Story #1 describes according to Gallup who Obama’s biggest support and detractor would be. #2 has Mark Levin asking the question, which president in the future will invoke BHO as his/her model. # 3 tells the story of a bully and what happened when a smaller kid stood up to him. #4 is an excellent educational article on the Age of Hamilton. #5 looks at the earth shaking question, should the government regulate rain. #6 is a wonderful story of the best English Teacher. #7is an editorial on Climategate 2.
1. Gallup: Obama’s support at 43%
Looking at Obama’s support, here is the most likely group to approve of his performance. She would be a Liberal Eastern Black Democrat with a postgraduate education unmarried, under the age of 30 who seldom if ever goes to church.
His least supportive group would be a Conservative Southern married white male Republican with a high school degree between the age of 50 and 64 who goes to church weekly.
What Democrats really need to be worried about is that with pure independents Obama’s support is only 32%.
The problem Obama has is there are a lot more of the second one than there are of the first one.
2. Mark Levin’s Million Dollar Question
“HOW MANY FUTURE PRESIDENTS WILL COMPARE THEMSELVES TO BARACK OBAMA?”
Probably the same ones who will want to compare themselves to Jimmy Carter or James Buchanan.
3. Government oversteps again
Last week in Boston, a seven-year-old boy named Mark got into a fight with a bully. THE BULLY PUT HIS HANDS AROUND THE BOY'S THROAT AND BEGAN TO SQUEEZE. That's when MARK FOUGHT BACK; he kicked his aggressor right in the family jewels. In a normal society, we'd celebrate Mark. Throw him a ticker tape parade or something. Bullies need a sharp kick to the testicles. That's how you convince them that bullying is wrong.
But in Boston, MARK WAS CHARGED WITH SEXUAL ASSAULT.
Just to get this straight: Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank's gay lover can run a homosexual prostitution ring from his apartment and Frank will not be prosecuted. But a boy kicks a bully in the berries and he faces expulsion from school.
IT'S NOT THE BULLY WHO LOST HIS CHESTNUTS. IT'S OUR COUNTRY.
At some point in the recent past, America moved from the Gilded Age to the Gelded Age. It's no longer considered polite to beat up bullies -- that's simply not "tolerant." All this chatter from the left about the problem of bullying -- Lady Gaga is visiting the White House this week to tell her subordinate, President Obama, what to do about it -- is so much nonsense. The left has no idea how to solve the bullying problem. THEY TREAT ALL VIOLENCE AS EQUAL -- Mark and the bully are on the same moral plane -- and so they recommend counseling and training, as though a little classroom instruction can solve boys' basic biological urge toward aggression.
Have these people ever met little boys?..
This is why liberals lose elections. Government at all levels continues to do things that doesn’t make any sense and then the liberals call for more government. The set themselves up as people don’t trust a government who charges a kid who fights off a bully with sexual assault while the left tells us we need government to take over even more of what is going on.
4. The Age of Hamilton
As President Obama travels to John Brown’s old stomping ground in Osawatomie, Kansas where Theodore Roosevelt made his New Nationalism speech in 1910, Newt Gingrich has announced that he is a Theodore Roosevelt Republican.
IF YOU ASKED THEODORE ROOSEVELT WHAT KIND OF REPUBLICAN HE WAS, HE WOULD — AND DID — TELL YOU THAT HE WAS A PROUD STANDARD BEARER OF THE HAMILTONIAN TRADITION IN AMERICAN POLITICS.
Ron Paul, who would have fought TR tooth and nail as much as he is currently fighting both President Obama and ex-Speaker Newt would agree. Gingrich, Obama and TR are all Hamiltonians, and Ron Paul thinks they are all dead wrong.
As we gear up for 2012 and beyond, AMERICAN ATTENTION IS INCREASINGLY RETURNING TO THE OLDEST BATTLE IN OUR POLITICAL HISTORY: THE BATTLE BETWEEN THE HAMILTONIANS AND JEFFERSONIANS that split George Washington’s cabinet down the middle and established our first party system.
That fight was essentially over three things that divide us intensely today: THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE NATURE OF THE CREDIT SYSTEM, AND THE FUTURE OF THE SOCIAL HIERARCHY. Alexander Hamilton favored a strong federal government at home and abroad, a centralized credit system similar to the British one with a Bank of the United States acting as our central bank, and believed that the best educated and most widely experienced people in the United States constituted a natural aristocracy and should play the leading role in our politics….
… WHAT AMERICA NEEDS IS A DEBATE BETWEEN 21ST CENTURY HAMILTONIANS AND JEFFERSONIANS. OBAMA AND PAUL IN THEIR WAY ARE BOTH LOOKING BACKWARD; GINGRICH feels the need for a deep reworking of the Hamiltonian tradition and his surprising surge in the polls SUGGESTS THAT HE HAS TOUCHED A NERVE IN THE PUBLIC — despite the baggage of his past and the sometimes sketchy nature of his proposals. Paul’s popularity also points to the growing public discontent with political approaches centered on the defense of the status quo….
A very interesting article well worth a read. I gave you the very beginning for the set up and gave you a conclusion from the end which I agree with. My favorite line from the article is that Keynes is Hamilton on steroids. And I think you see this in the divide between the party insiders (both parties) and the public at large.
5. Should Washington Regulate Rain?
If the Supreme Court declines to review it, a recent ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will PUT FEDERAL COURTS INTO THE BUSINESS OF MANAGING EVERY ACRE OF PRIVATELY OWNED TIMBERLAND IN AMERICA. Farmers beware. You could be next. IN MAY, THE 9TH CIRCUIT DETERMINED THAT RAINWATER DRAINING FROM FOREST ROADS INTO LOCAL STREAMS, RIVERS AND LAKES IS “POINT SOURCE POLLUTION.” As such, it must be regulated in the same way effluent from sewage-treatment plants is regulated. To make a long story short, rainwater that accumulates alongside logging roads has become a new target of environmental litigators. Several lawsuits were filed within days of the 9th Circuit’s decision.
The court made this determination despite the fact that the EPA HAS INSISTED FOR 35 YEARS THAT REQUIRING “POINT-SOURCE” PERMITS IS UNNECESSARY TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT and is even harmful. In deciding as they did, the judges overturned a long-standing rule that, within reason, the federal judiciary must defer to federal agencies in interpreting laws they enforce.
The main culprits here are the lowly drainage ditch and the only slightly more fashionable culvert, a steel cylinder buried beneath the road surface that directs rainwater away from the road, reducing the threat of flood-caused soil erosion. IT IS THIS RAINWATER THAT THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL THINKS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST REGULATE.
Many Americans don’t know that drainage ditches and culverts don’t pollute water. I know that because I grew up in northern Idaho’s great woods and have been fly-fishing in the West for more than 50 years. God only knows how many times I’ve stuck my thirsty mug in a river or stream on a hot summer afternoon, but I can tell you that gin-clear water passed through countless culverts, under dozens of bridges and alongside miles of forest roads before it reached my parched lips.
BY INSTRUCTING THE EPA TO OVERSEE EVERY DITCH AND CULVERT THAT RUNS ALONGSIDE A FOREST ROAD, THE 9TH CIRCUIT IS SUBJECTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TIMBER LANDOWNERS TO AN UNNECESSARY AND COSTLY REGULATORY LABYRINTH that won’t make water any more suitable for fish and wildlife than it is now. Worse, every project, no matter its insignificance or urgency, will be appealed and litigated by environmental groups that oppose economically productive use of the nation’s forests.
Here is another example of stupid decisions that will cost a lot of money to enforce and add NOTHING to the safety of our streams and wildlife. How did we survive these last 200,000 years as humans without doing this?
6. The Greatest English Teacher
The Rev. John Becker, S.J., sat at the front of the classroom, paperback in hand, glasses pushed to the end of his nose. As he spoke, he looked intently from one student to another.
“This semester, I am going to teach you how to read 'King Lear,'” he said. “It may be Shakespeare’s most difficult play. But it has a powerful message to tell.”
When we were done reading “Lear,” the priest promised, we would not only understand it, but we would have learned the secret of understanding any thing written in English -- anything, that is, with a meaning to discern.
And we would love Shakespeare.
At the time, I don’t think any of us understood what Father Becker meant. But the things he started teaching us that day made him the greatest English teacher I ever had.
That was in 1974 at Saint Ignatius, the all-boys Jesuit high school in San Francisco.
For several weeks, Father Becker sat patiently with our class as we read “King Lear,” line by line -- out loud. Whenever we came to a word or phrase he suspected we did not understand, he would look with mock ferocity at one student and jovially ask another on the other side of the room to explain what it meant.
When it was clear no one knew, we would look it up in the glossary. Father would then pick someone to read the definition out loud. Then we would read -- again -- the line where the troublesome word had been found.
Reading “King Lear” like this was tedious -- at first….
A very nice tribute to a teacher and mentor. And if I can steal from the article, AMDG.
7. Climategate 2 (An editorial)
… The fact that different climate studies reach widely different conclusions is not surprising. MUCH OF THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE CENTERS ON THE OUTPUT OF HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE COMPUTER MODELS THAT CONJURE FIGURES FROM SCARCELY UNDERSTOOD VARIABLES, DUBIOUS RAW DATA AND GAPING HOLES FILLED WITH ASSUMPTIONS THAT USUALLY CONFIRM THE RESEARCHERS’ BIASES. No wonder that even as reliable temperature measurements show global temperatures have flatlined or been falling for the past decade, claims of imminent catastrophe have grown more shrill. Garbage in, warming out…
This reminds me of the old joke for engineers, that you measure with micrometers, mark with chalk and cut with an axe. I think that is what the climate modelers are doing with their scenarios of climate change.