A new Gallup poll shows just how racially divided the country has become over the President. The poll shows a whopping 91% of Blacks supporting Barack Obama as compared to only 36% of Whites.
President Obama’s overall approval rating has stayed below 50% and some polls have him in the 30s. This poll shows him at 45%.
Democrats still like Obama by 79% and liberals are just slightly lower at 75%. The poll would suggest that liberals are not altering their views of the President despite his adoption of many Bush era policies, as discussed earlier.
Gallup shows failing popularity in every other demographic group beyond African-Americans:
57%. Hispanics: 55%. Moderates: 54%. Unmarrieds: 53%. Easterners: 52%. Women: 47%. Midwesterners and Westerners: 45%.
Beyond Whites in general, the worst groups are married citizens at 39% and seniors at 38%.
While the Administration has been trying to appeal to conservatives in various areas, it does not seem to be having an impact. Obama has a 23% popularity among conservatives. For Republicans, it is down to 12%.
Source: LA Times
what Slarti said … on October 8, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Byron,
Also, see what Slarti said.
Byron,
You asked were basically asking “where are the modern Jeffersons” I was pointing out that a modern Jefferson would (by definition) be a different creature than the original.
D’oh! I meant to say the Leibniz was my (great)^(12th) grandfather, academically speaking…
Byron,
The answer to the question about nature vs. nurture is ‘No.’ we are all the product of what shaped us both environmental and genetic. Geniuses (in any field) are the result of an incredibly complex interaction between DNA and the universe and society is perhaps the most significant portion of the universe in that regard. Why wasn’t Lenardo da Vinci able to build a flying machine? Why didn’t the Pythagoreans invent calculus? Why did Leibniz (my great^(24)-grandfather academically speaking, by the way…) and Newton invent calculus simultaneously and independently? ‘They weren’t smart enough’ and ‘they were smarter than anyone else before them’ aren’t answers to any of these questions – although what’s in a person to begin with is unquestionably important, the times do make the man (or woman). Can I do far more with mathematics than Leibniz ever dreamed? Certainly. Do I think for a second this is because I’m smarter than he was? Absolutely not. If the impact of society on its members were not as massive as it is, I don’t believe that societies would evolve (which they clearly do). This is why
“the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
Gyges:
So you are saying the individual is buffeted by the whims of the society and times he/she grows up in? That the individual plays no part in who he becomes, that conscious effort to program your mind is to no avail because society will exert to strong an influence?
So the individual is really nothing more than a combination of disjointed experiences and emotions given to him by the society as a whole, is that what you are saying?
Byron,
Welcome to the discussion (I was wondering when you were going to show up). I’ve been busy today, but I’ll respond to your post later tonight (and you too, Bdaman).
Dr.Slarti
Robert B. Laughlin is a professor of physics at Stanford University and a co-recipient of the 1998 Nobel Prize for Physics. This essay is adapted from his new book on the future of fossil fuels, which will appear next year.
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/
Byron,
I take it you’re a fan of “The Boys From Brazil?”
Unless he was completely isolated from society, Jefferson couldn’t have had the same education during the formative years, that’s the point.
Again we seen fabrication of data to drive an agenda.
California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state’s clean-air standards, and scientists have spent the past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found.
The pollution estimate in question was too high – by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries.
The staff of the powerful and widely respected Air Resources Board said the overestimate is largely due to the board calculating emissions before the economy slumped, which halted the use of many of the 150,000 diesel-exhaust-spewing vehicles in California. Independent researchers, however, found huge overestimates in the air board’s work on diesel emissions and attributed the flawed work to a faulty method of calculation – not the economic downturn.
The article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com it will not let me post the link.
Overestimate fueled state’s landmark diesel law
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
San Francisco Chronicle October 8, 2010 04:00 AM Copyright San Francisco Chronicle. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Dr. Slarti
Ever heard the old saying never bite the hand that feeds you. With as much money as the United States owes China, what type of influence do you think we currently have over anything China does?
China could care a less.
Slarti:
That assumes a green revolution, it isn’t happening and you cannot create a real market through government fiat. See old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and how well it worked out for them.
You are asking for a trade war by doing that a tariff is a tariff no matter what the reason may be. Bad idea and one of the causes of the great depression. We are not out of the woods yet and ole numb nuts has no clue about how to grow an economy, he spent too much time with Karl and Fred as a young man and not enough time Ludwig and Fred.
I think people believe government can create markets through legislation, they really cant because it is based on a “soft” foundation with no real base.
Bdaman,
The US could absolutely go it alone – institute pollution taxes and tariffs. The tariffs would be linked to the taxes (so they were effectively the same – a competitive advantage since US manufacturing is most likely less polluting than, say, Chinese manufacturing) and would assign a pessimistic approximate industry average (country specific) to any product unless the pollution level of the company was certified (at the company’s expense). This raises revenue and puts this country in a position where we can take advantage of a green technology boom – in my opinion, our best chance to remain world leaders in technological innovation. This would, in my opinion, properly incentivize green industry world-wide without compromising US competitiveness.
And Dr. Slarti I agree with your position. I think that every effort should be made GLOBALLY by all inhabitants to achieve such. However, we, The United States could launch a staunch effort to achieve this goal and if the other countries, mainly China, are not willing, which at last check they are not, then it’s all for not. The United States can not go it alone. The United States can not afford to get involved in a SCHEME of carbon trading. Carbon trading does not work. It has already created a mafioso type environment on a grand scale in Europe.
combating pollution is not a bad thing but combating CO2 emissions because you think it will somehow keep the planet cooler is ridiculous. Show me the evidence of anthropomorphic global warming, it has been debunked by reputable scientists and only the European countries and the United States appear to even care about it.
It is junk science and the lies and obfuscations by warmers is legion.
messpo727272:
please quote accurately.
“I would ask you why you believe that human activity is the cause and why you think that warming is not necessarily part of a never ending cycle. … I am a member of the Flat Earth Society.””
there is a ? mark at the end of Flat Earth Society as in I am questioning your referring to my being a member. Such a droll lawyers trick. My, one must really be on their toes around these parts.
Bdaman,
Remember that my position is that ASSUMING ‘Global Warming’ is a hoax, the policies being attempted to combat it are still necessary and worthwhile. You know, the policy that you are attempting to discredit by any means available…
Before I forget even Al Baby got into the game of fabrication. And let us not forget about the U.K. decision about his first book. Lies lies and more lies to fit the agenda.
Al Gore’s new book had a problem – no big hurricanes since Katrina to put in the book to look “threatening” to the USA. Any imagined link between hurricanes and global warming has evaporated.
Solution: the artists airbrush.
Ryan Maue, hurricane expert from Florida State University writes:
Anthony,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/not-finding-any-gore-airbrushes-in-hurricanes-for-his-new-book/
I could go on and on about falsified skewed data that is/was submitted as proof of Global Climate disruption. It has taken nearly 40 years already to expose the fraud of Global Warming.
More to come.
On my way to a funeral.