Expertise's Politics and Sports Blog

Saturday, June 19, 2004
And When It All....

It All Comes Downnnn....(c) Kanye West.

Well it definitely fell down this week.

The Lake Show is over, folks.

After being humiliated in 5 games by a Detroit Pistons team that wasn't supposed to win more than two, the expected (well, at least I expected it) shakeup happened.

- Kobe, as expected, decided to opt his free agent clause.

- Phil Jackson, as I expected, bid adeu to the Lakers franchise

- Shaq, asked for a trade.  Aiight, this WASN'T expected.

- Malone is testing free agency.  I'm surprised he hasn't announced his retirement yet.

- Gary's gone too, as expected.

The biggest surprise is the Lakers trying to keep Kobe instead of Shaq.  Well, at least it was to me.  I would have thought that if you're going to have one person to build a team around, it would be Shaq.  But Shaq is getting up there in years, (as he is on his what...12 season this year?) so I can understand this move.  I'm sure Kobe has been dying for this day anyway.  Finally he can get a team that he and only he leads.

This also puts the notion that there wasn't any animosity between Kobe and Shaq to rest, as both of them have been saying over the years.  We know winning makes anyone stay at least cooperative.  But the fact is that the Lake Show isn't winning world titles anymore.  And I think an era is gone where we see the one or two dominant forces on one team grabbing world championships in the NBA.

Think about it for a second; last year's team, the San Antonio Spurs, won the NBA Title with some of the best team efforts of all time.  Sure, Tim Duncan is no doubt a Hall-Of-Famer, but it's the little things he does that makes the difference.  He wasn't some scorer that had to put up 40 points every night.  In fact, he could carry the Spurs to a win with a simple 15-20 at times.  That's because folks like him make his whole team better.

Now take this year's NBA Champions, the Detroit Pistons.  This was so much of a team effort that ABC's commentators said Stern should give the MVP award to the whole team.  And they're right.  Billups was the MVP because he was consistent, not necessarily because he had a great performance.  And it would have been hard for Detroit to repeat this feat if even one guy was out of the rotation, and that includes the bench.

Have you noticed that the Pistons are the first NBA Championship team in about 25 years or so that hasn't had a dominant Hall-of-Famer lead their team to a title?

Check this out:

- Lake Show:  Kobe, Shaq

- Spurs:  Duncan, Robinson

- Bulls:  Jordan, Pippen, Rodman

- Rockets:  Olajuwon, Drexler

- Lakers:  Magic, Kareem, Worthy

- Celtics:  Larry Legend, McHale

You see, you KNEW who the leaders of their teams were back in the day, and you knew they were great.  However, the NBA doesn't produce this kind of talent anymore.  The jury is out on Carmello and LeBron but it's doubtful that they will start their own dynasties.

The next few months, and years, in the NBA will be interesting.  I can only hope that more parity will help give other teams a chance.  Maybe it will be a plus much like it is for the NFL.

But anyways, basketball season is over, so now I can just concentrate on wrestling and MMA until football season starts.  If anyone wants to give me some NC State home tickets (not because I like them, but because they got some really good televised games this year) or some Carolina Panthers tickets, let me know.

Posted at 09:44 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Welcome Back.....

I know you like that (c) Mase

Well, if anyone actually read this blog in the past 6 months or so, lemme say I'm sorry.  I totally slacked off on my writing after Thanksgiving.  However, after reading Michelle Malkin's and LaShawn Barber's blogs it got me a lil envious.  I've been slacking off way too much.

Resurfacing my blog will help me, since I started working with a talk radio station in April and I get practice on my writing skills.  Hey, not everyone can write like Malkin or Ann Coulter.  As we speak, I'm at work at 6 in the morning on a Saturday, and I'm going to be at full speed until about 5 or 6 this evening.

But let's get down to business:

- First, lemme clown the mainstream media real quick.  The Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, ESPECIALLY USA Today, and everyone else that recorded that tripe about the 9/11 Commission stating that there was no Iraq/Al Qaeda link.

As shown by James Taranto's Best of the Web column on, USA Today deliberately misled it's readers into thinking that President Bush attempted to make a link between Saddam and the 9/11 hijackers.  This is trash journalism by the lowest standards, and Dick Cheney was right in criticizing the media for it's coverage, depicting it as "lazy journalism".  I can think of better descriptions than that.

Anyone that read the 9/11 Report knows that this was more of a sidenote than anything.  Out of 12 pages, only ONE paragraph was written detailing the Iraq issue.  Second, it's a 9-11 COMMISSION, not an IRAQ WAR Commission.  Therefore, what would be the reason for the 9/11 Commission to go into a full Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection?

Here's the paragraph:
"Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime.  Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.  The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Ladin to cease his support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda.  A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Ladin in 1994.  Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.  There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.  Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq.  We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Now, look at that final statement again:  "WE HAVE NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE....that Iraq and Al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

No evidence does not mean it never happened.  They just don't have anyone to come forward to their commission with evidence that proves there was a relationship.  And since they were investigating 9/11 only, that means there wasn't a full investigation done on the links both before and after 9/11.

Some of the most damning evidence came from a Wall Street Journal Editorial  just last week discussing Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who was one of the people at the 9/11 planning meeting.  A similar name showed up on a Fedayeen list, and it's known that Shakir did get a job as an airport greeter while in Kuala Lumpur from an Iraqi diplomat. 

Add that with the consolidated information that Deroy Murdoch of National Review provides in several of his columns, such as Saddam's Terror Ties, The 9/11 Connection, and Saddam's Philantropy of Terror

At the VERY least, you cannot deny that there are a hell of a lot of coincidences between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and you can't simply blow it off by saying "There's no connection" without bringing more specific evidence to the table.

But lack of evidence to prove a point has never stopped the mainstream media before.  The sad truth is that lazy journalism is more of the norm rather than the exception nowadays.

Posted at 09:08 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Monday, November 24, 2003
Healthcare in America

At this very moment a huge medicare bill is being debated in Congress, in accordance to government subsidization of prescription medicine. 

Several conservatives, including Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA),  have opened the eyes of the American people to the realities of health care not only in America, but other countries.

The reason why countries like Canada, Germany, the U.K. and others have socialist health care is due to the fact that they have price caps which artificially lower the prices of medicine there.  The medical companies think it's better for them to do business at these low prices and have enough to cover the basic costs of production than to not do business with them at all.  That's reasonable. 

But guess who gets stuck with even higher prices?  We do.  Remember, businesses are in business to gain a profit.  When you're not getting a profit, you're out of business.  Therefore if they can't get it one way, they have to get it another.  So, Americans are the ones that help pay for the medicine of these countries.

Some legislators are considering making it easier for Americans to go across the border and buy medicine in Canada.  But that only puts a bigger strain on consumers that can't buy medicine there.  It possibly could force legislators in Canada among other countries to at least raise the price cap there, but you'd be risking jobs and the welfare of businesses that are already strained to the max. 

The one good thing about it is the personal accounts, in which individuals can contribute to tax-free.  But is this prescription drug bill REALLY worth all of the government spending in order to obtain it?  After reading and hearing the opinions of several people and looking at some information on it, I'd have to say no.  Fiscal conservatives were right for voting against this plan, although it ended up passing the House anyway (under dubious means, I might add.).

Because of this bill, the 76% of seniors who already had some kind of prescription drug plan could end up losing it because companies will feel no need to cover them for something the government is giving away for free.  The problem with health care will continue to escalate as long as legislators continue to hold fast to the idea that more government and regulation will solve the problem.

Posted at 01:22 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Keyshawn's out.

Keyshawn Johnson was deactivated by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for the remainder of the season and now has to wait to be traded to another team before he can play again.

It's about time someone did something in lieu of the primadonna attitudes that high profile superstars like Johnson have had for a long time.  Although I haven't forgiven the Glacier family after how they treated Tony Dungy more than a year ago, they and John Gruden deserve kudos for this move.

Keyshawn Johnson has been one of the most vocal football players in the league.  If he's not happy, he's going to let someone know it, and in time that takes a toll on the whole franchise.  He has not only mouthed off about his former coach, Tony Dungy, but also about current coach Gruden, GM Rich McKay, and about his teammates.

One incident in particular happened two seasons ago, in which he complained about Dungy's coaching and then trashed some of his teammates due to some of them making comments about other teams.

Hello Pot.  Meet Kettle.

What makes the situation even worse is the fact that Keyshawn's stats only make him an above average quarterback at best.  He brings in less than 14 yards per catch and only has 3 touchdowns.  That's great numbers for a tight end, but not for a wideout.  The problem is, Keyshawn wants everyone to think that he is the greatest wide receiver in the league, when he really isn't.

And lets not forget that it was Keyshawn himself that asked for this.  He went to Gruden and told him outright that he would not play for this team after this season, and went so far as to tell Gruden that he'd RETIRE before he would play next year for them.  And now that Joe Jurevicus is back in the lineup, they figured it was a good time as any to get rid of him.

A great column appeared on by Adrian Wojnarowski highlighting some of Johnson's many antics, including insecure criticisms of Marvin Harrison during a Monday Night Football game -- a game in which the Colts made a huge comeback to beat the Bucs -- and comments during last years Super Bowl weekend against the New York Jets for trading him to the Bucs 3 years ago.

This has become a growing trend among wide receivers, who either spout off about how they aren't getting the ball as much as they "should" be or they're talking smack about other teams.  Whether it's Keyshawn, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, or others, this problem needs to be addressed by coaches and front office staff.  They'll be quiet as long as they are getting the ball and winning.  But once they start losing, they are the first ones to run to a mic and tell everyone what's screwed up about their team.  And they never point fingers at themselves.

Let's hope this is just the beginning.  There's no doubt that the NFL has some great wide receivers and they deserve respect.  But they aren't the only ones on that team, nor are most the ones leading their teams to victory.  Some should be reminded that there are 10 others on that field that work with them.

Posted at 01:25 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Hannity was wrong.

I try to be a fair observer, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are on or what political party they come from.  If they are wrong, they are wrong, and I give credit where credit is due.

Therefore, in complete fairness, I'm about to criticize Sean Hannity.

There was an article published on by syndicated columnist and professor Paul Ginnetty.  In it he criticizes Rush Limbaugh, other talk radio hosts, including Hannity, and their listeners.  He figures the reason why talk radio does so well is because the analyses and opinions given on the show are so basic that anyone could understand them and thus, get behind them.

Ginnetty took a shot at "Marty", a older daily caller on Hannity's show that participates in the "Trash the Lines" closing segment, calling him "pathetic".  He identified Marty as a typical talk radio show listener, implying that they listen and call to get a "sense of derivative celebrity and charisma" from interacting with a "a mega-rich and politically powerful figure".  Meanwhile they are getting suckered into supporting policies that really work against their self interests.

Of course, it's the typical way leftists try to bash talk radio; portray listeners as stupid, simple, and uninformed.  However, Hannity did no favors for the talk radio industry - it's hosts or listeners - last night with the stunt he pulled.

Hannity allowed Ginnetty to call into the show yesterday, which I'm sure Ginnetty took it as a chance to elaborate on and debate his opinions against Hannity.  However, Hannity put Marty on another line and spent the entire segment trying to get Ginnetty to apologize for calling Marty pathetic.  After Ginnetty did so (actually he did several times, but the previous ones did not satisfy Hannity so he continued to bulldog him into giving an appropriate apology), Hannity stated he didn't care about his opinions and didn't want to talk about the column, and ended the segment.

Listening to the reactions of Marty himself, it seemed that he was uncomfortable for being put in the middle of this and didn't appreciate the special attention.  Marty's a grown man.  I'm sure it didn't bother him that much.  Ginnetty was undoubtedly wrong in characterizing Marty as pathetic.  But as Ginnetty pointed out, that was only 5 words in an 800 word column.  After Ginnetty apologized, what about discussing the rest of the column?

That's what the talk radio audience should be truly bothered about.  It's an easy way to discredit what they discuss and the views they espouse.  However, surveys have shown that talk radio listeners are only second to classical music listeners in intelligence and more likely to use the internet for information purposes. 

Hannity should have used this evidence and proved wrong every single statement Ginnetty made.  It might not stop leftists from making the same characterizations, but it would discredit Ginnetty's personally, and discredit him.  Talk radio is about interactive debate.  You form an opinion, they form one, and the listeners decide who made the better one.

Instead, Hannity dominated the entire conversation and placed emphasis on a superficial issue while ignoring the whole purpose of the outrage.  The article was about talk radio's popularity and the people who made it popular, not simply about Marty.  Hannity, while legitimately outraged, helped to make Ginnetty's point instead of properly deconstructing it.

Posted at 01:38 pm by Expertise
Comments (2)  


Monday, November 17, 2003
Rush is back

Rush Limbaugh returned to the airwaves today after 5 weeks of rehab to combat an addiction to painkillers.

Rush is no doubt the biggest radio star out there today, and one of the biggest political figures as well.  He has a worldwide audience of 20 million people a week, and his base continues to grow.  He is expected to have a huge rating for his return.

Being a highly partisan figure, Rush constantly criticizes Democrats and leftist Republicans and occasionally jumps on the media.  His opinions do not respect party lines, as he has criticized President Bush on more than one occasion.  However, his critics, who obviously do not listen to his show often, tries to make the claim that he does.  They definitely consider him a threat, which explains why there was a media firestorm after the National Enquirer broke the story that he was subject to a criminal investigation due to his illegal prescription drug use.

For the past two years there have been complaints coming from leftists about talk radio, particularly conservative talk radio, and in response they have tried to impede it through legislation.  The so-called "Fairness Doctrine", which forces talk radio stations to have equal access and time allotments for different sids of an issue, is one of those methods.  Recently, they were able to make progress by passing the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Act, in which one of the provisions bans political ads of any kind from being broadcast within 60 days of an election.  Some say that it's the first step to forcing talk radio to stop their broadcasts as well.

Some limousine leftists are going at it another way; they want to compete and try to finance talk radio stations and networks with leftist talk radio hosts.  However, people tend to frown upon mouthpieces of a political party or group, which is what they'd obviously become.  Rush is unabashedly Republican, but he works for Premiere Radio Networks, which handles his Excellence In Broadcasting network.  The ones that are trying to fund and start this are Democratic political figures.

Rush is often credited with saving the AM radio band; before his syndicated talk radio show became a hit, several AM stations were failing miserably.  He is credited by Talkers Magazine as being the best radio show host of all time and is in their hall of fame.  Anyone that knows anything about marketing knows it's very hard to knock off someone that is as established as Rush is.

After Clinton left office, people were saying that Rush and other talk radio shows would lose their appeal, because their success was supposedly attributed to criticizing Clinton.  However, 9/11 showed they were wrong, and that talk radio didn't miss a step. 

There have been several instances where talk radio helped to make some kind of change.  CBS's cancelling of "The Reagans", which was supposed to be a first-hand look at the Reagan White House but was exposed to be a hatchet-piece created by Democratic financeers, proved to be one of those times.  Public pressure stemming from both talk radio and internet reports led by the Drudge Report forced CBS to review the movie, and gave it the ax.  Talk radio also helped spur tax protests against legislatures in Ohio and Tennessee.  Considering that tax politicization is one of the foundations of the Democratic Party, you can see how this hurts them.

Democrats will continue going after talk radio, and unless some kind of intrusive legislation/judicial activism pops up, they will continue to fail.  Guys like Rush, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, G. Gordon Liddy, and others will leave, and others will take their place.  And it is these guys that are changing the face of the political landscape in America.

Posted at 03:02 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Wednesday, November 12, 2003
The Memo

Last week a memo surfaced out of the Senate Intelligence Committee.  It seems that Democrats were conspiring to use their spots to discredit and attack our president, George W. Bush.

Sean Hannity somehow got a hold of that memo, and found a source that confirmed it came from the office of the ranking Democratic member, Jay Rockefeller.  Rockefeller has denied the charge, but Republicans aren't giving him any slack.  They want to know where it came from.

It's not surprising that this happened.  In fact, exposing Democratic political schemes happen so often that it really isn't a surprise.  In both Texas and California Democrats were caught plotting political advantages against the Republicans, despite the situations in both states. 

But this one has far wider implications.  There's no doubt that the Intelligence Committee is important to U.S. national security, and should be devoid of partisanship.  I'm not stupid; I'm sure some dirty stuff goes on there as it does in other parts of Congress.  But when the Democrats engage in a plot so blatant, heads have got to roll.

As Zell Miller responded to this incident, "It isn't treason, but it's close.  It's treason's first cousin."  Whomever is found to be behind this memo needs to be relieved of their duties on the committee.  And possibly resign from the Senate altogether.  The Republicans need to keep pressure on this event until the perpetrator is brought to light.

Posted at 02:58 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Sports Ponderings


Carolina is looking more and more to be a top caliber team.  The 3-pass winning touchdown drive made by Jake Delhomme was superb, and shut up alot of his critics this week.  He can make the plays if he wants to, given that he makes smart decisions.  I have to admit; I wasn't sure when I saw a couple of those go up in the air.  But I'm glad they got into the right hands, namely Muhammad and Smith's.

Monday Night Football continues to have great games.  They have been absolutely amazing.  Everyone from the Giants vs. Dallas, to Indy vs. Tampa Bay, and last night's Philly vs. Green Bay game have been superb.  And there's no doubt that John Madden and Al Michaels are the best commentator duo in the league.  They have great chemistry, and both show their knowledge of football every game.

Speaking of last night's game, someone needs to ask the Packers how Ahman Green can rush for 224 yards, yet the Packers can't win the ballgame.  There's no excuse for that.  And their run defense is shoddy, especially when you let Duce Staley run almost 100 yards on you.  They were making him look like a stud.

McNabb is steadily progressing since the beginning of the year, but I still say the jury is still out on the Eagles.  Right now they would get a wild card, but they still have some tough games.  Dallas (who they lost to earlier this year), Washington, Carolina, Miami, and New Orleans will provide a test for Philly. 

Looking at their schedule, Philly only have 3 AFC teams the whole year.  I'm surprised that a team that went to the NFC title game wouldn't have more than that.  Nevertheless, a sweep of their remaining NFC East opponents would look real good to the sports pundits and armchair quarterbacks, such as myself, right now.

Why am I harping on Philly?  Because I'm waiting for them to face the Panthers.  I think Peppers and Rucker will have a good time running after McNabb and frustrating them.  Besides, there's alot of Eagles fans on OkayPlayer that I want to talk shit to.

My NFL Top 10:

1. Chiefs (I picked them for the Super Bowl earlier this year)
2. Titans
3. Pats
4. Carolina
5. Indy
6. Rams (yes, I said it)
7. Dallas
8. Philly
9. Vikes (but they are dropping)
10. Seattle

I think Denver and/or Miami will make an entrance next week, but I'll save that for my picks later in the week.

I'm impressed with the poise of the Spurs.  They didn't have Duncan for a few games, yet they hung in there with strong performances against the Lakers and the Mavs.  That's the sign of great coaching.  Now that Duncan is back, winning against Utah last night, imagine how better they are going to be.  And they STILL don't have Tony Parker back.

People need to remember that they are still the defending world champions, not the Lakers.  The Lakers have now lost a couple, giving up games to New Orleans and last night's game against Memphis.  They still have alot of work to do before they romp.  Lucky for them, the NBA season consists of 82 games, and lasts until April.  They have plenty of time.

Another team that's playing pretty hard is Utah.  With Malone and Stockton gone you'd think they'd roll up and fall to the bottom of the NBA pile, but they are playing consistent basketball and stacking up some wins.  The question is, will they be able to make a run to the playoffs?  Only time will tell.  But something that needs to be noted is that Jerry Sloan started coaching this team in 88.  Since then there have been 157 head coaching changes.  That's right; I said 157.  So he has to know something about how to coach in pressure situations.

The East is playing pretty hard now.  The Pacers are 6-1, the Hornets are 5-2 with a victory against the Lake Show (granted, that was the night after a tough win against San Antonio, but still), and the Pistons are 5-1.  Could we be seeing a power switch to the East?  I wouldn't count on it just yet.

My top 10:

1. Lakers
2. Spurs
3. Pacers
4. Pistons
5. Hornets
6. Houston (4-1?  Wow.)
7. Mavs
8. Minnesota
9. Utah
10. Toronto

Yes, I am a wrestling fan.

Raw, in my opinion, is still struggling.  Alot of the guys there are uninspired, and are very weak workers in compared to Smackdown.  When you have the Dudleys, La Resistance, Hurricane/Rosey, and Jindrak/Cade as your top tag teams in order to be used as segment filler there is a problem.  And the women aren't really exciting either.  Their matches are quite stale.

And the Raw stars are very weak.  Outside of Austin, Goldberg, Michaels, and Evolution, who else is there?  Booker T and Jericho are old news.  Steiner has so much promise, but laziness, injuries, and politics limit his potential.  RVD is the same, but he's getting as stale as Booker and Jericho.  The rest are a joke.

Batista is a great addition to Raw, but they must keep him in a Goldberg feud in order to keep him fresh.  I thought Batista had potential on Smackdown, but I guess he got injured or something.  However, I don't think he should necessarily be included into Evolution.  They're good enough as a 3 man group.

The hot spots on Raw are the Austin segments, which are usually the most entertaining part of the show.  But that's because Austin is such a great talker, and can deliver a great response in a blink of an eye.  He's always had that charisma about him since entering his "Stone Cold" persona.  And it's interesting to see what he'll do next week when/if his team wins the Survivor Series elimination match.

Kane/Shane should be interesting just to see how it all ends.  And thank God it's ending, because this cartoonish/perverted feud was getting on my nerves.  Goldberg/HHH is too early.  If they were going to do a rematch, they should have left it for the Royal Rumble.  That way, HHH would really come back healthy and wrestle some while Goldberg feuds with Batista and Orton.  And something tells me that HHH will regain the title at Survivor Series too, which would be a mistake for Raw to do.

Smackdown's doing pretty well.  The elimination match with Angle's team vs. Brock's team is going to be something to watch, regardless of the fact that Brock is paired up with 4 stiffs.  Well, lemme stop.  Big Show has been doing pretty well lately, and his U.S. Title is warranted.  However, A-Train has been recreated and rehyped so many times it isn't funny.  Nathan Jones has no kind of agility at all, and we know nothing about the other guy (I forgot his name.  That should tell you how important he is), but I'm sure he isn't worth much either.  Hell, his power bomb was weak compared to Batista's.  They need to find him a new move.  Regardless, Angle, Benoit and Cena should make this something to watch.

However, Vince is making me downright nausious.  His over-the-top comments as of late, speaking about terrorists burning Undertaker's house down and trying to make himself seem as if he's pure evil is just stupid garbage.  If you can't hype this match without making dumb assed comments like those then don't have the match.  It seemed like a good idea at first but this angle is just pissing me off.

I don't like the Guerrero angle either.  Having to mention his drug use?  Guys, we don't watch because of the angles alone.  We watch because we like athletic action.  Making "smart" angles do not work.  Look at what happened to WCW.  Leave the behind the scenes stuff to the Observer and the Torch.  And if they are going to do an angle like this, why didn't they face Haus/Benjamin (and who did they piss off lately?) instead of the Bashams?  Ugh, they are as bad as Raw's tag teams.  The only thing about them is their manager, Linda Miles (I'll be damned if I call her that stereotypical name), who would be cute if she stopped trying to look and act like a dyke.

The cruiserweight action is a big plus.  It isn't as good as WCW's heyday, but it's definitely leaps and bounds better since they created the brand extension.  Tajiri, Rey, Dragon, Noble, and Nuzio do a great job in the ring, and they should add more wrestlers to that division as suitable contenders.

All in all, Smackdown is still better than Raw.  Then again, it always has.  If they really want to help Raw out, they'd move Edge to Raw when he returns.

That's enough ranting.  See ya.

Posted at 04:35 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Monday, November 10, 2003
Gore's lies.

I was able to see the replay of Gore's speech last night.  I saw some of it, but it was getting too late and I had to get up in the morning.

Gore, as usual, is still Gore; continuing to lie and spin every single thing imaginable.  It's no wonder he lost the presidency.

It's a sad time for the Democratic Party.  On one side, you got the far left, led by Dean and the 9 dwarfs minus Clark, and on the other you got the corrupt moderates, led by the Clintons which includes Clark, Gore, and others.

Someone needs to step up against both forces in the Democratic Party, and fast.  Zell Miller has, but he is too old and is too ready to retire to fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.  I wish Roy Barnes hadn't lost in 2002, or else he might be able to.

As I've said before, the Democrats are headed for self-destruction in 04.  Howard Dean will never become president, and as Miller said, the Clintons nor Gore can help anyone win an election in the South or pretty much anywhere else.  Miller is obviously the smartest Democrat in that party, but is there anyone younger willing to step up and take the initiative like he has?

Right now the Republicans would have to shoot themselves in the foot in order to lose power in either house of Congress or the presidency.  The Democrats must place honest moderates at the head of their party.  Or is that actually possible in the Democratic Party anymore?

Posted at 03:30 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Leftists and Eurocentricism

I was having a conversation on OkayPlayer about a poll that was conducted by the European Commission (whatever that is).  It concluded that a majority of Europeans thought that Israel was more of a threat to world peace than any other country, including the Axis of Evil:  Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

That's not surprising at all.  I've always considered Europe to be the center of socialist thought.  They are the biggest Palestinian apologists and blame Jews for all the trouble in the Middle East.  Those anti-Semetic incidents that were happening in London, Germany, and France were not by coincidence.

But one thing that gets me is the idea that because I may agree with Israel and condemn Palestinian terrorist attacks and homicide bombings then that means I am an "Uncle Tom" or "sellout", as once poster decided to label me as. 

But the funny thing is, if I was actually a Tom, I would be supporting the Palestinians!

The fact is, whatever Europe thinks, so does the rest of the political left.  And it's only normal, since Marx and other scholars of socialism/communism derived from Europe and Russia.

And on the board, several people deride white people, and complain about eurocentricism, all while getting their information from European socialists and leftist figures like Greg Palast and Noam Chomsky in America.

The people that run NPR are white.  The ones that control the government-subsidized television and radio stations in this country are white.  The ones that operate Pacifica are white.  The ones that do public speeches and organize rallies are white, or they either got their information/propaganda from white people.

So who's the Tom now?

Posted at 04:18 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Next Page


Contact Me

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

rss feed


Weblog Commenting and Trackback by