Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

Wait, is Dodens seriously not putting up a fight? What a shame, this page could have been beyond epic...
 
http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html


Quote:
The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met yesterday by conference call. At its meeting, the committee determined that a trough in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in June 2009. The trough marks the end of the recession that began in December 2007 and the beginning of an expansion. The recession lasted 18 months, which makes it the longest of any recession since World War II. Previously the longest postwar recessions were those of 1973-75 and 1981-82, both of which lasted 16 months.

In determining that a trough occurred in June 2009, the committee did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity. Rather, the committee determined only that the recession ended and a recovery began in that month. A recession is a period of falling economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. The trough marks the end of the declining phase and the start of the rising phase of the business cycle. Economic activity is typically below normal in the early stages of an expansion, and it sometimes remains so well into the expansion.
__________________
 
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=...09/18/poll_suggests_governors_race_is_tossup/


Poll suggests governor’s race is tossup
Baker on heels of Patrick; Cahill slips further back

By Noah Bierman
Globe Staff / September 18, 2010
E-mail|Print|Reprints|Comments (57) Text size – +
A poll on the governor’s race released yesterday suggests that Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles D. Baker remains close to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick, with independent Timothy P. Cahill, the state treasurer, falling further behind.


Tweet Be the first to Tweet this!
Yahoo! BuzzShareThis
RELATED



Campaign 2010

The latest news on the Massachusetts governor's race and the November elections.
The Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that Patrick leads Baker 42 percent to 38 percent among likely voters, with Cahill at 11 percent; Green-Rainbow candidate Jill Stein was not included. The firm’s previous Massachusetts poll, conducted two weeks ago, had Patrick at 39 percent, Baker at 34 percent, and Cahill at 18 percent.

The new results are within the poll’s 4.5 percent margin of error, and Rasmussen now says it has moved the race from “Leans Democrat’’ to “Tossup’’ on its national scorecard.

If so-called leaners are included — those who initially do not indicate a preference for a candidate — the margin at the top tightens and Cahill’s support drops further. Including leaners, Patrick leads Baker 45 percent to 42 percent, with Cahill garnering 5 percent. The previous Rasmussen poll indicated a similar pattern with leaners included, with Patrick leading Baker 44 percent to 42 percent, and Cahill taking 8 percent.

Baker’s campaign said that the new poll results suggest that Patrick remains unpopular and that Baker, still unknown by many voters, has room to grow. Patrick’s campaign counters that the poll was taken just after the governor launched his first TV ad, while his opponents have already been on the airwaves for weeks.

Cahill’s campaign yesterday dismissed suggestions that his candidacy was in trouble, saying the treasurer drew 1,400 people to a rally and fund-raiser in Quincy on Thursday night. In a statement, Cahill said his opponents should not count him out.

“Something special is happening right now and we are seeing it everywhere,’’ he said. “I have always had faith in the people of Massachusetts, and I continue to have faith that they will elect me their next governor on November 2d.’’

Bierman can be reached at nbierman@globe.com.
 
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=...ilton/history-as-tragedy-the-re_b_736358.html



The news today of a Republican "Pledge To America" -- a deliberate evocation of Newt Gingrich's egregious "Contract With America" in 1994 -- sickens me. I'm reminded of Karl Marx's famous dictum, that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.

We're heading for the tragedy part! It isn't that we've forgotten the past -- and its consequences -- it's just that we seem unable to reverse the historical tide. The political philosopher Hegel had pointed out in 1837 that "a coup d'état is sanctioned as it were in the opinion of the people if it is repeated... Through repetition, what at the beginning seemed to be merely accidental and possible, becomes real and established." Marx hated that idea -- and his famous dictum was, in fact, a historian's protest against human nature.

We, too, can protest -- but can we fight the evil tide of Know-Nothingness that is sweeping the country and potentially handing congressional power over to a group of dimwits, determined to ruin the American empire?

It may be instructive, if sad, to re-read what I wrote about September 1994 in the second volume of my Clinton biography, published three years ago.

****
Why did Bill Clinton, possessed with such supersensitive antennae to political danger, not appreciate the WMD that Newt Gingrich was preparing throughout the summer of 1994?

Newt Gingrich was, in the summer of 1994, simply a firebrand in Clinton's eyes: a controversial, attention-seeking, "confrontational activist" congressman; a clever man who understood the sea-change that had taken place in media coverage of politics since Watergate, and with the help of moguls such as Rupert Murdoch had made his Faustian bargain with it. "You have to give them confrontations," Gingrich told a group of conservative activists. "When you give them confrontations, you get attention; when you get attention, you can educate." It was a feisty approach to self-promotion, but hardly the stirrings, in the President's eyes, of a real threat to the Democratic Party's hold on the House of Representatives.

How wrong he was, he would now discover.

Confrontation was certainly the key to Gingrich's strangely aggressive behavior. For years he'd made a name for himself as a lecturer and speaker, without ever getting significant press coverage. Then, one day, he'd deliberately crossed swords with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congressman "Tip" O'Neill, and had won the national attention he craved. "In the minute Tip O'Neill attacked me," Gingrich later boasted, he and I got 90 seconds at the close of all three network news shows."

From there, Gingrich had gone on to achieve further television-grabbing notoriety on the Hill by charging O'Neill's successor, distinguished World War II-veteran and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Jim Wright, with ethics violations in 1988 over a vanity book he'd published. (These soon rebounded, however, onto "bomb-thrower" Gingrich - indeed reduced him to a sobbing wreck when Democrats attacked him the following year as a neo-McCarthyite, and countercharged him with no less than 84 ethics violations of his own. A special prosecutor had to be appointed to investigate the charges -- a process which would eventually cost American taxpayers $1 million.)

Such had been the opening salvos in a series of bitter new, internecine, profoundly partisan uncivil civil warfare in Congress that could only bring dishonor to the House.

Gingrich had only himself to blame. Drying his eyes, the Georgian Republican congressman had merely continued his antics. If that was the only way he could get his ideas written about, mentioned on television and radio, and debated in modern, tabloid America, then so be it, he reasoned - content to be considered in his own words, "just about the most disliked member of Congress."

This was the very opposite of Bill Clinton - who wanted everybody to like him, and would go to almost any pains to elicit approval. What President Clinton failed to acknowledge, however, was Gingrich's relentless if subversive generalship, compared with his own. Newt Gingrich's private life might be a mess, and his insensitivity to real people - especially ailing people - heartless, but his political drive and dogged

organizing capacity were extraordinary. Clearly there was a messianic quality to the teachings of radical-conservative Congressman Newt Gingrich -- something skeptics dismissed as psychologically inspired by his rootless background as the son of a manic-depressive mother and tyrant military stepfather: an attempt to create order out of disorder -- disorder he himself was intent upon creating!

Trust was not a quality that Gingrich's behavior inspired in Congress, but there was certainly sincerity in his belief in a revitalization of the American economy and society by promoting a Reagan/Thatcher-like cultural shift from dependence on welfare to freedom of economic opportunity....

It was in the context of his "Renewing American Civilization" lectures that Congressman Newt Gingrich - bookworm, lecturer and proseletyzer -- had decided to go one step further in his long campaign to convert younger people to Republican opportunity-led values and wrest the House of Representatives from Democratic control. There was a chance for Gingrich not only to succeed Michel as minority leader but, if the Republicans could win enough seats in Congress in the 1994 mid-term elections, for Gingrich to become Speaker of the House.

For Republicans to win back control of the House after some 41 years, however, they would need a document, a solemn declaration, a manifesto, Gingrich reasoned: a clearly defined agenda of political goals that would distinguish them from their opponents. Traditionally, mid-term elections were fought locally, not nationally. In a step that would put Newton LeRoy Gingrich into the political history books, he decided to reverse that approach. In the 1994 gubernatorial, senate and congressional election campaigns he would wage war as a national revolutionary army, controlled from a central headquarters, not as guerrilla warriors fighting in penny packets.

As a student of military history, the stepson of a colonel, an "army brat" who'd visited the battlefields of Normandy, the Somme and Verdun, and who'd probed the battles of the Revolution and the Civil War for their lessons at home, Gingrich thus presented himself as a new kind of Republican general. A man of ideas. And an inspiring, if insensitive, trainer of troops.

Bill Clinton, though ex officio Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America's military, had perilously few forces to face insurrection at home. Indeed the problem for General Clinton in America was his Party... His brand of Democratic centrism, as a New Democrat, had appealed to many voters tired of liberal-versus-conservative ideology and gridlock, and responsive to the promise of a new, middle-of-the-way forward. But his subsequent administration hadn't cured gridlock, despite a three-way lock on the White House and the Capitol....

Amid the national lamentations [over the death of the health care reform bill] there were, inevitably, doomsday prognostications about its likely effect on the Democratic Party's performance in the November elections. But, before Dee Dee Myers could try to pin the defeat of health care reform on Republican obstructionism, the Democrats in Congress and the White House found themselves completely outflanked. On Tuesday, September 27, 1994 - one day after the final, official announcement of the death of health care reform in the 103rd Congress - Newt Gingrich launched his Scud missile. Standing on the steps of the Capitol's West Front beneath a vast banner rippling in the late summer breeze, and accompanied by a brass band, Congressman Gingrich stepped forward to face the banks of assembled cameras. He was there, he declared, to make a solemn promise to the nation, along with no fewer than 375 other congressional and would-be congressional signatories. The American welfare state was over; the era of opportunity was about to unfold. And to kick it off, the signatories were putting their names to a sort of Bill of Rights for Conservatives, based on ten bills that Republicans would present in the House of Representatives, if they defeated the Democrats in November 1994....

The legislative program was, as Gingrich later admitted, poorly received by the press, and soon trashed by the White House. But - as the House Republican Party whip knew from a prior, four-day flight around the country - it was exactly, emphatically what Republican candidates and voters had longed for: a blue-print for the neo-Reaganite future: a renewed "morning in America."
 
It should be noted that this new "pledge" put forward is in fact disgusting.

Merely another list of promises from politicians that will be broken.

Mind listing what is so disgusting to you in that Pledge, other than the obvious neocon inspired, "liberal" continued, continuation of the War on Terror?
 
So apparently Tom Brady is a Karl Marx fan now (judging by his avatar). Just when I thought he couldn't get more retarded. At any rate, I too would like him to explain what's wrong with that pledge. I didn't read the whole thing; I only read the first couple of pages, but from what I saw it looked for the most part like totally unobjectionable classical liberal rhetoric. Is that what's supposed to be disgusting? If so, then what the fuck is wrong with you people?