SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (6195)2/22/2004 12:30:32 PM
From: sandintoes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6358
 
EVERYONE!!! EVERYONE!!!! EVERYONE!!!!
PARTY ON THE GIT THREAD TONIGHT!!!!


siliconinvestor.com

It's not too late, we've organized parties on shorter notice than this..

So what time tonight do you want everyone to meet? How about 8:00 EST?



To: calgal who wrote (6195)2/22/2004 4:45:55 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 6358
 
Output and jobs
Two very upbeat reports on the U.S. economy were issued last week. The Conference Board reported that its U.S. leading economic index increased 0.5 percent in January. That marked the 10th consecutive month without a decline, and it represented the biggest monthly increase since October. Once again, the growth in the index remained widespread. The only exception has been five consecutive months of declining real money supply, a condition Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has attributed to soaring business profits, which have reduced firms' demands for bank loans to finance rising investment. The Conference Board declared that the continued growth in the leading index "is signaling that strong economic growth should persist in the near term." That is especially encouraging, given that the 6 percent annual growth rate during the second half of 2003 was the fastest six-month acceleration in nearly 20 years.
Meanwhile, the Fed reported that industrial output expanded by 0.8 percent last month. Over the past four months, total industrial production has increased by 2.1 percent, reflecting an annual rate in excess of 6 percent. Since August, manufacturing output has increased by 2.5 percent, which also translates into a annual growth rate exceeding 6 percent. Nevertheless, employment continues to decline in the manufacturing sector. That is because the productivity of the remaining manufacturing workers has been skyrocketing. Indeed, as the Fed's industrial production data confirm, U.S. manufacturing output has nearly doubled over the past 25 years. During that same period, the Labor Department reports, the manufacturing industry has shed 4.2 million jobs, or nearly 25 percent of its labor force.
Notwithstanding last week's favorable news on current economic activity and future economic prospects, the White House felt compelled to distance itself from what the media considered to be too rosy of a job forecast for this year. In fact, the forecast was far rosier than it was reported and believed to be. The problem could be traced a table titled "Administration Forecast," which appeared on page 98 of the 2004 Economic Report of the President, which was issued Feb. 9. The White House projected that nonfarm payroll employment would increase by 2.6 million — from 130.1 million in 2003 to 132.7 million in 2004. When the report was released, White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Gregory Mankiw explained that the 132.7 million figure represented "the [monthly] average number of jobs in 2004 relative to the [monthly] average number of jobs in 2003," which came in at 130.1 million before subsequent revisions to 129.9 million.
Journalists dutifully — but erroneously — divided the 2.6 million annual difference by 12 and reported that nonfarm payrolls would have to expand each month by nearly 220,000 for the administration to achieve its goal. Considering that nonfarm payrolls had increased by only 184,000 jobs during the last six months of 2003, that would have been a major achievement. But it was not at variance with employment increases for previous economic recoveries.
The problem was that monthly employment would have to increase by far more than 220,000 in order for 2004's average monthly employment to be 2.6 million higher than 2003's monthly average. After adjusting for the January re-benchmarking, which occurred after the forecast was made based on data available in early December, monthly payrolls would have to increase by more than 375,000 jobs throughout 2004 in order for 2004's average monthly total to be 2.6 million above 2003's. That means that the December 2004 nonfarm payroll total would have to be more than 4.5 million jobs higher than the December 2003 nonfarm payroll.
Once the White House understood this, especially after January's payrolls increased by a feeble 112,000 jobs, it couldn't run from its jobs forecast fast enough. But not so fast that it could escape the ensuing political embarrassment.



To: calgal who wrote (6195)2/22/2004 5:20:19 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6358
 
Candidates: 'Start your engines'
Suzanne Fields (archive)

February 19, 2004 | Print | Send

In this season of the Democratic primaries, everything is perceived in dichotomies of red and blue. We're reminded that the electorate is evenly divided, that ideology is rampant and that the voter sees the issues in negatives and positives.

Polls suggest that George W. Bush will get a large majority of the white male vote and John Kerry will get a majority of the female vote. Conservatives are supposed to appeal to the NASCAR dad, the hard-drinking, hard-living workingman in the stands at the Daytona 500. Democrats will get the vote of the softer, socially conscious liberal ladies. "Democrats trolling for votes among NASCAR dads," says one Republican analyst, "is like a Republican trolling for votes at a NOW convention."

The most cynical observation based on exit polls is not constructive but destructive, not substantive but anger-driven: Democrats will vote for anybody they think can beat George Bush.

Dichotomies galvanize the already committed, creating broad caricatures that defy the complexity of the individual voter, especially the independent voter who can swing an election. Dichotomies reflect the sloppiness and shapelessness of a presidential campaign in its earliest stages. What these observations do is grossly oversimplify what's really at issue here, the future of the United States as seen from the beginning of the 21st century.

The Democrats look back in anger at Florida, but what do they look forward to? Where's the moral vision? George Lakoff, a linguist who studies how political language frames the substantive debate, is hard on his fellow "progressives" for lacking an intellectual framework with a positive vision for the future.

Lakoff describes the two political parties as opposing models of an ideal family. In his scenario the Republicans look for leadership with a "strict father" who sees the world as a dangerous place and who will inspire discipline, self-reliance, a sense of right and wrong in his children so that they can persevere in a tough and fearful world.

Democrats, by contrast, are the "nurturing" party, where the father encourages empathy with others as the route toward responsibility; government grows as a caretaker for the weak. In this perspective, Bill Clinton was the ideal nurturing president, who could feel the pain of his voters and who was willing to move to the right when it suited him. He signed Welfare reform because it was time to change the incentives for getting Welfare recipients off the dole for their own good.

Lakoff is partial to the nurturing party, but he says the Democrats have failed to articulate the virtue of their values to appeal to a broader audience. "Unfortunately, much of the Democratic policymaking has been issue by issue and program-oriented, and thus doesn't show an overall picture with a moral vision," he writes in The American Prospect.

His advice to the Democrats is to "articulate your ideals, frame what you believe effectively, say what you believe and say it well, strongly and with moral fervor." There's a problem here for John Kerry. On all the big issues of war and peace, he has been an issue-by-issue legislator, especially vulnerable to the caprices of changing political winds.

When President Bush visited the Daytona 500 with 180,000 racing fans in the stands and 35 million others watching on television, he gave the traditional executive order: "Gentlemen, start your engines." He was talking about a lot more than race car engines. He was talking about getting out the vote for him.

The NASCAR dad may not be as predictable as certain pollsters paint him to be. He may, in fact, be the kind of complex man (and woman) who will determine this election. Jeff MacGregor, who spent a year on the NASCAR circuit, says the conventional stereotypers don't have a clue to the NASCAR dad.

"NASCAR dad wants a political process, a president, a government, that makes him feel the same galvanizing, heartbreaking pride he feels when he looks at his flag," he writes in the New York Times. "NASCAR dad wants to be moved, inspired, encouraged. NASCAR dad wants to be in touch with his better angels." He wants to know that "all his hard work, all his effortful virtue and his diligent vigilance . all his abiding love of country . is in service of something much greater than himself."

He is made of flesh, blood and fear and is not a metaphorical abstraction.

The "NASCAR dad," like the "NASCAR mom" - like most of us in this election year - want the candidates to appeal to our intelligence, pride and sense of security in being Americans. The candidate who can do that will make like Dale Earnhardt Jr. It's time to start those engines.

©2003 Tribune Media Services