lose votes to the "lower tier" candidates making the other two "top tier" candidates more powerful. That's my theory why since Edwards dropped out first then Obama and Hillary followed. As I mentioned above the real losers will be the "lower tier" candidates like Biden, Kucinich, Richardson, and Dodd. To have three out of the seven candidates possibly dictate whether a debate will take place is absolutely undemocratic. Don't think Edwards, Obama, and Hillary don't understand the power they have either. Should the debate be cancelled they will escape unscathed because their absence would be made an issue if the debate had actually taken place.

Another problem I have with this refusal to debate is the issue of refusing to stand up to Fox and also the issue of Fox trying to make good with Democrats by letting them debate. Wasn't it just last October when Bill Clinton had his showdown with Chris Wallace and Democrats were all giddy because Bill Clinton stood up against Fox? This interview temporarily grew a new spine for Democrats and sparked a wave of Democrats slamming Fox during their on-air interviews with the network.

The Democrats are in a tough position now. It's hard to defend the Fox isn't "Fair and Balanced" argument when Fox is willing to cover Democrats and the Democrats are the ones refusing to appear on the network for a debate. So now it becomes an issue of Democrats not wanting to appear on Fox when Fox is actually trying to be "Fair and Balanced". So now I don't want to hear the Democrats whine that only conservatives are invited on Fox to talk about issues when they could have had at least two events just for themselves.

The Big Winners: John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton
The Big Loser: Democracy

The Sleeping Giant (Part 1)

2007-04-05T04:44:00.001-04:00

No, I'm not talking about "Andre the Giant". I'm talking about the mainstream media. It's time they stop snoring and get with the program. There are many ways to analyze this issue, but I will start with basics and build from there.

The mainstream media(MSM) has such a huge impact on society that it can change the world we live in just by delivering "news". The MSM decides what is worthy for viewing, and goes from there. When I say MSM I don't just mean television, but radio and newspaper/magazine also. What makes the MSM so powerful are the corporate connections they have within them and for some they have political connections. With all the connections they have giving financial support it helps put out of business smaller publications or news organizations which would give more localized news, or a much more independent view. This has a profound effect on our society because the MSM decides what we see, hear, or read. Sounds scary doesn't it?

A lot of people like to believe that CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, UPN, CW, and CNN are all different news organizations, and they are but do they actually deliver different "news"? The answer is no. If you examine all those broadcasts at the same time I can almost gurantee you they will all report the same top stories. The real test comes after the top stories, and what they will report afterwards. This brings up a whole new debate about "what is news?".

What is News? That's a difficult question to answer because if you ask a bunch of people you will get many different answers. I believe a news story should be something that affects our daily life. I don't know how the MSM would answer this question given the state of news broadcasts today. Watching a news broadcasts today usually contains a story about an entertainer. Is this really news? Do we really want our mainstream media telling us about Paris Hiltons personal life, or who Jennifer Lopez is marrying next? The MSM will tell you that people want to know about that stuff so that's why they put that out. In late February the Associated Press decided to experiment a weeklong ban of covering Paris Hilton:

"It was only meant to be a weeklong ban — not the boldest of journalistic initiatives, and one, we realized, that might seem hypocritical once it ended. And it wasn't based on a view of what the public should be focusing on — the war in Iraq, for example, or the upcoming election of the next leader of the free world, as opposed to the doings of a partygoing celebrity heiress/reality TV star most famous for a grainy sex video."

This was the effect:

"It turned out that people noticed plenty — but not in the way that might have been expected. None of the tens of thousands of media outlets that depend on AP called in asking for a Paris Hilton story. No one felt a newsworthy event had been ignored. (To be fair, nothing too out-of-the-ordinary happened in the Hilton universe.) "

While I agree with the action of blacking out Paris Hilton I find their reason troubling. So you mean to tell me they didn't base their decision on what was more newsworthy? It turns out they just did it for the heck of it, but what I found interesting was that nobody called them for a story during that period of time. The focus should be that the AP provides the story in the first place and is able to pass it on to the MSM to pollute the airwaves. A gun can't shoot without the ammo.

Is it right to place all the blame on the AP for all coverage of celebrities like Paris Hilton when other more newsworthy stories could be coveraged? No. The MSM ultimately decides what to show, and what not to show. Right now the MSM has turned into an entertainment show. Let's not give the free pass to newspapers or magazines either. New York newspapers like the Daily News and New York Post often have headlines that you would only expect to see in the National Enquirer.

How do we fix this problem? That's a difficult question to answer, because there is only so much the average American can do to change the quality of a mainstream media news broadcast. I talk about this to many people, and most people have the "live with it" attitude. We must not lay down and accept defeat. When I read the AP story about them having an experimental weeklong ban of Paris Hilton I sent them a "Thank You" note. Even though it was only a weeklong ban I felt it was important to tell them to continue it in the future so they know that this is an important issue. I encourage everyone to do the same. We need to reward those news organizations or publications that take news seriously, and put the pressure on the ones that fail to keep us informed.

In my next blog post I will discuss the media impact on politics.

Please leave your comments, criticisms, or any questions you would like to discuss.

Click here to speak your mind on this topic

Dre Enters the Blogosphere!!

2007-04-04T02:17:00.000-04:00

Entering the blogosphere was no easy decision for me. In fact this was a tough decision. Blogging has been around for years now and I have to admit that I am no big fan of personal blogging. I have found in the past through my experience with Xanga that it was used and probably still used as a method to bitch and whine (sort of like what im doing now!), and at the same time conceal the fact that you are a "bitcher"(if that's a word) in "real life". What do I mean by this? People would live their happy lives and when night time came it became "emo time". There is no problem with that, but I take issue with people that complain about someone being negative when at the same time they bitch, whine, and complain on their Xanga begging for attention. A lot of the people I knew were living double lives like this, and I found this trend much more common in the female blogs than male blogs I encountered. Why is this? I don't know.

I can see why someone would live a double life on the blogs. For some people blogging is a way to vent and keep personal diaries. For other people blogging is a way to promote themselves and for specific purposes other then personal. For other people blogging is a way to bitch and whine because they have nobody to bitch and whine in real life to. Blogging is their only way relieve stress. As we see today blogs now play a big role and offer a different dynamic to life. Some people now make a living just by blogging.

Personally, I plan to use this blog as a place to express my opinion where people can openly disagree and talk about various issues. Right now my goal in life is to become involved in politics. Whether that goal involves running for political office remains to be seen. What I do know is whatever I decide to do I will have to continue to be open minded on every issue, and be willing to listen to other peoples opinions.

Instead of discouraging debate we need to encourage debate. Let everyones voice be heard!