Awards!

Awards!

It’s time for the inaugural, 2008 Paddy Awards-hey, every blog’s got awards, we need them too.

The Worst Lie of the Year Award goes to...

Mitt Romney! For his lie, “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.” When he was doing missionary work in France!

The Worst Lie Cover-Up of the Year Award goes to...

Pat Buchanan, covering the derriere of Mitt Romney! In response to the MLK quote, Pat Buchanan said on Hardball that he meant that he saw his father march ‘in spirit’ with Mitt Romney. He omits the fact that HE COULD NOT BE THERE TO SEE IT! I guess that Mitt was there in spirit watching his father, in spirit, with Martin Luther King. Oh, and I guess he saw, in spirit, the pilgrimage of Brigham Young.

The New Kid On The Block Award goes to...

Rahm Emanuel! After only two terms in office in the House of Representatives, the Illinois Congressman was one of the leaders of the Democratic Party, who aided in gaining majorities in the Senate and the House for the Democrats.

The Next Great Leader Award is shared by...

Garry Kasparov and Senator James Webb! I know it is an odd combination, but both will, in the future, be great leaders. Kasparov, the former chess grandmaster (and rival of IBM computer, Deep Blue) has led the opposition movement to the reign of PM Vladimir Putin for over 25 years now. I would think that, at some point, he will lead the Russians to quasi-, if not full, revolution, taking down the KGB-led government.

Senator Webb, on the other hand, is of a lighter sort. Webb, the former Secretary of the Navy and rookie Senator from Virginia, did a few great things while in office in his first year: he gave a scintillating response to the State of the Union, rebuking the President’s claims on Iraq, his region of expertise; he set forth legislation that would disallow military force against Iran without Congressional approval; and he brought further dignity to the troops, saying to the President’s face that he wanted the troops home, and wanted to “slug” him when Mr. Bush responded with the terse response, “That’s not what I asked you. How’s your boy?” referring to the Marine serving in Iraq, the soldier whose boots were worn by Webb on the campaign trail.

The Bush Scandal of the Year Award goes to...

Attorneys-Gate, the scandal in which the Justice Department fired 7 U.S. Attorneys, simply because they could fill the positions indefinitely due to the USA PATRIOT Act! In fact, a memo was procured from White House Counsel Harriet Miers saying that it was a possibility that all U.S. Attorneys would be fired.

The Political Comic Relief Award is shared by...

Dana Perino and Alan Keyes! Alan Keyes, for simply being Alan Keyes, giving us all the ‘He was running for President?’ interjection when he appeared in an Iowa debate on December 12-a debate that brought the sigh of the moderator.

Dana Perino, on the other hand, gets the award because of her relation to the three other Press Secretaries during the Bush Administration: she is unbelievably tight-lipped and will say as many words as possible to say as little as possible.

On Social Issues and Hypocrisy

Over the past two decades, the alleged accolades of the Democratic and Republican Parties have been the same: while the Democrats seemingly only do well when it comes to domestic issues, such as education, the Republicans allegedly are the only people who can take care of national security and 'social issues,' the so-called 'mommy problem' for the Democratic Party. However, it is arisen over the past year that the Republicans aren't exactly as prone to exercise the social values they claim to defend. While the Dems don't agree with "Christian thinking," the GOP is doing even worse-because they undermine it while preaching it.

The perfect example is that of Senator Larry Craig, whom I believe you've heard of over the past two months. Sen. Craig, now an Idaho Hall of Famer, was found by a Minneapolis police officer to be, as Yahoo! News interestingly put it, "a homosexual ritual in order to ascertain sex." He has since been shunned and all but censured in the Senate, causing more and more pain for the Republican Party.

While we all now know of Senator Craig, we begin to forget of the other Republicans who have erred in their moral values. What about Mark Foley, Florida congressman-turned child predator? David Vitter, the Louisiana senator-turned Beltway adulterer? Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania-who made a children play and cuddle with an aborted fetus two years ago? Even Mitch McConnell, current Minority Leader-turned smear artist on 12-year-old Graeme Frost? The GOP is becomeing less and less a party ticket, and more members on an abstract wall of shame.

But it's not just the outright disgusting nature and sheer indecency of the GOP; it's their acts of hypocricy that boils the blood of Americans on both the left and the right sides of the aisle. Republican party House leader John Boehner, chastised Democrats for their views on gay marriage, and trying to create a constitutional amendment on marriage. Senator Tom DeLay of Tennessee, Republican, was the chief prusuant of the death of Terri Schiavo. the Republican Party, led on the topic by President Bush, basically flipping the bird to kids by vetoing S-CHIP, with Press Secretary Perino saying, "We won this round."

What round, Ms. Perino? The round to kill off the healthcare of 11 million children? Your partisanship would go as so far as to use children as a pawn? I'm not exactly suprised the Bush Administration is doing this-note NCLB-but to do it again? Is this the round to hurt or kill children? Finally, is this the round to go against the Preamble of the Constitution to "promote the general welfare," in a Constitution the President and Congressmen and -women swore to protect?

The GOP has always felt they had a clutch on 'moral values,' and the vote it brings. We had good Christian values in mind, they continue to say. But that was until the Larry Craigs, and Mark Foleys, and David Vitters of the world showed up, and when the people said, give the kids healthcare, while the Reps smirked, and gave a resounding 'no.' This isn't just a threat on the Republican Party, this is a slight on politics: have they any decency? Have they any humanity? Can you please, for the good of the country, so that our trust shall not be destroyed, end your hypocrisy and smearing of what is good about this nation, apologize, and go away?

Campaign 2008: Handicapping the Senatorial Elections: Part I

While all eyes are on the '08 presidential elections, with their Hollywood 'frontrunners,' and their actual candidates for change, such as Rep. Ron Paul(R-TX) and Gov. Bill Richardson(D-NM), there is a very important aspect of the federal government that is yet to be decided. The Democratic Party hold what is the technical and traditional definition of a majority in the Senate; they hold 51 seats(or, rather, 49 seats, with with two independents caucusing) to the Republicans' 49. However, as has been seen throughout the 1st Session of the 110th Congress, the Democrats do not hold a true majority in the Senate; any provision will be knocked down with the threat of a Republican filibuster. The Democrats need 60 seats in order to have a true majority. Enter the senatorial elections for the 110th Senate, 3rd Session.

In 2008, the class II senators will be up for re-election. The following seats are up for grabs:
Democratic incumbent races:
Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Dick Durbin of Illinois
Tom Harkin of Iowa
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
John Kerry of Massachusetts
Carl Levin of Michigan
Max Baucus of Montana
Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey
Jack Reed of Rhode Island
Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia

Republican incumbent races:
Jeff Sessions of Alabama
Saxby Chambliss of Georgia
Pat Roberts of Kansas
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
Susan Collins of Maine
Norm Coleman of Minnesota
Thad Cochran of Mississippi
John Sununu of New Hampshire
Pete Domenici of New Mexico
Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina
Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma
Gordon Smith of Oregon
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
John Cornyn of Texas
Michael Enzi of Wyoming

Special Elections and Retirements:
John Barrasso (R) of Wyoming
Wayne Allard (R) of Colorado
Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska
John Warner (R) of Virginia
Larry Craig (R) of Idaho

The Republicans have more to lose in this election, with 22 of their seats up for grabs, compared to 12 on the Democrats' side of the aisle. Also, eight Republicans up for election are completing their first term, compared to one Dem. Finally, with the GOP's leaders struggling and retiring, and the threat of a mammoth Democratic turnout in November, the Republicans better hold on tight; they're in for a rocky ride.

Here's my take on the biggest and most open campaigns:
Democratic incumbent races:
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana:
Senator Landrieu never especially had great success in Senatorial elections, even though she is a two-term senator. Elected in a close election in 1996, and a runoff in 2002, this will be possibly the most-fought for seat by Republicans, and the only Democratic seat that I think is truly up for grabs. State Attorney General John N. Kennedy will most likely challenge Landrieu for her seat; however, with the scandal encompassing Louisiana junior senator David Vitter and the speculation that Kennedy, who has changed party ties from Democrat to Republican, may have been prodded to run by Karl Rove, may prove very costly for the Republicans during this election.

Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey:
While Lautenberg, if having not had tow separate stints in the Senate, could have been President pro tem, he is growing unpopular in New Jersey. A Quinnipiac poll from July says that only 41 per cent of New Jerseyites approve of Sen. Lautenberg, compared to 32 per cent disapproving. The 27% undecided can be the most important part of the US population next autumn, as a close election in 2006, which ended in election for incumbent Sen. Robert Menendez, can become a landslide for a Republican candidate in '08. Also, Lautenberg is growing elderly; at 84, there may be chances that he will not even run. If he doesn't run, Rep. Rush Holt will most likely take his place.

Tim Johnson of South Dakota:
Johnson suffered a brain anyeurysm, or close to such, in 2007, which forced him to miss eight months in the Senate, but will run in 2008. However, his health, and his slim victory in 2002(winning by just over 500 votes), will cause the Republicans to fight for this seat. However, with an approval rating of over 70% in South Dakota, this seat really isn't up for grabs for now.

Republican incumbent races
Ted Stevens of Alaska:
Stevens is still going through a federal investigation, along with his son, the former president of the Alaska state Senate. This may cause Alaskans to take a dislike to Stevens(for goodness sake, he's gotten into a run-in with the law). Of course, Stevens is a very popular Senator in Alaska, serving almost since statehood. If there is a big Democratic nominee, it might get interesting.
Saxby Chambliss of Georgia:
Chambliss won his seat in 2002 by comparing incumbent Senator, and triple-amputee Vietnam veteran, Max Cleland, to Osama bin Laden. These scare tactics have been frowned upon throughout the nation, and will not be tolerated when Chambliss runs again. Another Chambliss v. Cleland election?
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky:
Between rumors that it will be George Clooney challenging the current Minority Leader, and the possibility of a run by Andrew Horne, an Iraq War veteran, McConnell is in trouble. Why he's also in trouble: his ties to President Bush, which will be stressed highly in '08.

Part II next week:
Susan Collins of Maine
Norm Coleman of Minnesota
John Sununu of New Hampshire
Pete Domenici of New Mexico
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee

Retirements and Resignations:
Wayne Allard (R) of Colorado
Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska
John Warner (R) of Virginia
Larry Craig (R) of Idaho

On The Scariest Idea I Have Ever Heard

According to the Thom Hartmann Program, broadcast on Air America Radio, in Family Security Matters Magazine, administered by the fascist Progress for America think tank, contained an op-ed that says what I have to say is the scariest idea I've heard, even from a fascist Bush supporter.

This article, which I haven't gotten my hands on, as it was deleted from the website and is, according to Hartmann, in a catacomb of TownHall.com, basically states that "democracy is the worst form of government," and that we should (a)take out all the Arabs in Iraq and replace them with Americans, turning the problem in Iraq into "an asset", and then, based on the 'success' of that endeavour and the support from the people and the military, in a Caesar-like maneuver,(b)declare Bush President for Life with the military by his side.

This is the martial law I have gotten nightmares about(and I have. And they're scary.) and the desecration of the Constitution that takes the cake. Democracy is the worst form of government? Modern-day democracy isn't the greatest form of government, but it is the greatest possible at this time on our planet. Of course, democracy hinders the fascists who support this idea, as that adds tariffs and taxes they have to pay for their products and the company itself.

Secondly, on the first plan, wouldn't the idea of taking out the Arabs in Iraq be mass genocide of Shia, Sunni, and Kurd Muslims, many of which are trying just to eke out a living and not fundamentalists? Why would Americans move to Iraq, to live in 110-degree heat all year, with little to no infrastructure, getting electricity only about 4 hours a day? Why would they live where enemies in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria are nearby? And why would be engage in mass genocide of those in Islam, a peaceful religion, when that would entice a billion people to go against us?

The article will be found eventually, which I'll post immediately. Later today, I opine on Karl Rove and discuss the legal ramifications of his resignation.

Why Mike Gravel Hinders the Presidential Race...And Why We're Focusing On This Now-A Campaign 2008 Spotlight Exclusive

If you've seen the presidential debates, you may have seen a man staring at other candidates with vengeance, and, when he got one of few chances to answer a question, was yelling at the moderator. This man is former Alaska senator Mike Gravel. Gravel has no chance in this election-according to the Washington Post, he has raised just over a measly $11,000 in the first quarter of this year, which is probably less than he raised for his Senatorial campaigns in Alaska-and he is not even providing nor influencing actual debate. He is providing propoganda to bring down other praty members within the election.

Not that he can't provide actual debate. He was a one-man force against the draft in 1971, filibustering for five months; he was a proponent for the release of the Pentagon Papers, and has written a book, Citizen Power, discussing many influential Populist ideas.

However, in his futile quest for the White House, he has consistently spewed propoganda upon Messrs. Edwards and Obama that they have hired 'bundlers' to raise money from lobbyists and PACs, even though both candidates have said they have not taken money from PACs or lobbyists. (However, both are lying, one more than the other-the FEC reports say that Edwards recieved $20 from a PAC, while Obama has received over three thousand dollars from PACs) He has not brought up any of his ideas he has shown in writing and in his two media appearances(on Air America Radio and on The Colbert Report)in any of the debates. He is not providing debate, he is not strengthening his party, he is slowly destroying it.

But why are we focusing on the 2008 presidential election so much? Why are we going to possibly going to have a primary or caucus just after, if not before, New Year's Eve? The premise is that we are not happy with what we have now. We want this President out, and we want to have change. This is why we're having debates in August. That is why we are raising money at a rapid rate. And this is why we're coming out in rapid numbers to support whoever we're supporting.

On the Twin Genocides

There have been many cases in which we have said, "Never Again." Never again should a race be attacked for just that; the same with religion; the same with nationality. But "Never Again" continues to be iterated in the case of two genocides.

You may be saying, "What do you mean, Daniel, which is the second?" The first, of course, is that of the disgraceful and disgusting high crimes of murder and rape by the Janjaweed towards those in Darfur, which has been condemned by many members houses of legislation and execution of law(but nothing has been physically done by any of the two). But there is a silent genocide; a genocide not talked about much in the media anymore. It is that which graced the latest issue of TIME Magazine, it is that which has been spoken about on the Huffington Post for a year-and-a-half by comedian Harry Shearer on The Huffington Post, and it is that which has been talked about every once in a while by presidential candidate John Edwards. It is that of the post-Katrina New Orleans, where the suffering from the poor and middle class continues.

The situation in Darfur I think you already know about, but here's a brief introduction unto the topic if you've been stationed in Iraq or have been on Air Force One(or you're just a moron) who's been watching solely Fox News for news coverage: the government in Khartoum has been allowing a proxy-war for years in the region of Darfur, which has been heightened with the desertification of Lake Chad(which probably was caused, like many other acts of desertification, by global warming-another story for another day) and the Darfurian citizens have taken up arms in rebellion. Thus, in order for the proxy-war to continue, the Khartoum government has allowed Arabian forces, the Janjaweed, to attack the rebels, with amnesty for rape and plunder. Thus, the genocide in Darfur.

However, the United Nations refuses to call it a genocide. The reason of which is such: if the UN calls it a genocide(which they finally have with UN Resolution 1657), they must deploy the blue beret-wearing UN peacekeeping troops. The US doesn't want to get in on it, because, as I have said time and time again, there is no oil under the Darfurians' feet to fight for. Thus, the terrible act of genocide is reduced to, in the words of William Daniels, 'piddle, twiddle, and resolve,' in houses of legislation around the world.

The second genocide is that in New Orleans; the US Army Corps of Engineers didn't finish the levees that would save the Crescent City from a hurricane, and what came-a hurricane! Destruction of the entire city ensued, and evacuation in the city did not occur for four days. However, in e-mails later recovered from former FEMA director Michael Brown shows that that was done conscienciously. President Bush gave a famous speech in the city square of New Orleans. Little do many know, however, that, after the speech, power was turned back off in the area. They turned them on, did the speech, and turned them off. Due to recovered documents, along with my personal opinion, we know that the lack of help in New Orleans was done intentionally, leading to my statement that it is genocide.

And the genocide includes today. The levees have not been rebuilt. Houses are being built in New Orleans for the rich, and the poor are being pushed out. The Ninth Ward of New Orleans is still not rebuilt, destroying a great and historic part of the city. The public school system has been virtually destroyed, replaced by several private 'charter' schools, which do not have unionized teachers(which is exactly what the Republican Party wants). Finally, the New Orleanians have continued to be ignored in their pleas to increase provisions against hurricanes, as the money and staff of the CoE has gone to Iraq.

And the genocide will continue, until we mean 'never again,' instead of just using town squares as photo-ops and using hot air.

Debating on-and with-The Tube

The CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate has just been completed, a revolutionary idea using the Internets we know and love-and keep this blog in existence. The debate featured 100% user-generated content via YouTube. There were also performances of YouTube-like videos from each of the campaigns, which are critiqued below. The concept and its carrying-out was done very well, and will be used for a Republican debate two months from now. Here’s my report card on the candidates:

1. Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT): Excellent answers to questions, strong on his opinions on gay marriage, stem cells, and the war in Iraq. Answered with competence and rhetoric.
17/20

Video: Tied for best video of the night, with both informative and entertaining factors. 10/10

Combined total: 27/30-BEST IN SHOW AWARD WINNER

T2. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY): Clinton did okay in this debate, answering most questions well, but in my mind did not succeed in her prime directive: breaking away with the rest of the Democratic pack. She did, however, answer all the questions with power and poise, especially which that is the “Are you feminine enough?” question, asked by the person of the aforementioned “Are you black enough?” question. 15/20

Video: Best tagline: “Sometimes the right man for the job is a woman.” Great idea as well, with the various statistics. 9/10

Combined total: 24/30

T2. Gov. Bill Richardson (NM): Answered his questions quite eloquently, especially on education and on energy. I also loved his statement on optical scan voting, which is 99.9% accurate, across the country in federal elections. He still has a long way to go, but this is the way to do get there. 17/20

Video: Not the greatest concept in the world (office setting, with Gov. Richardson peering in while others are talking about him), but got some important points about him. 7/10
Combined total: 24/30

T2. Sen. Joseph Biden(DE): Did very well in answering questions on taxes, education, and was very eloquent-sometimes too eloquent, as usual. 16/20

Video: Basically looked like a regular ad on television. Not that that is bad, but there was a need for a YouTube like ‘edginess.’ 8/10
Combined total: 24/30



T5. Sen. Barack Obama (IL): Obama answered the “Are you black enough?” question with poise, along with questions on the war and defending himself against Mr. Gravel when he attacked him, but was not able to separate his political views from his religious views, very important in the Democratic base. 14/20

Video: Best editing for a video, which took from stump speeches, and was very inspiring.
9/10
Combined total: 23/30


T5. Mr. John Edwards(NC): In my opinion, he did the worst of any of the candidates(other than Mike Gravel), squirming away from some questions, taking a very long time to explain himself instead of being blunt, and being too centric on poverty, which will hurt him-people will most likely see him as being only fighting for the poor instead of everyone-although I do of course agree with his statements in the category of the populist points on poverty. 13/20

Video: Tied with Chris Dodd for best of the videos, rebutting critics statements on his haircut; showing clips on issues like Iraq, New Orleans, and Darfur, saying to the effect of “These issues or my hair-what do you choose?” 10/10
Combined Total: 23/30


T5. Rep. Dennis Kucinich(OH): Was a bit to focused on his cell phone component to his campaign, but was, as usual, excellent in his answers to the entire spectrum of questions-not that he got to speak very often. 16/20

Video: Worst of the videos; felt like a Head-On commercial, with him repeating basically the same thing, his text messaging system to “send a message to The Whitehouse[sic].” 7/10
Combined total: 23/30

8. Mr. Mike Gravel(AK): As usual, he was very weird, yelling at the candidates, the camera, and even moderator Anderson Cooper. He did answer questions well on education and a military draft. But, he wasn’t able to strike up new debate or increase his likeability, but scare me. Very much. 9/20

Video: Short-but-sweet statements on hot-button issues such as Iraq and global warming. Was edited and performed well. 8/20
Combined total: 17/20-WORST IN SHOW AWARD WINNER

My Winners and Losers:
Winners Losers
• Christopher Dodd
• Bill Richardson
• Joseph Biden • Mike Gravel
• John Edwards
• Hillary Clinton
No Change:
• Barack Obama
• Dennis Kucinich
The Republican Debate will take place on September 17th from Florida.

Have any discrepancies? Anything to add? Comment on the blog or e-mail me at Mailbag.Notepad@gmail.com.

On Healthcare

The American people just don’t understand healthcare. We believe that the best way to control our healthcare and treatment is to hand it over to the greedy HMOs to create ‘capitalism,’ in this case the euphemistic snookering of American dollars. While those in Europe and the Great White North have healthcare paid by taxes and their governments--although flawed, surgery waiting lists and all-- they still give all people, not just the rich and the exceptionally poor, healthcare.

This spin of healthcare from the modern American media, that we would cause a socialist monopoly healthcare, is complete bunk. What they don’t understand is the fact that the private healthcare system can survive, but in opposition to and in competition with what would be a country-wide form of Medicare. We’ll see who wins; the private system no one who doesn’t have healthcare can afford anyway, and the public system that would already be paid for via taxes. It’s win-win: the people that don’t have healthcare can afford it, and the rich will be able to get their plastic surgery covered by their medical plan.

And we wouldn’t have to raise taxes either; four to five percent of our tax dollars are going to Medicare and Medicaid combined; three percent of our tax dollars towards Medicare alone. Raise that number, taking any pork barrel spending out of our budget, and you have enough money to fund this.

That’s what we can do about healthcare. Of course, I did this post today to coincide with the new Michael Moore documentary, Sicko. Click the link below for a review from the Washington Post. To respond to this post(and we love responses, don’t we?), e-mail us at Mailbag.Notepad@gmail.com, or send us a comment right here on the site. Plans for a forum will come eventually on this and many more topics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=cityguide/profile&id=1137198&categories=Movies&nm=1&referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email

On the Modern American Media

This week, dozens died in Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain changed heads of state, hundreds died in Darfur, and the Vice President has declared himself a member of neither the executive nor the legislative branch, while still somehow being part of the Constitutional framework.

But the main stories were the iPhone and Paris Hilton getting out of prison.

This is the plight of the modern American media-the ‘newstainment’, 24-hour news cycle owned by corporations instead of people, making it not a medium of important information, but a way for the benefit of ratings.

40 years ago, network stations never cared about ratings, but their modus operandi was for quality journalism. You had news anchors such as Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, and, a decade or two later, the Big Three anchors-Rather, Brokaw, and the late Peter Jennings. You had Bob Woodard in his prime at the Washington Post. You had news that wasn’t terribly editorialized, somewhere between the truth and yellow journalism. However, you don’t get quality journalism anymore; what do you get when you watch TV news, the most influential and outreaching medium, now? You get 5 minutes of actual news-today, generally 2008 election coverage, and 20 minutes of human interest stories.

And don’t even get me started on the Big 5 cable news networks, the ‘24-hour’ networks: MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, CNN Headline News, and Fox News. They’re really a combination of almost all government spin in prime time evening hours, with entertainment news in the other parts of the day. For example, during the Paris Hilton jailing, on MSNBC there was a ‘Paris Watch’ split-screen about 12 to 13 hours of the day. Tucker Carlson, who used to be a right-wing spinster on CNN’s Crossfire, and Joe Scarborough, a former Congressman(R-FL) who now has his own eponymous Country, were tracking Paris, as well. Somewhat respected bodies of information have now stooped to entertainment news. You let the bow tie a little too loose, Tucker. Joe, the sponsors must have gotten to you, taking your brain prisoner.

Even PBS, the broadcasting system paid for by our tax dollars, is in trouble. Recently, the conservatives in the Republican Party took control of PBS, and also took Bill Moyers, a nonpartisan journalist, off his show, NOW, after one story that angered them. They then put Moyers on a new show, Bill Moyers’ Journal, that has lesser journalistic leeway, for they would not like to see but a dent into their credibility. NOW today is a soapbox for the Republican ‘small-government’ movement.

Finally, there are 6 corporations controlling almost all of our Audio, Video, and Print Media: News Corporation, GE, Disney, Clear Channel, Time Warner and Tribune. This is like the Teddy Roosevelt-era trusts that he tried to bust, like Rockefeller and Carnegie revisited! While they preach ‘the news,’ they spew a concoction of little news, much of which is filtered to meet the corporations’ needs, entertainment, and human interest.

Here’s what we can do to make journalism what it ought to be in the States:

• Bust the trusts of the news networks.
• Make C-SPAN a network on “free television”, not cable.
• Make PBS a station controlled not directly by government, but controlled indirectly by the Smithsonian.

On 'Counterterrorism': The Interactive Debate

Hello all. Let's see that those of you reading are still alive with a fun little interactivity. Anyone who disagrees with me on the topic is graciously invited to debate me. E-mail the site at Mailbag.Notepad@gmail.com and we will see what time is right for you.

Speak your mind!

On 'Counterterrorism'

It is fitting that, while we are fighting a proxy-"War on Terror" in Iraq, the amount of terrorist threats against the US has totalled zero and that we have had a greater amount of people killed by being stomped on by an elephant than that of those killed in terrorist attacks emenating from Iraq. This is just a microcosm of how overtly inefficient, inhumane and unconstitutional, the most of this in the history of the democratic system, our counterterrorism system is.

Never good, it is, for the Geneva Convention, one of
the most important documents in our history, a document we as a nation signed, to be called quaint and insignificant. But that is what our current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, did as White House counsel. Because of this, we have been practicing torture instead of interrogation; not getting what we should hear, nor what is the truth, but what we want to hear. We have even, instead of correctly
and humanely interrogating our captives, sending them to countries such as Syria and Saudi Arabia so we can torture them by any means possible. When will this administration see that we signed a UN document, which, as a founding
nation of the UN, must uphold? When will our Attorneys General and President see that waterboarding is not what John Kerry did in 2004, nor a 'dunk in the water'? When will this administration and Cabinet see they are not a collective incarnation of Jack Bauer?

But it is not just this that shows the administration's ineptitude towards counterintelligence. Through a series of signing statements, executive orders, and the USA PATRIOT Act, the NSA can now check our library accounts, our mail(both electronic and of the 'snail' variety), our phone calls, and even what you're renting from your local Blockbuster. Do we, as an American society, want an
Orwellian-like NSA, CIA, DOD, and Presidency, who fight a continuous proxy-war while maintaining the ever-present shadow of Big Brother?

The counterterrorism system is a threat to everyone's civil liberties, everyone's safety, everyone's inalienable rights, as written by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and as upheld by all 41 Presidents of the United States. Not only that, it does Al-Qaida's job for them; it doesn't stop terrorism, it creates it tenfold.

I Need Help With This...

I don't understand this foreign policy tactic by the Bush Administration; since Gen. Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is to retire, the Joint Chiefs will nominate an admiral. An admiral!!! Someone to control a war in a desert, on the ground...is a naval commander!?!?

Send the best reason to Notepad, and you get a great prize. The e-mail address is:
Mailbag.Notepad@gmail.com.

Enjoy!

On Bipartisanship

Bipartisanship is dead. It is not on its proverbial deathbed, it is not slowly dying; it has already slowly died, and now it is dead. Quoting one of my favorite movies, The Wizard of Oz, "And she's not only merely dead, she's really, really, really dead." Yesterday, an immigration deal which no one could agree on, yet was still bipartisan, died in the Senate. And with it, as I write not in snark, nor in jest, nor in sardonism,(as is my general tone) but in anger.

Like many, I believe in the democratic system; that it was not only a way to get what is necessary on a local level, but also on a national level. However, I did not take into account the fact that there is one thing that separates all politicians: the uppercase letter in parentheses after your name.

Last night, the Democrats in control who wanted to change immigration worked with some Republicans, in a show of something we truly need: unity. An embodiment, a tenet, of the neo-Populist movement is to provide for an everlasting compromise between the two parties. However, today there is no such thing as a happy medium. Between a stingy executive branch, a legislative branch that is the most divided in history, and a judicial branch that shows malice and malfeasance towards the Constitution, we are in the most shambles. We need bipartisanship. But bipartisanship is dead.

You may be surprised that I say this, but we should look at a racial bigot: former Speaker Henry Clay. We should not look at him for his racial bigotry, but his nickname: "The Great Compromiser." With his many compromises, the House could actually get somewhere, even if the Democratic-Republican and New Republican parties were struggling to get together. And while some compromises were quite controversial in our eyes today(e.g. the Missouri Compromise), they show actually getting there. But bipartisanship is dead.

It doesn't matter that the President wanted this bill. I don't care which side wanted this bill. IT is just the fact that what killed this bill, along with dozens of other resolutions in this Congressional session, was partisanship. The Whips are stinging the backs of the Congress, and the line that they walk in lockstep in is threatening our society exponentially. Bipartisanship is dead, and this is the death certificate.

New Notepad Promo

Notepad Provisionally Endorses Bill Richardson

I'm proud to announce, everyone, that, with you, the readers', collective consent, that Notepad is provisionally endorsing New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for President of the United States.

More on this Friday, for another of our '08 Election Spotlights, on Bill Richardson.

With this, join the Notepad team for Notepad presents: The Debates, as we watch the Democratic Debates on CNN, including Gov. Richardson. Come to The Pecoraro Household on June 3rd at 6:47 PM for some rousing debate, discussion, and the modern American media inaction.

On Executive Orders

A belated Happy Memorial Day to the dead both here and abroad fighting for our country's freedoms, and the living while praying they all come home alive and safe.

Also, I'd like to apologize for not posting for five days.

I was online yesterday, when I read about an interesting Executive Order on Countdown w/Keith Olbermann's blog. Known with the exceedingly long title of, National Security Presidential Directive 51, it is, what I like to call the "Buzz Windrip" theory.

If anyone has read Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, you understand what I mean. If not, here's the gist on this unlawful and unconstitutional Executive Decision:

• This President can, in the instance of "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions,"
• Make himself the leader of all three branches of government,
• while making the judicial and legislative branches advisory positions.
• Finally, the President has the jurisdiction as to what is considered an incident in those bounds, be it a bad day on Wall St., at OPEC, and even an election in which a Democrat will win(like, say, the '08 presidential election).

In summary, the President is destroying the concept of the Constitution, which was written to prevent a king to be crowned after declaring and winning its independence; the Magna Carta, which lessened the powers of an incompetent leader; the Warsaw Pact, which formed NATO, which tried to ally themselves against the Soviet Union empire, and even more documents. Apparently, Mr. Bush has taken all too seriously his sardonic nickname, "King George the W."

Of course, when you try to look for it on the link provided, you get a 404 error on the White House website; probably because the White House purposely corrupted it. In other words, they don't want anyone to know about this.

Mr. Bush is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, playing pretend that he is Mussolini, creating his own little fascist government in a country known as the "land of the free." Mr. Bush is trying to use the mathematical proposition of the Reflexive Postulate, that the President=the President=the President when it comes to balance of power. And he is mistaken in its use; it is used in math, not in politics. He is not the decider, he is not a king. But he will succeed, because he is already doing what he wants in the executive order-by being able to create this executive order.

Gonzo-Gate --And Commentary on the Iraq War Supplemental Bill

I will respond-hastily and angrily-on the subject of the recent passing of the Iraq War Supplemental Spending Bill momentarily, but first, our scheduled commentary on the subject of the U.S. Attorney Debacle.

It is good timing on the part of the one-man Notepad Team that we speak of Gonzo-gate, a day after a evangelical law school graduate at which less than half of the graduating class passed the bar on their first try, a woman who had never taken on a court case of any kind, admitted under oath that she was given the authority to fire 8 U.S. attorneys based on political bias, gracing every major newspaper in the nation saying she "crossed the line."

First of all, who in the world gave Monica Goodling this power to hire any personnel? For a woman who had never even gotten her feet wet in the federal court system, she had the power to fire any District Attorney, not just the 8 fired, or the 26 which were planned to be fired, but all District Attorneys, because of the PATRIOT Act. Also, being a White House liaison, the Justice Department is definitely at fault; how could they allow someone to have that power when it should be in the hands of, in my opinion, the Judiciary Committee? This is ludicrous.

As for the reasons why, this scares me more. This was done to take out attorneys with cases against Republicans and replacing them with-who else?-Bush cronies. In other words, because of the wonderful PATRIOT Act, they could have taken out Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Prosecutor on the U.S. v. Scooter Libby trial, who some attorneys say is on the rise, and replaced him-indefinitely-with Rush Limbaugh!

Now my opinion on the Iraq Spending Bill. This is total cowardice by the Democratic Party. A compromise, says Mr. Reid of Nevada? A compromise, says Madam Pelosi of California? A compromise, say Mr. Hoyer of Maryland? No, this is not a compromise, this is rolling down and dying by the Democratic Party! Do they know they won both houses last November? Do they know that they won both houses because the American people, en masse, were sick of what was being done in Iraq? And what about Sen. Biden of Delaware, who has seen young men and women, in body bags, come into Dover Air Force Base? Why did he vote yes? And John Murtha? Doesn't he want to help the troops by getting them the hell out of there? And he actually has a spine?

The Democratic Party needs a spine transplant. And quick. Because they can be gone quite quickly.

On the Iraq War

"I remember a sign from the Old West, that said: "Wanted...Dead or Alive."

-President George Walker Bush, on Osama bin Laden

"I don't know where he is. I just...haven't spent that much time on it."

-President George Walker Bush, on Osama bin Laden

The Iraq War should have never happened: we should have stayed in Afghanistan, hunting down our true enemy, Osama bin Laden, to the death; we should have sealed the mountains of Tora Bora; we shouldn't have left what we started to begin with; we should have actually defended our country against an imminent threat.

I've read the papers, I've read the documents, I've read the Iraq Study Group report, I've done my research: this War wasn't necessary. Neither war was necessary; this President could have read the Presidential Daily Briefing that said "al-Qaida Planning to Attack Major American Landmarks" instead of My Pet Goat.

I saw the Twin Towers fall, as did my father and the rest of my family. My uncle worked at the WTC; he survived, while a few of his co-workers in that North Tower Blue Cross/Blue Shield office didn't. And we fought a meaningless war, a preemptive strike, against the country of Iraq.

It all began with a little conspiracy circle known as the Project For a New American Century(PNAC), filled with Republican wackjobs such as Vice President Cheney, newly resigned World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle, and others. Their mission: to create a colonizing America, especially in the oil-laden parts of Afro-Eurasia. It just couldn't have been done without a "Pearl Harbor-like incident." Cue 9/11. That's why this is happening.

There are a few people to blame. One is Congress, for not coming to a compromise, especially after seeing young men and women come home in body bags, without prosthetics, without some brain functions, and with post-partum depression syndrome. The other is the President and his kitchen Cabinet, for insulating the President from reality as a whole, not able to see the men and women going through this time, not meeting the silver- and gold-star mothers and fathers, and not even making appearances at sites and 'think tanks,' that disagree with him. He won't even speak at the Cato Institute, which is libertarian. To think, this president is more right-wing than a libertarian.

Here's what we can do about this crisis in Iraq:

• Open up the bidding for contracting jobs in Iraq, especially to European businesses. I believe that European businesses getting into Iraq will curry favor with Europe and score points diplomatically, which can bode well in the greater fight against terror.
• Focus brigades and battalions on certain areas. Right now, troops are doing this: clearing out a city of any terrorist threats, then leaving, all for it to sprout up again. When brigades and battalions are centered in certain areas, then order can be restored on a local level, which can lead to restoration of order on the national level.
• Rewrite the Iraqi constitution, to make it democratic, and not the fascist-supporting government it is after the interim American government got to it.
• Help out the Iraqis, for once: restore a full 24-hours of electricity, water, &c; if you were going to "liberate" the Iraqis, you have to make it a better situation.
• Finally, set up timetables to leave Iraq. We can't stay forever. We mustn't stay forever. Thus, we have to set timetables for the Iraqi government so that they can finally take control of this mess.
• Redeploy troops to Afghanistan, and finish what we started.

There you go: strong, constructive ideas for what to do in Iraq. Now, where's my post as Defense Secretary?...wait, it's already been taken by Dr. Gates?...Oh well, I'm still better than Rumsfeld.

Here's a link on PNAC: http://newamericancentury.org. It's crazy, loony stuff.

Wednesday I'm off, mainly because I need a day off. Thursday: I'll be talking about Gonzo-Gate.

New Book-Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason"

Here's something I forgot to tell all of you: President Al Gore's new book is out.(Yes, I said President Gore.) The title is The Assault on Reason, and is on the threat to democracy that is the current political system. I've read an excerpt in the latest issue of TIME; it's marvelous, it's eloquent, it's what Al Gore would write about the current time.

It's $15.57 on Amazon and $18.16($16.34 for members) at Barnes and Noble; I think that's worth it. If it's not worth it, borrow it from your local library. Or a friend. Or a coworker.

Read the book. Before Al Gore unrightfully falls into obscurity and political purgatory.

Election 2008 Spotlight-Chrisopher Dodd

Well, you asked for it. (Right after I gave it to you.) Here's the facts about Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd:

• Contrary to popular belief, Dodd is not the Junior Senator from Connecticut; while Joe Lieberman was first elected in 1989, Dodd was elected in 1981.
• Dodd is a classic modern-day liberal: he is for gun control, has called for an end to the Iraq War, and has called for environmental and healthcare reform.
• He has called, along with a handful of his Democratic colleagues, to restore the Constitution and the right to habeas corpus.
• He is against same-sex marraige and for NAFTA and CAFTA; this is one of the ways in which Dodd diverges from this.

On Tuesday: I opine on the War in Iraq.