Expertise's Politics and Sports Blog

Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Computerized machines loses Florida 02 vote.

The New York Times reports that all of the electronic records from Election 02 have been lost in that voting paradise of Miami-Dade County.

You see, this is precisely what I expected.  People that were panicking because of the uproar of Election 2000 - problems that were normal occurrences in elections but was amplified because of how close it was - demanded "updated" machines using computerized technology.

But we NEED a paper trail.  That's the only way to know for sure how many votes there are and if one person actually voted.  You get some computer geek into that system to "tweak" it, and we'll have widespread problems.  At least with paper ballots we have solid visual proof of what people voted.  With computers you never know, because all the information are in microchips.

So I'll never be in favor of computerized voting, and I sure as hell would never support online voting either.

Posted at 04:41 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Tuesday's DNC Notes:

- Wow.  Ted was actually sober tonight.

His nephew:  "Uncle Ted, are you alright?  I don't smell Seagram's Gin on you."

- I missed the Howard Dean speech, as I was on my way home from work.  I'm sure I didn't miss anything.

- *sighs*  Ruby and Ossie should have stayed home, or at least got someone to read whatever was on that paper while they stood there and smiled.  Their speech was horrible.

- I guess this was black night.  I'm sure that's the last time you'll see black people speaking at the convention, other than Al.  Speaking of Al, I wonder if they gave him a prime time speech?  You know he'll tear the house down too.

- Moore vs. O'Reilly sucked.  Both of them are weak, but O'Reilly was more disappointing.  I wish Moore would have given Hannity that weak mess, because I know he would have knocked it out the ballpark.  Now I think Hannity is too much of a self-promoter, but he does not pull punches in debates.  Ask Ralph Nader, or Al Franken.

- Ron Reagan's speech was ABSOLUTELY pointless.  I was about to go to sleep on it.  Why they had him come behind Obama to kill the crowd off is one of those mysteries in life.  And check this out:  at the end, he told people to go to the polls and vote for stem cell research.  I didn't know it was going to be on the ballot.

- Kids for Kerry?  These little snot-nosed kids can't hardly read, yet they're supposed to help Kerry win an election?  This is just P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C.  You see how they had that little girl bashing Vice-President Cheney?  They used a KID to bash their opponents!  That is a crying ass shame, folks. 

That was a perfect example of why kids should be SEEN and not HEARD.

- Somebody must have put Teresa Kerry-Heinz back on her prozac again.  And the very NEXT time I see a two-bit reporter or political analyst call her sexy or gorgeous (as some blonde dope did on Aaron Brown's NewsNight) I swear I'mma throw a rock into my TV.

- And finally, Obama himself.  I'm sorry folks, but I don't give ANY National Democrat the benefit of the doubt (in Georgia?  Yeah.  NC?  Maybe.  Washington?  No.).  I'm sure Obama has a nice smile.  He definitely has good b.s.  But I'm not a black conservative simply because I oppose the black establishment or current black political figures.  It's because I believe in conservative ideals.  So with that said, Obama is no different than the rest of them.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, the first black president won't be a Democrat.  He'll be a Republican/Conservative.  America is apprehensive about electing white leftists, so what you think they're going to do when they get a black one?  He claims he's not ashamed to call himself a "liberal"  (I call him a leftist.  Calling them "liberal" implies they believe in liberty, which they don't.).  We'll see once he goes through that Senate ringer and then has to run for reelection.

Don't believe me?  Well think about it:  there's a good reason why the top black political figures are linked to the Republican Party:  C. Powell, Rice, M. Powell, Thomas, Paige and a year or two back, Watts.  It's because the black establishment are so partisan and consist of a bunch of party hacks that veer to the far left of the political spectrum.  They claim Obama represents a new generation of black leadership?  Yeah.  I'll believe it when I see it.  The only way he can be that is to denouce the left, and I don't see him doing that.  So he's just another phony-baloney-plastic-banana-good-time-rock-n-roller (c) Rush Limbaugh.

Posted at 05:32 am by Expertise
Leave a message  


Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Congrats to Brock Lesnar.

The former NCAA amateur wrestling champion and WWE Champion has signed with the Minnesota Vikings.  Ever since leaving the WWE after Wrestlemania, he has stated that entering the NFL was his goal.

This guy is a genetic FREAK.  He's about 6'2, weighs about 285, benches close to 500 and squats about 700.  AND he runs a 4.6 40!  All he needs to do now is learn the game, as he hasn't played football since he was in high school.

Either way, good luck.  I hope his attitude has changed since the ESPN feature he did earlier this year.  He came across as a caveman. 

Posted at 03:33 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


DNC Notes:

- Jimmy Carter didn't look too hot.  Everytime he paused I thought he was about to keel over.  Sorry; it just looked like it to me.

- Slick Willie is a trip.  I'm not going to hate; Bill has always had some pretty good b.s., and I envy his speaking prowess.  If I could speak half as good as him, I'd have a successful broadcasting career.  It was a good speech, albeit he was lying his ass of the whole way.

- Slick Willie's insightful scripture quote?  "Be not afraid."  Oh yeah.  I heard that and was ready to go to church right then and there.  I had the Holy Ghost come all through me an everything when he said that.

- How much you wanna bet Bill's speech will be better than Kerry's?

- Hillary should NEVER scream.  Period.  She reminds me of one of the MacBeth witches.

- When Hillary was wobbling up onto the stage, they adjusted her podium for her height....or lack thereof.  Why did I instantly think of Napeleon?

- CSpan kept panning over to check out this fine Sioux chick with a cowboy hat and a smile that would melt the coldest heart.  So to the cameraman:  I'm not even mad atcha.  I would have done the same thing.  It's definitely better than watching Senator Mikulski's old mug taking up the whole camera.

- Drudge has the ratings for Monday night, and it doesn't look so good.  Hell; WWE Smackdown gets better ratings than that, on occasion.  And I'm telling you people; Slick Willie is as good as it gets.

- Only a few days ago, Moore wasn't even invited to the convention.  Last night?  He was in the presidential booth with Jimmy and Rosalyn.

- Obama is up tonight.  Once again, a young, charismatic member of the Party that will eventually be shown to be a far leftist.  There's already been campaign ads by him calling for socialist healthcare among others.  Hopefully this lovefest will end after a few sessions in the Senate.  Remember:  He isn't even being challenged in the Senate race this year.

- They're going to have to get a hold on to Theresa Kerry Heinz (I did that on purpose).  First she snaps at a journalist for saying something that she ACTUALLY SAID, now the Boston Herald finds statements bashing the Democratic Old Guard.  Once again, she's becoming a hinderance rather than helping anything.

Posted at 03:18 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Monday, July 26, 2004
Wife of Iowa Gov. comments on speech of blacks and Southerners

Well the Boston Herald found a little goodie.

Christine Vilsack, the wife of Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and Tuesday's primetime speaker at this week's DNC Convention, wrote a 1994 column that commented on the speech of blacks, Southerners, and Easterners, particularly in New Jersey and West Virginia.

I say "commented", although the Herald said "derided", because some of the comments are kind of blurry on whether it's an insult or not.  I'm trying to find the whole column online, and when I do I'll post it on this site.

But here are some of the excerpts:

``I am fascinated at the way some African-Americans speak to each other in an English I struggle to understand, then switch to standard English when the situation requires,'' Vilsack wrote in a 1994 column in the Mount Pleasant News, while her husband, Tom, was a state senator.

Vilsack wrote that southerners seem to have ``slurred speech,'' wrote that she'd rather learn Polish than try to speak like people from New Jersey, and wrote that a West Virginian waitress once offered her friend a ``side saddle'' instead of a ``side salad.''

The future Iowa first lady seemed to be promoting English as the nation's official language, an issue that tripped up her husband, Gov. Tom Vilsack, with many Democrats.

Now the comments about Southerners, West Virginians and Jersey people (Jerseyans?) can be seen as insults.  I don't know if you can actually say the black comment can really be taken as an insult without seeing more of the column.  So far, I can't find it online.  I'm sure someone in the blogosphere can get their hands on it.

I'm sure John Kerry is breathing a sigh of relief, happy that he dodged that bullet, albeit partially.  As you SHOULD know, Tom Vilsack was one of the leading candidates to be Kerry's running mate.  Most pundits say it was the "English as the offical language" issue that dropped Vilsack off of that list.

Did Kerry know beforehand?  I doubt it.  Remember; this is the same man who didn't know about Berger's investigation.  I'm sure if he's that in the dark about that investigation, and she is still on the speaker's list, then he didn't have a clue about this either.

Posted at 01:24 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  


Sunday, July 25, 2004
Palestinian businessmen take wall money on the side.

As you probably know, Israel has taken alot of heat for the wall they are building in the West Bank to keep out suicide bombers and the like from attacking the mostly Jewish communities.  Israel is going to do it anyway, and has even stated that UN Resolution encourages Palestinian terrorism.  They told the same thing to the European Union.

But what alot of people don't know, and has been highlighted, once again, by Drudge, is that Palestinian businessmen sold the concrete for the wall to Israel, and made millions

And check this out:

Palestinian businessmen have made millions of pounds supplying cement for Israel's "security barrier" in the full knowledge of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader and one of the wall's most vocal critics.

A damning report by Palestinian legislators, which has been seen by the Telegraph, concludes that Mr Arafat did nothing to stop the deals although he publicly condemned the structure as a "crime against humanity".

The report claims that the cement was sold with the knowledge of senior officials at the Palestinian ministry of national economy, and close advisers to Mr Arafat. It concludes that officials were bribed to issue import licences for the cement to importers and businessmen working for Israelis.
So.....Palestinian businessmen wanted a piece of the action.   They went to the officials, who knew what they were up to, bribed them to get licenses to work with Israeli importers and businessmen to sell their concrete.

And - get this - Arafat knew all along.

You think any Palestinians are calling for Arafat to resign?  Yeah right.  Only the lackies:

One of the report's three authors, Hassan Khreishe - an independent legislator and long-term critic of Mr Arafat - last night called for the Palestinian cabinet to resign.

"Wealthy Palestinians with connections at the highest levels have been making millions helping Israel build this wall while Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have been urging people to fight against it," said Mr Khreishe, a council member from the West Bank city of Tulkarm.

"Why Arafat did nothing about it, we just don't know. These people are traitors who have brought shame on us, and they should be punished."
While the officials should be fired immediately, why aren't they going after Arafat too? 

The answer:  because they know he's untouchable.  And anyone that calls for his resignation will be committing political suicide....if not physical suicide as well.

Posted at 02:48 pm by Expertise
Comments (1)  


Saturday, July 24, 2004
Teacher gets H.S. students to taste flavored condoms.

When I found out about this, I found it to be absolutely deplorable.

Who in the world could actually think this was a good idea?  You have to actually taste condoms in order to learn protective sex?  This is a perfect example on how public schools have gotten out of control.  If I'm fortunate to have kids one day they will NEVER be allowed to take a sexual education class, and definitely not in a public school.

Sure; teenagers should be taught about condoms and other forms of contraception.  But tasting condoms goes over the line.  In fact, it probably makes the child look forward to using them, which will encourage more sexual activity than before. 

I'm not a abstinence-until-marriage advocate, but I do think that kids at that age should not have sex.  Of course, these "enlighteners" will say "that's unrealistic".  Is it unrealistic to expect every teenager to abstain from sex?  Yes.  But it's not unrealistic to encourage whomever you can.  Believe it or not, some just might listen.

But what this guy did?  Absolutely over the line:

According to a report in the Santa Fe New Mexican, parent Lisa Gallegos said that when her 15-year-old daughter balked at putting a condom in her mouth, instructor Tony Escudero told her, "Come on, sweetie, have a little fun."

Also, Gallegos quotes her daughter as saying when a male student expressed his disgust with homosexual activity, Escudero said, "Never say never, because you never know. Someday you might like it that way."
This is not a teacher that should be in charge of high school teenagers, or any children for that matter.  There are too many naive teenagers out there that will swallow (no pun intended) the indoctrination that this guy is serving up.  Even to joke with kids like that while pressuring to participate, as he did to Gallegos's daughter, is very irresponsible.

This is why I cringe at the thought of being a parent; there is no telling what is being told to your child by whom.  And with parents and children spending less and less time with each other nowadays,  it gives an opening to influences outside the family that could result in behaviors that you never thought your child would have.  All you can do is prepare them for that world and just hope they don't get caught up in it.

Posted at 05:04 am by Expertise
Comments (1)  


Sperm donor forced to pay child support.

If you think the courts aren't out of control, read this:

A state appeals court ruled that a verbal agreement between a woman and her sperm donor was invalid, and ordered the man to pay child support for the woman's twins.

The three-judge panel ruled Thursday that the deal between Joel McKiernan and Ivonne Ferguson - in which McKiernan donated his sperm and would not be obligated to pay any support - was unenforceable because of "legal, equitable and moral principles."

Despite an agreement that appeared to be a binding contract, the father is obligated to provide financial support, the court decided.

"It is the interest of the children we hold most dear,'" wrote Senior Judge Patrick Tamalia.

Tamalia needs to be impeached immediately.  This was a binding legal contract that was entirely enforceable.  If Ferguson could not provide for that child then she should NOT have had it in the first place!

Once I had heard about this, I was immediately reminded of Thomas Jefferson's warnings about the judiciary.  Probably out of almost everything he has ever stated about how government works, these were probably the most visible:

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a coordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet . . . We shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately taken. If they do, then . . . I will say, that "against this every man should raise his voice," and more, should uplift his arm . . .

Having found, from experience that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scarecrow, they consider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to public opinion . . . An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous„and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge, who sophisticates the law to his mind, by the turn of his own reasoning . . .

A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government."
Keep that in mind everytime you see something like this, folks...

Posted at 02:46 am by Expertise
Comments (2)  


Maybe Berger was trying to hide this?

I'll admit; I haven't read a page of the 9/11 Report.

I'm slack.  I know.  First, I didn't even know that it was online until a blogger posted a link to a page of it.  It seems kind of stupid to me that they would sell a book, although it's only $10 bucks, and post it free for everyone online.  But then that brings us to the sad reality that there are plenty of Americans that are not internet savy and would have to buy the book, if they are even interested in the book in the first place.

But there was something that the New York Sun found out about FOUR possible chance to attack and kill Osama bin Laden:

Well, look now to what the 9/11 report has to say about the man to whom President Clinton, under attack by an independent counsel,delegated so much in respect of national security, Samuel “Sandy” Berger. The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.

In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.

    In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

    On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”

    In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”

    In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES, people.  And in each of those four, our National Security Advisor was given the option to attack Osama bin Laden and either said flat out said no or gave some half-assed excuse.

But the Democrats keep implying that the Clinton Administration did EVERYTHING they could to catch Osama bin Laden.

The August 2000 incident is really particular because it was only last March that we found out about CIA surveillance tapes that found Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.  Now we find out how the Clinton Administration reacted after they found those tapes.

Posted at 12:30 am by Expertise
Leave a message  


Friday, July 23, 2004
Universal Press releases statement on Rall cartoon.

I'm going to test myself.  I'm going to try to get through this post without cursing.

Wish me luck.

Well there's been some follow-up on the infamous Ted Rall cartoonMichael King has been a guest on a number of black talk radio stations taking heat for this, particularly on black talk radio stations by a number of dimwits (I didn't cuss, yall.) that would rather excoriate him for being a black conservative rather than criticize that slime Rall.

Well it got the attention of Richard "Dick" (Hey....he got it in his URL, so it's fair game, shawdy.  That doesn't count either.) Prince, who contacted UPS for a response to a press release by Project 21, a black conservative group that King is a prominent member of, to stop syndicating Rall's cartoons.

Here's their response:

In response to a query from Journal-isms, Lee Salem, editor and vice president, Universal Press Syndicate, issued this statement:

"When we distribute opinionists -- writers or cartoonists -- to op/ed pages, it is with the knowledge that editors of those pages edit by selection. Most newspapers print only a few releases of any one cartoonist’s or writer’s work because of space constraints, subject matter, viewpoint expressed, or other editorial considerations. We know that every client will not like every cartoon or column we distribute, but we do not prejudge the editorial diversity for subscribers that range from strongly conservative to strongly liberal. We assume the editors who buy the features we distribute know what works in their market and what [doesn't].

"The criticism of Ted Rall's depiction of Ms. Rice obscures the fact that it is part of a larger, hyperbolic context. In the cartoon, Rall is clearly imagining unlikely scenarios that might befall a number of key people in President Bush's administration. That he exaggerates both the language and the events is a time-honored tool of satirists. Anyone who takes it literally is missing the point."
Does Lee Salem think we're fools?  Does he honestly think that if it was the NAACP or any other leftist organizations like La Raza or some civil rights pimp he would use this line on them?  NO.  He'd be on his knees begging them not to boycott or target Universal Press.

What makes it worse is that he tries to EXPLAIN this bigotry....using the piss-poor (again, not cursing) excuse of satire.  I want him to explain to me when on what day did using racial slurs in satire OR IN ANY OTHER FORM OF CORRESPONDENCE became acceptable???!?!?!?!? 
To HELL with Ted Rall's and your point!!!!!

Every conservative should be insulted by the treatment by Salem to Project 21 and black conservatives all over the country.  For him to actually respond with this garbage is absolutely disgusting and serves as a perfect example of the lack of respect for black conservatives around the country.  And I feel sorry for Universal Press Syndicate if this lowlife is their vice president.

Posted at 04:24 am 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