The three dollar bill with the $400 haircuts is back. Former Senator, Vice Presidential candidate, Presidential candidate and adulterer John Edwards gave a speech at Indiana University yesterday. He was paid 35-thousand dollars for the appearance. He talked about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, politics…everything except his adulterous affair with campaign filmmaker Rielle Hunter.

Afterwards there was a question and answer session. But no press and the questions he agreed to answer were submitted in advance…that way he could avoid anything that made him uncomfortable. Edwards is very careful…except when he's sneaking in and out of hotel rooms in the middle of the night to meet his mistress while his wife is home suffering from breast cancer. The National Enquirer caught him red-handed.

Edwards is expected to follow up last night's speech with a public appearance today in San Francisco and an upcoming debate with Republican Strategist Karl Rove at the American Bankers Association.

Why Indiana University would even want Edwards on their campus is another question.

Can John Edwards make a comeback?

source: CNN

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it's one that nobody's talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn't be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense…unless it's race.

Time magazine's Michael Grunwald says race is the elephant in the room. He says Barack Obama needs to tread lightly as he fights back against the McCain-Palin campaign attacks.

He writes, "Over the past 18 months, Obama has been attacked as a naive novice, an empty suit, a tax-and-spend liberal, an arugula-grazing élitist and a corrupt ward heeler, but the only attacks that clearly stung him involved the Rev. Jeremiah Wright - attacks that portrayed him as an angry black man under the influence of an even angrier black man."

The angry black man, he goes on to say, doesn't have broad appeal in White America. And even though the makeup of our population is changing, whites are still the majority in this country. How ironic that the giant step forward of nominating an African American for president may ultimately keep us mired in the past.

Here is the question: Will Barack Obama's race cost him the White House?

All we have heard from John McCain for months is, “Barack Obama is too young. Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief. Who do you want answering the phone in the White House at three a.m.? Blah, blah, blah.”

So what does McCain do? He picks someone to be his running mate who is even younger than Barack Obama and has less experience.

Sara Palin is 44 – Obama is 47. Sara Palin is in her first term as governor of Alaska, a state that has 13 people and some caribou. Obama is a member of the United States Senate from Illinois.

It’s not a big deal, except for this: If McCain wins, he will be the oldest person ever inaugurated for a first term at 72. He has a history of health problems that include bouts of melanoma, a potentially deadly form of skin cancer. It is reasonable to consider that McCain’s running mate could be called upon to be our president.

Meanwhile, some may see this as a move for McCain to attract disaffected women who voted for Hillary Clinton and aren’t yet behind Obama. But that might not work for a few reasons: Palin, like McCain, is pro-life. Also, she might be a woman, but she’s no Hillary Clinton – when it comes to her experience or her ideology.

At some point, voters will have to ask themselves who they would want running the country if it ever became necessary: Joe Biden or Sarah Palin.

Does John McCain undercut his own message by naming someone even younger and more inexperienced than Barack Obama to be his running mate?

Hi Everyone!

Just to update you on Omar’s Music Store --

MySpace has decided that my store’s website is a spam site so they have disabled the link to my store. Therefore, I have removed the link from my profile even though it is NOT a spam site. Anyway, for those of you interested on buying AUTOGRAPHED copies of my CD’s, feel free to visit my store at my main website http://www.omarmusic.com


Thanks for all your support!

Omar Akram

After two years of hard work, my new album, Secret Journey, is finally available in stores nationwide. I'm extremely excited about this album and am looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

I found out last night that "Run Away With Me", a track from "Secret Journey" was the most added smooth Jazz radio track in the nation for the week of 9/24!!

I am looking forward to seeing you on the road!

Omar Akram

President Bush for the second time vetoed legislation that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Reiterating a position he first announced in 2001, the president said that while he supports research on stem cells derived from human embryos that no longer exist, he will not use taxpayers' money for work that relies on the destruction of additional embryos.
Stem cells may eventually yield the key to treating devastating conditions, such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease, or spinal-cord injuries. More than Fifty eight percent of Americans support stem cell research, while less than thirty percent oppose it.

According to many world renowned scientists, there is nothing unethical about destroying embryos in the course of scientific research. An embryo is a potential, not an actual, human being, just as canvas is a potential, not an actual, work of art. It is a primitive cluster of cells, which is no more unethical to destroy than the cells that make up one's appendix.

Is President Bush right to restrict the funding for stem cell research, or should scientists be able to explore the opportunities it offers? Where, if anywhere, should the line be drawn?

The doorbell rings at many churches, a person in need may be standing in the doorway seeking some food, clothes, counseling or encouragement. If that individual is an undocumented immigrant, his presence presents legal and ethical issues.
The question then becomes: Should churches offer sanctuary for illegal immigrants?

"Doctor uses ADHD drug Adderall, an amphetamine, to treat childhood obesity". This was a headline taken from CNN this morning.

Adderall is a central nervous system stimulant. It affects chemicals in the brain and nerves that contribute to hyperactivity and impulse control. It is also a drug of abuse and may be habit-forming. Here are some of the side effects: elevation of blood pressure, psychotic episodes, over stimulation, restlessness, dizziness, insomnia, euphoria, dyskinesia, dysphoria, depression, tremor, headache, exacerbation of motor and phonic tics, Tourettes syndrome, seizures, stroke and sudden death.

Child obesity has reached an all time high in America. It's amazing to me that no one is talking about the root of the problem, instead they want to "drug" the kids and seriously compromise their well being. Parents want to blame schools, government and T.V. commercials. Like everything else in our "modern society" they are looking for a "shortcut".

Should the government take more responsibility in educating the public, doing things like limiting junk food commercials? Or is this primarily the responsibility of the parents to make sure that their children understand the basics of a healthy lifestyle?