A historical note: ilyayavitz, formerly named metonym, was banned in September and all comments and diaries were deleted after rampant ratings abuse, a penchant for spamming every active diary to promote his own writings, and toward the end a string of abusive statements about the MyDD community ("disgusting wasteland" was my favorite.) This comment or slight variants - which promote his own Sun-Times editorial - has now been posted nine times in six different active diaries or FP stories by my current count. It's actually a perfectly good editorial. But, FYI, that is why most instances now hidden. One would have been enough.
Controversial. See this article for an example of a contrary opinion. E.g., curve inverted in 1998 with no recession.
Beware also of assuming, because many recessions are preceded by inverted yield curves, an inverted yield curve means a recession is necessarily coming. This is a logical fallacy, but is an assumption underlying a lot of reporting on this subject. What's needed, and I haven't seen, is a positive predictive value [the ratio of true positives (inverted curve correctly predicting a recession) to all positives (inverted curves, with or without subsequent recession)].
My dream scenario: DeLay survives the state case on a technicality, but runs for reelection under Federal indictment.
Will it happen though? No, I think he'll end up being forced to resign, either through state conviction, or a Federal indictment. The pressure to throw in the towel will be enormous if the US Attorney's office brings charges against him.
Of course, that's just speculation. In terms of the political implications, I want to see Lampson take this seat, but... although I don't know the demographics of the district, we could be looking at a Rostenkowski situation. Rosti's corruption was much more important, in the end, nationwide than in his own district. He lost reelection running under indictment in 1994, but his successor, Michael Patrick Flanagan (R-IL) was defeated only 2 years later by Blagojevich (D-IL), succeeded in turn by Rahm Emanuel, whom we all know.
In other words, Rosti's corruption had zero long-term political effect in his own district, but was a contributing factor to a nationwide Republican landslide. This is what I hope for here, rather than victory TX-22 per se (as nice as that seat would be in our portfolio).
Chris mentioned back in September that a document specifically laying out the guidelines for the community you're trying to build will be forthcoming. I could have missed it, but I don't recall anything along these lines being published. Is this still in the works?
The spirit of what you're saying makes sense; I'm not sure it's entirely clear, though, what "real community" versus "polite but disruptive" means.
I think real names on political blogs are a great idea where possible. But there are also legitimate reasons for maintaining anonymity.
I will provide a personal example. This site is indexed by Google. Right now, if you Google my MyDD screen name, you get pages and pages of links to comments and diaries that I've written here. That would be fine if I were, for example, a political activist by profession, or a journalist. I'm not.
In the particular work that I do, having someone Google my name and come up with hundreds of comments ranging from lighthearted to serious discussions of politics and the occasional rant would be a serious problem. There's nothing I say here that I wouldn't be willing to say if we were all collected face-to-face and you all knew my real name from the "Hello" sticker on my shirt. No words that I'd deny or regret if I were confronted with them. But words spoken at social gatherings to do not get indexed by Google.
Would I lose my job? No. But it could make the job I do more difficult, and make finding the next job more difficult. I'm not at liberty to explain why in detail, except to say that it would compromise my ability to do the type of social science research that I do for a living.
I don't care about having an identity as secure as Fort Knox. Someone really determined - or someone who already knows me well - could probably piece together who I am. I don't care about that; it's an entirely different matter, and I'm not embarrased by my progressive views.
But the boundaries between work and the rest of life are not always as crisp as one would like them to be.
Everyone's situation is particular. There are undoubtedly people who use aliases in order to be able to engage in flame wars without consequence. (Then again, there are plenty of flame warriors who cheerfully use their real names.) But for me, it's a choice between not posting at all, and posting with an alias. As long as anonymous blogging is permitted, I enjoy being a member of this community, and think I have something to contribute. I'll never post under a second screen name, so if I'm a damned fool, it's easy to ignore me.
Without hard facts - such as specific local legislation or policies - this statement absolutely lacks credibility. In fact, it is a standard formula. "Successful black people = blacks who have received special treatment" is the most common form, although "successful disabled people," "successful women," and "successful Latino people" are occasionally substituted.
And, ironically, your evidence is that you can "walk onto a job site and look around." How sure are you that these are minority owned businesses? (Hint: Anglo-owned businesses hire Black and Latino laborers. A lot.)
Try again, using an example where you do have hard facts.
While I on a personal level do not think homosexuality is natural, I do believe gays should have rights and this includes marriage because the 14th amendment guarantees this.
And then there's this one. You have to explain to me what this means.
Why would you find it necessary to say, homosexuality is icky BUT it's OK for them to have civil rights because the constitution requires it?
Why not just, "I support equal protection under the law for everyone, including homosexuals?" Why is it necessary to bash homosexuality as part of your explanation for supporting civil rights? Is it really that embarassing to believe in the 14th Amendment? I hear this kind of qualified, half-defense of civil liberties too frequently - particular as concerns homosexuality - and it really disturbs me a great deal.
#2 - The COLA business seems to be contradicting the 27th amendment.
My understanding is that has already been adjudicated. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, affirmed by the DC Circuit Court of appeals, found that the COLA provisions came into effect at the initial passage of the Ethics Reform Act in 1989. Therefore COLAs (unlike new legislation increasing Congressional pay) do not vary compensation in the current term of Congress. 809 F.Supp. 138 (1992), 30 F.3rd 156 (1994)
Gotta say, in any case, that Congressional pay raises have never been an issue I've been able to get worked up about. The amounts of money involved are so trivial in the scope of the federal budget, and these guys generally could make at least as much or lot more in private practice, or elsewhere (given how few people of truly modest means are able to mount a successful congressional campaign).