Expertise's Politics and Sports Blog


Friday, July 02, 2004
Cosby's cutting up again.

Okay...what's the deal with Cosby?

I really don't know what to think about this.  This is the second time in, say, about a month that Cosby has used public venues to display anger towards blacks.

Is this Cosby's new gimmick?  To live his life as Hilton Lucas, his character on his CBS version of "Cosby"?  Just staying angry and grumpy all the time?  That's what it seems like.

That's not saying his rants don't have merit.  They do.  There is significant problems within the black community in regards to anti-achievement and anti-intellectualism.  But Cosby just points fingers - you, you, and you - and saying they are the reason why black people can't advance and why there are so many problems.

Sorry, but it's much more complicated than that.  As John McWhorter stated in Losing the Race, these problems aren't just isolated within a certain demographic of the black community.  It's widespread, and it encompasses rich and poor, urban and rural. 

And another thing that really irks me about these rants of Cosby is how the age factor comes into play.  According to Cosby. the civil rights leaders are the messiahs of the black community, but the young masses aren't willing to follow in their footsteps and build upon what they've created. 

Sorry, but that shit doesn't work for me.  These problems didn't just start in this generation.  It started in the same generation that Cosby claims did all of this for black people.  While the civil rights movement focused on political issues, the fact remains that self-sufficiency and aspiration went neglected, at least to the point where everything focused back on community.

Their policies and ideals snowballed into what we see today.  Rap music/hip hop didn't just start in the 90's.  Neither did gangs and high crime.  Members of the black community kept their mouths shut about these things in the 60's, and felt it was more important to confront the government rather than address these issues and confront the ones behind them locally.  Well, you should have done a little of both, and not be afraid to "air dirty laundry" just because of what white people might think.  The simple fact remains that black leaders have been more worried about style, rather than substance.  And the bad part is, people were no more fooled about what's going on in the 60's than they are in the new century. 

Cosby and others must be aware of the roots of degeneration of morals and degradation within the black community.  It didn't start during slavery.  It didn't start 10 years ago.  It started with the emphasis of political activism and the subsequent neglect of individual responsibility and values.  Only when we correctly surmise the roots of the problem can we actually start fixing it.
 

Posted at 04:12 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Thursday, July 01, 2004
I'll believe it when I see it.

Sorry...I aint with you this time, Drudge.

Not to say it can't happen.  But I don't see that woman being second banana to anyone.  Period.  She wants all the power and prestige.  And the fact is that he's running a very weak campaign.  Any other president that received the media attack that Bush has gotten would be dead in the water.  Instead, he's running neck and neck, and a building economy and the Iraq handover is NOT good news for the Democrats.

But then again, maybe she realizes that her little run in New York is about to be over.  Whether it's against Pataki or Guiliani in 2006, it's going to be a dogfight for her to be reelected, and she can't afford to lose that race.  If she is able to put Kerry over the top, then she would get accolades for becoming the first woman vice-president.  But, if she loses, well...at least she still has her job, and she and her lackeys can blame Kerry for being inept.

One good thing about this?  Bush and Cheney would not play games like Rick Lazio did.  Lazio let her and the NY media intimidate him after that first debate.  That won't work for Dick Cheney, especially with his "silent aggression" technique where he dismantles opponents with a soft voice.  And we possibly get to hear about those Rose Law Firm Billing Records, along with Pardongate, that Hillary slimed her way out of. 

Bush and Cheney need to realize they are at dire straits right now.  The Democrats smell blood, and they are starting to bring out the heavy weapons.  The media has been wacking down Bush's popularity ratings, and they aren't going to let go of the onslaught anytime soon.  Moore's propagandist fictional movie is out, and it made $21 million over the weekend.  More than likely that DNC convention will allow Kerry to help take a solid lead in the polls.  This is not the time to try to be the better man.  It's time to be the winning man, and the only way you're going to do that is to let the people know who Kerry and the Democrats really are.

"The Coalition of the Wild-Eyed" was cute, but you're going to have to do better.  As much as you probably still cringe at the 92 Convention, you're going to have to rely on some of that rhetoric in order to win this election.  Stop holding back and get it done.

Posted at 01:06 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

Huh?

Sorry folks, but while ole girl shouldn't be cursed out for it, I really don't see why Fox got her to speak about Tupac.  It would be quite interesting if I saw the segment, but I doubt if Malkin is a hip hop fanatic and has extensive knowledge on the issue.  I could be wrong, of course.

But hey; I guess they couldn't find any black people at the last minute. *shrugs*


Posted at 12:33 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Monday, June 28, 2004
Let's make one thing clear about Michael Moore:

Anyone who posts this:

“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow – and they will win.”

on their website, is nothing more than a terrorist cheerleader.

How a man could write this - likening these barbaric murderers to the MINUTEMEN of the American Revolution, no less - and not consider killing himself just amazes me.

Posted at 04:44 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

Kudos to Jose Contreras

Jose Contreras, a pitcher for the New York Yankees, pitched a top-notch game today with a career high of 10 K's as the Yankees dominated the Mets 8-1.

You think it had anything to do with him now having his family back.

Contreras's family snuck out of Cuba on a raft on Sunday night and he was able to reunite with his wife and daughters on Tuesday.  Contreras, who was a star on the Cuban National Team before he defected and made it to Nicaragua in 2002, has been without his family for a year and a half, and was told by the Cuban government that he would have to wait 5 years before he could see them again.

He signed a four-year contract with the New York Yankees upon defecting to America for $32 million.

Contreras has been quite vocal about his frustrations with both the Yankees and the Cuban Government.  According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Contreras stated that the Yankess weren't doing anything on their side to try to influence Cuba to release his family.  While he has formally established residency in Nicaragua, and was allowed to see him twice, Contreras said the Cuban government were punishing him for defection.  Cuban officials have harrassed his family, which should come as no surprise to anyone.  His wife has been arrested twice; once on suspicion of leaving that prison island and another on prostitution. 

Before his family got here, Contreras stated that he wishes he would have left 20 years ago if he realized that the Cuban government were going to treat him the way they did, and that he could never go back to Cuba.  If he even stepped into the airport, they would shoot him on sight.

The only problem that stands now is the fact that Contreras's parents are still there, supposedly living in the house his wife was able to buy once he sent money to her.  I don't know if they actually got rid of the farm they had in rural Cuba, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cuba decides they want to take the house. 

Here's an interesting tidbit I found:

"Carlos Rodriguez, Cuba's national director of baseball, said defectors are allowed back for visits "if they don't speak negatively about Fidel Castro or Cuba or join the mafia or say life is difficult here."

Baseball defectors are viewed as "traitors who abandoned their country," Rodriguez said. "The people don't pardon them."

After Contreras left, down came the posters of him that had plastered bars and restaurants in Havana and Pinar del Rio. But many baseball fans said they continue to adore the powerful 6-4, 245-pound righthander, who was the country's top pitcher until he skipped town Oct. 1 while playing for the Cuban national team in Mexico.

"He's still the best," exclaimed fan Livan Lescano, 29, an elevator operator, as he strolled the main street of Pinar del Rio - a city of crumbling, pastel-colored houses that's so rural, most taxis are bicycle- or horse-drawn buggies. "We're sorry he's gone, but if I were him I'd have done the same."
In other words, you can't have freedom of speech even AFTER you leave Cuba.  And since his parents are there and he has 8 other siblings he isn't in the clear yet.
Here's some more, from that same article:

"Despite their condemnation of Contreras, Cuban authorities have been kind to his family. They let his wife keep the blue Peugeot 400C sedan they gave her husband two years ago, around the same time they gave him a couple of bonuses - one of $2,000 and one of $5,000, Myriam Contreras thought - to supplement his monthly salary of 600 Cuban pesos, about $23."
Well isn't that nice of Castro?  Actually allowing them to keep what was theirs.  What a benevolent dictator, huh?  A very good, objective analysis by Letta Tayler (sarcasm).

Once again, well wishes to the Contreras family.  I feel sorry for all the Cubans who continue to live their lives in that destitute island prison by that lowlife piece of cigar-smoking scum and his cronies.  May Castro begin his travel into the depths of hell wearing long johns under a solar suit and an eskimo fur coat.

Here's a very good complilation of articles in regards to Jose Contreras's attempts to bring his family here to America courtesy of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Posted at 03:20 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Saturday, June 26, 2004
Zell Miller will be at the GOP Convention.

It's hard to find upstanding people nowadays, much less honorable politicians.

So when politicians like Zell Miller come around, you have to appreciate who this man is and what he represents.

It's real simple; he could not let party loyalty come before the loyalty of his country and state.

I was living in Georgia when Paul Coverdell died unexpectantly in 2000.  I witnessed the disgraceful attitudes of the Democrats in Georgia.  Paul Coverdell body hadn't even grown cold yet and John Lewis, Cynthia McKinney, and many others started lobbying then-Governor Roy Barnes in order to get that Senate seat.  It got so bad that Roy Barnes had to rebuke them in public.

So what did Barnes do?  He appointed the one person who didn't want it....Zell Miller.

There were a number of Republicans who felt that a Republican should replace Coverdell, since he was a Republican.  In retrospect, I think conservatives are glad that Zell Miller is representing that state.

But he doesn't only represent Georgians.  Zell Miller is America's Senator.

Miller didn't buy his soul for a committee chair, like Jim Jeffords did.  He stayed on, and criticized his fellow party members in Washington.  He never was to be an Al Gore, who couldn't even beat George Bush in his home state because of his joyride to the left over the years.  He's probably the most popular politician in Georgia, and is definitely the most visible member of the Georgia delegation in Washington.

When I heard he's going to speak at the GOP convention, it really didn't surprise me.  Miller serves as a stark reminder that there are two Democrat parties; the Washingtonians and the Southerners.  And Democrats are upset because Miller did not conform into what they wanted him to be.

It's a shame others don't agree with me, including a former classmate of mine who just happened to work in Miller's office.  While I am pleased to see Anthony Coley rubbing noses with the Washington elite, since I know that's what he's always wanted to do, I sure hope he remembers Zell Miller's words.  Unfortunately, I know he just blew them off and will go the typical route of most African-Americans in Washington.  Maybe one day he'll see the light.

Posted at 01:11 pm by Expertise
Comments (1)  

Home




Friday, June 25, 2004
North Korea's playing the same ole games

Let's hope Bush isn't fooled by this charade.

North Korea is back up to their ole tricks again, as they've been doing for over a decade now.  They're doing everything they can to act belligerent and confrontational, then try to portray themselves as the victim.

It's a normal trait of North Korea and other former Soviet Bloc countries; always claim a U.S. conspiracy to undermine them and eventually invade them.  Meanwhile, North Korea is turning into a weapons manufacturer, supplying every two-bit nation with weapons.  I'm sure terrorist organizations will be next, as long as they can show them the money.

So now these hoes got the U.S., Japan, China, South Korea, and Russia for these talks in Beijing.  Now they are considering testing a nuclear bomb.  As expected, none of the other parties want this, and are willing to give concessions (aka bribes) in order for North Korea to eventually end that program.

But we've seen this before.  In fact, this is the third time in the last 20 years.  North Korea has no intention to end their nuclear program.  Nor do they have any intention to stop selling weapons to other despotic countries.

So why do we continue to pander to these idiots?  Of course, no one wants these weapons to get into the wrong hands, nor do they want North Korea to continue with their aggressive stance against the U.S. and other countries.  But they are using our fear of their actions to try to manipulate us.  It's akin to a 4-year old kid that is about to throw a tantrum in a busy supermarket, attempting to embarrass you in public in order to get you to buy them some candy.
If Bush is determined to find some kind of solution to this North Korea problem, he must state that North Korea will not get a dime until they allow unfettered access with that country to investigators, and there must be a public disposal of any and all nuclear weapons development.  Only then should we allow a broad humanitarian project to help boost North Korea's economy.

But not one dime until then.  If North Korea continues its antics, we should cut off any current projects we have, and veto any United Nations aid to them as well.  In a world where international terror is the leading threat to global security and peace, we cannot allow parasites like North Korea to continue to be rewarded while destabilizing the global theatre.

Posted at 12:55 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

And now, an Ann Coulter moment.

From this week's column, Moby's Dick (Isn't that a lil racy, Ann?):

"If we're so obsessed with it, why do they keep bringing it up? OK, uncle. You win, Mr. President. If I buy a copy of your book, will you just shut up once and for all, go away, and never come back? It will cost me $35, but, judging strictly by weight, that isn't a bad price for so much cow manure. At 957 pages, this is the first book ever published that contains a 20-minute intermission. Readers are advised to put it down and read a passage from Clinton's 1988 Democratic National Convention speech nominating Dukakis just to stay awake. This thing is so long, he almost called it "War and Peace." Or, I suppose, more properly, "War and a Piece."

Now, I don't care whether you like Coulter or not, but you CAN'T deny that this woman is one of the best creative writers within the political realm.  Now I consider myself witty and downright brutal at times, but man...I don't think I can reach Ann's level on my BEST day.

Maybe I will, within time.

Posted at 12:04 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

Jack Ryan, I ain't mad atcha.

For real though....people need to get over themselves.

Now people are calling for Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, Jack Ryan, to step down due to some allegations made by his wife during a custody case, actress Jeri Ryan.  According to Jeri Ryan, while they were married Jack took her to some sex clubs and tried to get her to have sex with him in public.  The judge working on the case allowed her testimony to be unsealed, against both of their wishes, which caused this unnecessary commotion.

Now, sex clubs?  That isn't my cup of tea.  But all of these people getting their panties in a bunch need to get a life.  They were a married couple.  That is between that man and that woman.  Even if we took her testimony for face value (because there's really no way this can be proven), he asked, she said no, end of story.

And you know where all of this stems from.  The Monica Lewinsky scandal.  Instead of looking at the legal stature of the case - the perjury and obstruction of justice part - everyone wants to look at the adultery and immorality aspect. 

"Allegations of sex clubs in Paris, New Orleans and New York do not play well in Quincy, Macomb, La Salle and Peru," Dillard said. "I think their eyes roll when you talk about sex clubs."
Obama could be a facsict for all they know..but hey, at least he isn't going to some devilish sex club, right?

But on a lighter note, if I HAD to have sex with someone in public, Jeri Ryan SURE wouldn't be at the bottom of the list.  Hell; now that I think about it, if I had a wife that looked like Jeri Ryan I'd want everyone to know I was hitting this too.  I'd would be on some "Look at what "I"got" type steeze.  "This....is what I'm sleeping with every night."

Okay.  Let me behave.

But for real.  Jack Ryan gets a pass; if not for the mere fact that his wife is hot, then for the fact that it's nobody's damned business.

Now if it was Bill and Hillary (which would never happen), or John and Teresa, that's a violation.  Hell I would feel bad for the ones watching it.  I'm sure something like that would take MONTHS of rehabilitation.

Posted at 04:51 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Thursday, June 24, 2004
"FAIR" lies about Bush Administration and 9/11 Commission

One good thing about posting on predominantly leftist  discussion boards is that you're given a heads-up on certain pieces of propaganda that will soon come out within the political realm.

Hence, imagine how I felt when I received
this goodie.  It seems as if FAIR didn't like how Dick Cheney and others jumped on the mainstream media last week, so they decided to jump back.  But just like most leftist propaganda, it consists of assertions that are full of holes and devoid of plain logic, as well as some highly deceptive statements.

Let's get started:

"On Fox's Special Report newscast (6/16/04), anchor Brit Hume charged that the media were mischaracterizing the report: "The Associated Press leads off its story on a new 9/11 commission report by saying the document bluntly contradicts the Bush administration by claiming to have no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11 terrorist attacks." Hume maintained that the AP story was inaccurate: "In fact, the Bush administration has never said that such evidence exists."

In fact, it's Hume that is misrepresenting the AP story-- quoting from the story's lead, but then changing its meaning through an inaccurate paraphrase. The story actually begins: "Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the September 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda."


It would be one thing if he did quoted the beginning paragraph, but he didn't.  Then FAIR lies about the initial statement in the story.

Here is the
AP article:

"Rebuffing Bush administration claims, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein. In hair-raising detail, the commission said the terror network had envisioned a much larger attack and is working hard to strike again."
So they can't even get that straight.

And what Brit Hume was referring to was the NEXT paragraph:

"Although Osama bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. The report asserted "no credible evidence" has emerged that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 strikes."
You see?  The Associated Press first started off stating that there was no Saddam/Al Qaeda link.  Then in the very next paragraph, they state that Saddam had no links to September 11th, blurring the assertions of the Bush Administration.

Also, the Associated Press never clarified the kind of report this was.  If you look at a previous post on this blog, you'll see 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman's statements in regards to the kind of report this was.  This was not a finding or a confirmation by the 9/11 Commission itself, it was done by the Commission's staff.  In this article, he decides to make that assertion in the article, but as for other articles - created by the Associated Press and others, they did not make that specific, and that this was not a ruling or consensus made by the Commission itself.  That's why Lehman and Cheney among others have labelled these articles as lazy journalism.

Finally, the 9/11 Commission's job was to investigate the circumstances and controversies surrounding 9/11.  It was not their responsibility to do it for each and every terrorist link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.  And considering the staff only took the time to address Iraq and Al-Qaeda in vague terms and with only one paragraph out of a 12 page report suggests that they didn't do a full inquiry into it.

Let's move on (no pun intended):

"Hume changed the allegation, from Hussein having ties with Al Qaeda to his having ties to the September 11 attacks, in order to knock it down, claiming that the Bush administration never linked Iraq to September 11. But that is not accurate either: Bush's letter to Congress formally announcing the commencement of hostilities against Iraq (3/18/03) explained that the use of force would be directed against "terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." In his "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the U.S.S. Lincoln (5/1/03), Bush declared that the invasion of Iraq had "removed an ally of Al Qaeda."

When I saw this I almost wanted to throw up.  This is supposed to be a so-called "media watchdog".  Yet, who is watching them? 

Well I am, and it just so happened that I remembered that
James Taranto just checked USA Today for pulling this very same trick last week.

Here's what the letter REALLY said:

"Acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

So, Bush never said that Iraq planned or aided 9/11.  He only said any measures taken against Iraq was consistent with the fight against terrorism.  Either FAIR's research was sloppy, or they outright distorted what Bush said.

Here's some more:

"And during an interview on NBC's Meet the Press (9/14/03), when Vice President Dick Cheney was asked if he was "surprised" that so many Americans connected Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, Cheney responded:

"No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.... You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. We've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW , that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."

Clearly, Cheney was describing exactly the sort of "collaborative relationship" that the September 11 commission now says that Iraq did not have with Al Qaeda, and stating that this relationship makes it "not surprising" that people would connect Iraq with the September 11 attacks."
FAIR tries to use this as proof that Cheney continued to lead people on.  However, the only one that's leading anyone on is FAIR, who continues to mislead the readers into thinking the Commission said there was no link, when it was their staff.  Then they tried to say there was no collaborative relationship, "that Iraq did not have with Al-Qaeda", when they simply say they couldn't find enough credible evidence.

Not finding enough credible evidence does not equate that something never happened.  It means that either sufficient information wasn't requested and brought to them, or it means that they never highlighted an Iraq link as the key to an Al-Qaeda investigation.  If they actually found evidence that pointed towards Iraq and Al-Qaeda not having a relationship, I think they would have said so.  However, most of the information given, if FAIR had looked at the report, never showed any kind of animosity by Iraq to Al Qaeda nor did it show any evidence, as the wording of the report implies, that Al Qaeda was indeed rebuffed by Saddam. I'm sure that the Commission members would say there is alot to find out about Iraq and Al-Qaeda that we don't know now.  But don't tell that to FAIR.

Either way you put it, FAIR is UNFAIR.  And they need to start telling the truth instead of being a defender of the type of journalism - as well becoming an example of it themselves - that they are supposed to be protecting the public from.

Posted at 05:59 pm by Expertise
Comments (1)  

Home




Next Page



   









Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:




rss feed

BLOGDRIVE
TEMPLATES

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

Blogdrive