Email notification to Brandon Starr's blog has been shown to reduce bad cholesterol in two-toed sloths, and has been used as an effective exfoliant.
|
|
Friday, October 08, 2004
"Town Hall" style of debate couldn't save Bush
Bush was supposed to do well in this kind of debate. He's supposed to be folksy, in touch, affable.
Instead, he came off creepy, and did you notice the odd, whiny tone his voice took on whenever Kerry was scoring points on him? Every time his stress level went up, he started sounding like my three-year-old when he wants dessert in the morning and is told no.
He tells his lies with less enthusiasm each time, it seems. The same rote lies about his opponent again, only without any punch to them.
Both managed to keep their reactions to the other's statements to a minimum.
I think you'd call this one "less of a loss for Bush." In other words, Kerry won, but Bush didn't do much (except lie) to make himself look bad.
I'll be interested in seeing factcheck.org's take on the debate, as usual.
Maybe I was a little flippant...
...about oil yesterday and the jobs report today:
Oil ends up fourth day in a row, $53 per barrel.
The reason oil matters is that it acts as an added expense to virtually every citizen and company out there.
The reason the jobs report matters is because at this point in a "recovery," we're supposed to be gaining jobs at a very healthy clip. We're not.
Bush's war keeps everyone on edge, and his constant lies and vague terror threats keep us from trusting the government. That acts as a drag on the economy. Iraq itself is a needless supply worry--it wouldn't be a problem if Bush hadn't lied us into it. Put those two together, and the Bush Presidency spells economic poison for us.
Here's hoping Kerry does well in the "town hall" style of debate tonight.
Jobs report weaker than anticipated; August numbers lowered Thursday, October 07, 2004
Bush's take on the "no WMDs" report
"He was ("gaming the system") with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away," Bush said. "Based on all the information we have to date, I believe we were right to take action."
Wow. So, we had Saddam hemmed in, the sanctions were totally effective in utterly turning Saddam's weapons programs into "hopes and dreams," the inspectors were on the ground doing their job, and Bush thinks he was right to declare the inspections failed and have our troops put in harm's way.
If Bush took his family out to dinner at a restaurant, and everyone except him got violent nausea and diarrhea from the food, he'd take a calm, full look at the facts, and take his family back to that same restaurant the next day.
I'm not biting.
Oil's up more, and I don't care Michael J. Fox films ad for Kerry
Fox films ad for Kerry, praising stance on stem cells
Fox, who has suffered from Parkinson's Disease, one of the many nigh-untreatable diseases for which stem cell research holds promise of a cure or therapy, filmed the ad recently. No word on when it'll start airing.
Wanna hear a big Bush lie?
The Bush campaign called the ad false. “George Bush is the first president to allow for the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and has provided hundreds of millions of federal dollars for stem cell research,” said Brian Jones, a Bush spokesman.
We know that this is cherry-picking from a horrible record. Bush has frozen the number of stem cell lines available at a number far below where researchers need it (near zero useable lines), and Congress has authorized some funding against the fundamentalist Christian President's wishes.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Factcheck.org on the Veep debate
Factcheck.org does its follow-up on the veep debate.
Factcheck.org (not .com, as Cheney accidentally called it during the debate itself!) goes over the facts as they could verify them from the debate.
No surprise: Cheney lied/exaggerated/misled/spoke out of his ass a lot more than Edwards. The basic numbers say it all: four boxes for Edwards, six for Cheney--and then, under "more dubious claims," four bullet points, ALL CHENEY'S. So, with the bullet points, it's four for Edwards, ten for Cheney. I also happen to find Edward's fact problems to be less extreme than Cheney's,* but really that's for everyone to decide on their own.
I'll give Cheney some credit, though--he directed them (almost) to factcheck.org regarding Halliburton, and factcheck.org does more or less vindicate him on the Halliburton pay issue--but not so much when it comes to Halliburton doing vile things in Iran. However, he's still getting Halliburton "deferred compensation," which has a stinko appearance, ethics-wise.
* With the exception of the "factcheck.com" slip.
Oil tops $52 a barrel. A record for a second day in a row. Why?
Oil tops $52 a barrel over winter fuel fears
Oil tops $52 a barrel over Nigeria worries
Well, apparently there's some debate on the subject. But it goes back to what I've written about before: world demand keeps rising, and the available supply just isn't keeping up. Now it's too tight, and every little worry sends the prices up. I don't know why it's still a matter of debate in some circles. It won't get better unless somehow supply increases (tough to do, impossible to do quickly) or demand decreases due to a worldwide economic slowdown. Hopefully that last won't happen.
Disclosure: I have a long position in oil producer/refiner/retailer ExxonMobil.
I'm getting under their skin
My new shirt design, "tourist safety shirt," got a rating...a 1 out of 10.
Gee, I think someone got perturbed...
Actually, this is pretty common. An awful lot of my shirts get either extremely low or extremely high ratings, because they have a point of view. I also have a bunch in the 5.5 range, from when one person gives a 10 and another a 1.
Any rating is fine by me. I'd rather have twenty "1" ratings on a design than just one or none at all. I put up the designs on whether they amuse me. My only other criterion is whether they sell (and I've sold some, though I'm always working on getting the numbers up more). The ratings are only useful for helping pull folks to the site when they do searches "by average rating, highest first." But again, I realize there's no way my designs will get consistently high ratings, because they come from a point of view.
I also have twenty designs with 50 or more viewings, so even for the ones that aren't selling, at least a lot of folks are seeing them in some form.
Additional note: although I could, I never rate my own designs. I don't think it's ethical. I have posted reviews of the designs I've purchased for myself, but at the top of each review I put the disclaimer that the contributor is the one writing the review.
|
|
|
