Kerry Criticizes Delay in Hunger Report

It's hard to believe that anybody goes hungry in America (just look at us!), but it seems as though hunger is a looming issue that nobody ever really talks about.

This article is important, not because Kerry claims that Bush is holding back the report (though, if true, it's very bad, though not unexpected), but because millions of people are going hungry in this land of plenty.

Yahoo! News - Kerry Criticizes Delay in Hunger Report

My Predictions

Now seems like an appropriate time to make some predictions. I will try to name them in the order in which they will occur (as a pat on my back -- "Don't hit the receiver!" -- no other prognosticator does this) --

1. The popular vote in the Presidential election will be close, but not as close as the polls indicate. Chalk this up as "right."
2. The Presidential election will not be as close as the poles indicate. This is due in large part to the Electoral College and how in most states winner takes all. Once one candidate gets ahead, many people in the Pacific time zone will not vote. This could skew the popular vote too. Chalk this up as "right."
3. Nope, not going to tell you who will win. Reason: I don't know who will win. It could go either way. It all depends on who shows up to vote. We still don't know, but it leans toward Bush. Interesting to see what happens when one concedes or the other declares victory.
4. Whether the election is close or not, there will be widespread allegations of voter fraud, voter disenfranchisement, incorrect counting, incorrect/disputed determinations on whether a ballot is valid or not. The list could go on and on. I admit that this one is a softball. We are still hearing about this, mostly about the 2000 election rather than this one, but we keep hearing about Ohio.
5. Between November 2, 2004 and January 20, 2005, major offensives will be ordered in Iraq. Depending on whether Bush is re-elected, the offensives may occur soon after November 2 (if he wins) or close to January 20 (if he loses). I have lost track of what we have done. Anybody?
6. The economy will sputter along until the price of oil declines. And there is no end in sight with this one. Our President is an oilman.
7. The Red Sox will not win next year's World Series. They may win it again in 2090. If we're still alive (see number 5). Still on the edge of our seats. Not.
8. Jeb Bush will run for president this decade or next. He will lose. Unless he somehow repeals hurricanes in Florida. Then he will take over for Clapton as God.
9. Jenna Bush will be following in her father's footsteps, making all the same blunders as her dad (read between the lines). It may take 30 years to see this one through. After all, her dad didn't do anything until he passed the half century mark.
10. If Bush wins, the United States will invade Iran, Syria, or North Korea (don't discount attacking all three, or more!). Appended prediction: Bush will invade at least two countries before he's done. It's just a matter of which one comes first, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Jordan, etc.

As I think of more, I will append to this post.

U.S. Growth Under Forecast in 3rd Quarter

In the last bit of economic news before the November 2 election, growth is good, inflation is low, but jobs probably won't increase. Unfortunately, those without jobs really don't care about growth. They do care about inflation, and, of course, jobs.

Interestingly, it seems to me that the inflation numbers are a) understated (not on purpose, but always) and b) a lagging indicator.

Yahoo! News - U.S. Growth Under Forecast in 3rd Quarter

Student Get-Out-The-Vote Drive Halted

Is this a great country or what? Teaching kids about democracy is tantamount to "exploiting schoolchildren on the taxpayers' dime to conduct what is clearly a Democratic, partisan get-out-the-vote effort."
Yahoo! News - Student Get-Out-The-Vote Drive Halted

Bush Blames Poorly Made Shirt for Bulge

Yeah, and that bulge in my crotch is a poorly manufactured cod piece! This guy lies about everything. I say, prove it, Mr President. Go put on that shirt and we'll see about that bulge. I bet the shirt no longer exists. "I threw it away because it didn't fit right."

Yeah, sure. And I have some oil stock I want to sell you.

Yahoo! News - Bush Blames Poorly Made Shirt for Bulge

The New York Times > International > Middle East > Tracking the Weapons: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

Incompetence, arrogance, or just sheer stupidity?

The New York Times > International > Middle East > Tracking the Weapons: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

Leave it to the Republicans to think up this swindle

This one is good. A RNC-funded "voter registration" company promises to pay its prospective employees for registering voters. But only Republicans. And then doesn't pay them.

This is typical Republican practice: Overpromise, corrupt the system to get its way, then under fund the venture (ie, don't pay a penny for it) --

Yahoo! News - Republican Group Accused of Voter Fraud

Bush Ad Uses Wolf Image to Attack Kerry

"The vice president said last month the country was likely to be "hit again" if voters made the "wrong choice" in November." Ain't that the truth?!

Yahoo! News - Bush Ad Uses Wolf Image to Attack Kerry: "The vice president said last month the country was likely to be 'hit again' if voters made the 'wrong choice' in November. "

Yahoo! News - Retired U.S. General Attacks Kerry Over Bin Laden

Retired General Tommy Franks combats Kerry. Who is right? Who is wrong? Who has the facts right?
--
Yahoo! News - Retired U.S. General Attacks Kerry Over Bin Laden

Yahoo! News - Retired U.S. General Attacks Kerry Over Bin Laden

Retired General Tommy Franks combats Kerry. Who is right? Who is wrong? Who has the facts right?
--
Yahoo! News - Retired U.S. General Attacks Kerry Over Bin Laden

Why is Bush Tougher on Terrorism than Kerry?

My fellow Americans,

Today, we are 15 days away from casting our very important individual votes. Many have fought to allow us this sancrosanct privilege. In fact, many have been maimed, lost limbs, or have died defending our right to cast our votes for the people we deem most fit for public service. The most important, or at least most visible, vote any of us can cast is that for President of the United States.

It is important that you vote this time around. I am not going to say what others have said: That this election is the most important election of our lives. Others have proclaimed it so; I will not. Suffice it to say that voting in this election is critical to your well-being. But it may turn out that the next election is actually more important. I don't know.

What brings me to write today is the idea that President Bush is tougher on terrorism than Kerry. First of all, I don't think any of us know how tough John Kerry is or might be, especially with respect to terrorists. I do know that he shut down financial institutions that harbored terrorist capital, long before doing so was in vogue. But I haven't the faintest idea on whether he would make us "safer" than somebody else. I do wish to present some obvious facts, however, with regard to Bush's record on fighting terrorism. First, the easy ones:

1. Terrorism has been around for a long, long time. It didn't surface on 9/11/2001. It has been used as a tool by many different countries, entities, individuals, etc. for decades, if not centuries. It didn't even surface on our home turf for the first time on September 11. Back in the early nineties, homegrown terrorists bombed a federal building in Oklahoma, killing dozens of people, including babies and children. And what would you call bombing hospitals and clinics on the grounds of personal opinion?
2. President Bush was our leader on 9/11/2001. In fact, he had been our leader most of 2001. The attacks happened during his first term. This is an undisputable fact.
3. President Bush was given a Daily Briefing on August 8, 2001, fully one month prior to 9/11, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." This is another undisputable fact.

Why, then, would one come to the conclusion that Bush is tough on terrorism? He knew it was being planned, it wasn't a new phenomenon, and he chose to do nothing about it.

How does one come to the conclusion that the president under which this calamity happened is somehow more qualified to deal with it than somebody else? There has only been one president during which the Twin Towers and Pentagon were simultaneously attacked with jetliners: President Bush.

I am not suggesting that none of this would have / could have happened under a different president. However, I ask: how do these facts direct the public to the belief that Bush is tougher on terrorism than...anybody else?

By definition, Bush has the worst record of any president against terrorism, by any measure: number of dead, capital destroyed, targets hit, people affected, economic losses, etc.

So, in the final analysis, what have I said? Bush cannot possibly be construed as having anything but a terrible record fighting terrorism. If 9/11 had never occurred, I daresay that Bush wouldn't have done anything to fight terrorism. He was only coerced into doing something once a lot of damage had been done. Now, for him to take credit for launching this "war on terrorism" is the most disingenuous thing I have heard in a very long time.

He didn't want a Department of Homeland Defense. He didn't want any investigative commissions dealing with the intelligence failures of either 9/11 or the Iraq war. He wants to spend our money building a missile defense system better suited to George Lucas than Donald Rumsfeld.

Our ports are still sieves. Our airport security is terrible. Our public utilities are extremely vulnerable. We don't know where all the Soviet nuclear weapons are. We still don't have adequate ingress/egresse coverage (border patrol, immigration, security in air, sea, or land). It's crazy how much time we have wasted -- and we still aren't measurably safer than we were 4 years ago.

I urge you to ask yourselves: Are you safer than you were 4 years ago? Are you any better off now than in 2000?

If you can answer in the affirmative, vote for Bush. If you cannot, you owe it to yourself, your family, friends, community, city or town, county, state, and America to vote Bush out.

Cure Bushism
Nov 2

Yahoo! News - Job Cuts in Tech Sector Soar, Report Finds

Tech jobs are down with no end in sight --
Yahoo! News - Job Cuts in Tech Sector Soar, Report Finds

Yahoo! News - Nev. Move to Block Some Dem Voters Fails

These guys will stop at nothing to get their guy back in again. I guess the loser always feels the need to complain after he loses (like in 2000), but this time there is yet to be a winner or loser. It's amazing that this was alleged prior to the election.

But it sounds very possible that it did happen.
Yahoo! News - Nev. Move to Block Some Dem Voters Fails

Yahoo! News - Poll: Bush Allies See Greater Terror Risk

Yahoo! News - Poll: Bush Allies See Greater Terror Risk

They Lie about Everything

Dick Cheney claimed that he met Senator John Edwards for the first time at tonight's debate. The implication was that Edwards is a newbie senator and/or he doesn't show up much in Washington (further implying that he has missed lots of votes).

Of course, even this rather innocuous claim is false. Cheney personally thanked Edwards at a Senate prayer a few years ago. They also were in the same location when Cheney swore in Elizabeth Dole a couple years ago.

Here's the question of the day: If the Vice President cannot tell the truth about something trivial like when he and Edwards met, how can you believe him about serious issues with potentially disastrous and damning effects?

Or, put another way, if you do believe Dick Cheney about matters of national import, you must have a lot of blind faith, for your eyes aren't open and probably never will be.

The "W" in George W. Bush not only stands for "Walker" but also for "White House" --
See, he was born to be leader of the free world!
Yahoo! News Full Coverage - U.S. - White House Silent on Bremer's Troop Request