Mickey's on another rant (I know, that's no surprise) over at Blue Collar Republican. This time, he lumping congressional candidate Tom Leatherwood in with (and I quote) "Marsha 'Queen of Pork' Blackburn".
Yep, Mickey's taking Tom Leatherwood to task while Tom's a candidate who hasn't yet had the opportunity to do any federal pork barrel spending.
And at the local level as Shelby County Register, Tom Leatherwood actually reduced costs, lowered fees, and radically increased services. Just take a look at the Register website that came about due to Tom's leadership. [I often use the GIS feature, and you can too. For instance, here's the house that the mayor of Bartlett lives in. Neat, huh?]
That's right, Tom Leatherwood succeeded in pulling Shelby County into the 21st century, and did it while keeping the Register of Deeds a profit center for the county. Not bad for a civil servant these days.
Now then, let's examine Mickey's "Queen of Pork" accusation leveled at the sexiest woman in congress.
When it comes to measuring pork and looking out for the taxpayers, I have two favorite sources: the Citizens Against Government Waste and the Club for Growth.
According the Citizens Against Government Waste, there were 44 critical spending bills in the 2007 congress, of which Marsha Blackburn voted what they consider to be "the right way" on 43 of them. She has a 98% rating for 2007 from CAGW, earning her the label "Taxpayer Hero". In fact, she could have voted the "wrong" way another eight or nine times and still been considered a Taxpayer Hero.
Marsha enjoys a lifetime rating of 91% from the Citizens Against Government Waste, putting her solidly in the middle of the "Taxpayer Hero" category.
Turning now to the highly respected Club for Growth, let's examine the 2007 Club for Growth RePORK Card where Blackburn earns a score of 94% for her voting record last year.
When Mickey says "Queen of Pork", he means every single member of congress because they don't go up there and consistently vote "no" on every single appropriations bill that ever comes up. Mickey, I love ya like a brother -- OK, maybe more like that crazy uncle that got put in a home a few years ago and nobody talks about anymore at the family reunions but everyone still has a few fond memories.
While I am not yet certain of who I will support in the primary for the 7th congressional district of Tennessee, but I do know that I am privileged to have the choice between two very fine candidates.
I also know that Tom has picked a very difficult fight and I give him about a 3% chance of winning. Not only is Marsha an entrenched incumbent, she is viewed as a rising star in the Republican party, makes frequent appearances on political talk shows and has about a million dollars in her campaign war chest. She's going to be tough to beat.
But I have to admit that it would be nice to be represented by someone from Shelby County instead of someone from over 200 miles away. The 7th district stretches from Mississippi to Kentucky as it weaves it's ludicrously gerrymandered path across the state and Blackburn is from Franklin, just south of Nashville.
Cross posted at Volitics, aka TennWatch.
Wonko's World has a great post about global warming propagandists, with a little help from the BBC, using a 10-year old story as if it is breaking news.
Congressional subsidies for ethanol production have driven up the cost of baked goods, from cakes to apple turnovers.
This, of course, is on top of driving up the price of Tequila, cost of milk, price (and availability) of beef, hogs, eggs (23% in a year!), chickens, beer, turkeys -- the list goes on and on.
In spite of the fact that ethanol blends lose every cost benefit analysis, and in spite of the fact that ethanol pollution rivals that of gasoline to the point that it will actually kill more people, Congress has shown no signs of reducing government subsidies for ethanol production, which is why prices continue the upward trend.
10 Year History of Ethanol Prices
Source and full-sized graph: California Energy Commission
Today's ethanol quote comes from Cornell University scientist David Pimental:
We're actually importing more oil to produce ethanol. It's not making us oil-independent, and it's costing us one hell of a lot of money.
In the future, ethanol will be made from wheat. What do you think this will do to the cost of living? And do you really think it will be any more cost effective than drilling the ANWR and creating jobs?
Charles Lane, WaPo journalist and author of The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction, penned a rather nice article last weekend on the necessity of an armed populace. Few events in our history illustrate the consequences of turning citizens into unarmed victims so well as the tragic outcome at Colfax in the aftermath of the Civil War, and Lane lends his expertise to the debate:
Nearly 135 years ago, the United States experienced what may have been the worst one-day slaughter of blacks by whites in its history. On April 13, 1873, in the tiny village of Colfax, La., white paramilitaries attacked a lightly armed force of freedmen assembled in a local courthouse. By the time the Colfax Massacre was over, more than 60 African American men lay shot, burned or stabbed to death. Most were killed after they had surrendered.
Though it caused a national sensation in post-Civil War America, this horrible incident has been largely overlooked by historians. It deserves fresh study today not only to illuminate the human cost of Reconstruction's defeat but also to enrich our understanding of constitutional history. Some of the most relevant lessons relate to the issue at the heart of District of Columbia v. Heller, the case on the D.C. gun control law currently before the Supreme Court: whether the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.
During oral arguments on Tuesday, the justices debated what the framers of the Second Amendment intended. The members of the court did not mention Reconstruction. Yet during this period, we the people gave the Union a second "founding" through constitutional amendments abolishing slavery, granting blacks citizenship and enabling them to vote. And, to clarify blacks' newly secured freedom, Congress wrote laws identifying the specific rights of individual U.S. citizens. One of these was the right to have guns. . . .
In the D.C. gun case, the Supreme Court should find that local governments may enact reasonable and necessary restrictions on dangerous weapons. To be sure, if the justices also back an individual right to keep and bear arms, that will be harder for legislators to do. But as a matter of historical interpretation, the court would be correct.
That gun control grew out of Jim Crow laws is well known. That black Americans now accept these laws and even support them is an outrage.
Equally outrageous, however, is this paragraph that mars what would otherwise be a great article:
Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers -- crime, suicide, accidents -- that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.
Herein is the siren song of the gun control lobby. The thought of being protected by a benevolent force for good is a powerful concept, and one that we are taught to believe by our parents ("If you get lost just ask a policeman for help. They can be trusted.").
But the truth is that our police forces are stretched too thin in these troubled times, and they cannot be everywhere. In fact, all too often they cannot be where they are needed in time. Otherwise, why would rapes, violent assaults and murders continue to happen?
But the real bottom line is that my right to self protection comes from a higher power than the nanny state, no matter how many policemen they employ. Lane should remember than.
"That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. [NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John] Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.
So the NAACP says that gun rights was only so southern states could protect slavery. Yet they also often and loudly decry Jim Crow laws, part of which was the deliberate and targeted removal of guns from southern blacks so they could defend themselves.
I guess consistency isn't something we can expect on this issue.
King Willie says he is leaving office to "pursue other challenges" effective 31 July.
With Herenton’s resignation, Memphis’ charter dictates that City Council chairman Scott McCormick will become mayor for 20 days. The council then will vote to appoint an interim mayor to serve until the next municipal or general election, which is scheduled for November. If the council cannot agree on an interim mayor within the 20 days, then CAO McGee becomes mayor until the next election.
Herenton, Memphis mayor since 1991, was re-elected to his fifth term just last November in a contentious three-way race. With his resignation, the city will be subjected to another expensive mayoral election process.
Willie says that he is considering several options, including returning to education from whence he came. A FOH (friend of Herenton) says that Willie is considering either going back to be the Memphis City Schools Superintendent or running for the Ninth Congressional District seat.
But one cannot help but wonder if his sudden departure has anything to do with the ongoing investigations:
As recently as December a federal grand jury subpoenaed records related to Herenton’s association with a city contractor.
The rumors of more arrests spinning off from Tennessee Waltz have refused to die, but I have come to the conclusion that this was more wishful thinking than anything else. Indeed, I think Left Wing Cracker may be correct when he suggests otherwise:
Does this have anything to do with the Grand Jury investigation, or is it just that he wanted one last electoral victory to say F--- YOU to those who wanted him out?
British science fiction writer Sir Arthur C Clarke has died in his adopted home of Sri Lanka at the age of 90.
A Fall of Moondust was one of the first books I ever read, and it instilled a passion for Science Fiction that has yet to be extinguished.
Clarke was a prolific writer whose voice will be missed.
U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on District of Columbia v. Heller:
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark case for all Americans who believe as I do that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. I am proud to have joined in an amicus brief to the Court calling for a ruling in keeping with the clear intent of our Founding Fathers, which ensures the Second Amendment rights of the residents of District of Columbia are reaffirmed.
Damn it. Just when I think the man's is totally useless, he comes out and does something good. Of course, I still don't trust him.
But, as I said before, the ruling will leave lots of room for interpretation as to exactly what "common sense gun laws" really means.
The Economist thinks even a narrow ruling could have significant ramifications:
One can rarely be sure what the nine Supreme Court judges are thinking, but there were several hints that at least some of them think the second amendment protects what Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing vote, calls “a general right to bear arms”. If a majority agrees, the DC gun ban, which is the nation's strictest, will probably be struck down.
But the court's ruling, which may not come for weeks, will probably be quite narrow. Mr Roberts, for one, prefers to rule narrowly whenever possible. Too wide a decision would threaten every gun curb in the country, perhaps even the national ban on machineguns. But even a narrow ruling could affect similar bans in other cities, like New York.
AccurateShooter.com agrees:
Most legal observers, including our correspondent, Robert Whitley, believe there will be at least 5 votes to overturn the D.C. ban. Whitley cautions however: “I think there will be a recognition of the individual right, and the D.C. ban will probably be invalidated, at least in its current form. But this isn’t the end of the controversy… there will be many more battles ahead. The court will likely try to decide the case narrowly, and many of the justices seem to favor some kind of ‘reasonableness’ test for gun laws that will only lead to more legal challenges in the months and years ahead.”
Reason's Hit & Run has relevant quotes to show that at least four are on board with the individual rights concept (John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy), and adds:
Clarence Thomas, as is his wont, did not say anything during the oral arguments. But if any justice could be counted on to support a Second Amendment that imposes significant restraints on gun control, it would be him. Thomas is an avowed "original intent" jurist, and the contemporaneous evidence on the meaning of the Second Amendment, as demonstrated in the respondent and amicus briefs (not to mention the appeals court decision overturning D.C.'s gun ban), strongly favors the view that it is about more than state militias.
Here's an interesting post by Sua Sponte (A Blog by GW Law Students) in which one student details his experience from camping out to be in line to hearing the case. One bit:
So of the hearing, the things that surprised me were that Justice Thomas napped (he asked two questions in the beginning, proceeded to rock in his chair, then napped for a while, then resumed rocking), that the lawyers didn’t seem comfortable speaking (one stuttered a lot at the beginning), and that the lawyers interrupted Justice Ginsburg.
Black Bear Blog analyzes the transcript and concludes:
Lawyers on all sides revealed why the Second Amendment is a difficult one because it is packed with emotion-filled beliefs and arguments, neither side daring to stand firmly in its position.
Our society has become so politically correct that I believe this played a certain role in how far each lawyer was willing to stick his neck out.
Reason Online explains why D.C. vs. Heller is about self defense, and says that it's really a civil rights case.
Iranian Ajax notes the irony:
You know what is funny? The fact that these liberals at the ACLU are screaming with their head on fire because the NSA wiretaps are eroding the constitution. Yet their own view on the constitution are eroding the constitution. Hmmmm.
Funny how the NRA that supports the preservation of the Constitution is demonized, but the ACLU that supports the same thing is not….hmmm. Irony.
The NY Sun says that the Supreme Court "seem set to rule for gun rights":
During oral arguments yesterday in what is the first Second Amendment case to reach the federal high court in 70 years, enough justices seemed inclined to go with the individual rights interpretation to suggest that a majority will adopt that view when a decision comes down, likely during the summer. . . .
Justice Kennedy, often the court's swing vote, said that, "in my view," the Second Amendment provides "a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia."
Alan Korwin (co-author of Supreme Court Gun Cases) agrees (ht to Say Uncle):
The bottom line is, I think we’re going to be OK.
When Justice Kennedy flat out said he believes in an individual right under the Second Amendment, there were no gasps in the hush of the High Court, but you could tell the greatest stellar array of gun-rights experts ever assembled, all there in that one room, breathed a sigh of relief -- we had five votes to affirm the human and civil right to arms.
Excellent analysis, read it all.
Gun Legislation & Politics in New York, who predicts a 6-3 or possibly even a 7-2 win for gun rights, has a YouTube video of the interview with Brady Campaign CEO Paul Helmke immediately after the oral arguments. In part:
Bottom line, though, is I feel strongly that the justices are going to allow reasonable gun restrictions. They even discussed at one point having registration and licensing and got some concessions from the plaintiff's attorneys that some licensing might make sense. That some restrictions on machine guns make sense, restrictions on armor piercing bullets make sense, that background checks make sense. A lot of elected officials haven't bought into that point so to have the court come down and say that reasonable regulations and reasonable restrictions make sense, that's a good thing for common sense gun control.
And that is what I think is going to happen.
Yes, individual rights will be upheld. But the door will be left gaping open on the "common sense gun laws" and "reasonable gun control". Neither side will have a clear victory, although the Right to Keep and Bear Arms will come out slightly better.
But this war won't be over, folks. Not by a long shot.
For those of you who want to know what the heck all the fuss is about, Wall Street Journal has a great overview for the layman. (Update: the unabridged version of this article appears on The Volokh Conspiracy, via Say Uncle).
Many people are wondering when they'll get their piece of the pie when the federal government engages in this year's blatant wealth redistribution scheme. Here's the answer, directly off of the IRS website.
First of all, note that this schedule is only for those whose invasive, fascist information gathering survey tax form has been received and processed by the government bureaucrats by 15 April. Second, if you want to know how much you'll be getting, you can use the IRS' online calculator -- if you have your tax return handy and about ten minutes to spare. Third, those of you who do direct deposit will be served first (isn't this unfair to poor people .
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A week ago I predicted McCain's victory in November because, with Hillary's Texas and Ohio victories, the war in the Democrat party will continue with the end game being the complete alienation of half of the voters within the party, no matter who wins in the end.
The best proof that I could possibly ask for comes from the hard-left blog, Tennessee Guerilla Women. Once proud of the party that has both a woman and a black man running for president, the poster finds herself "stunned" that she may not be able to support Obama should he win the nomination:
There have been numerous statements by Barack Obama that have led me to this position. These include the persistent use of rightwing frames, the naive assertion that he can end the culture war, the repeated and absurd claim that the Clintons are to blame for the partisanship of the 1990s, the trashing of the Clinton presidency, the denigration of Hillary's experience as First Lady, the attacks on her character, and Obama's repeated use of sexist dog whistles. And then there is the shameful Donnie McClurkin affair, as well as Obama's pandering to Christians. And especially, there is Obama's failure to take a stand or speak out against the outrageously sexist media treatment of our first ever viable woman candidate. (To be fair, Obama is not the only one I hold responsible for the failure to stand up for the principles of the Democratic Party. Howard Dean comes to mind.)
There is also Obama's arrogant assertion that Hillary would have trouble getting the votes of his supporters, while he would have no trouble getting the votes of her supporters. I'm accustomed to having my vote taken for granted, but I am not accustomed to having my face rubbed in it.
Apparently, I am not alone.
Precisely.
Another example from the opposite side of the war comes from a letter to the editor (one of many) in the SF Chronicle:
I served in President Bill Clinton's administration from 1993-1995 as senior speechwriter for HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros. I am appalled by Sen. Hillary Clinton's repeated insinuations that presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain is better qualified to be commander in chief than Sen. Barack Obama.
I have never before heard a Democratic presidential candidate suggest that their Democratic rival was less qualified to serve as president than a prospective Republican opponent. Drawing sharp comparisons between herself and Sen. Obama is acceptable "hardball" politics. But by implying that Sen. Obama's credentials are inferior to Sen. McCain's, Sen. Clinton has crossed the line between acceptable and scurrilous behavior.
Her scorched-earth tactics are absolutely reprehensible.
After a Democrat primary with historically high turnouts, Hillary's women will stay home in droves should Obama win, and African-Americans will fail to show should Hillary win.
The unfortunate consequence will be that Republicans will retain the White House by instilling John McCain. That will be the day that Republicans learn exactly what "Pyrrhic victory" means.
Tennessee lawmakers are often bound by federal legislation, and the fight against illegal immigration is no exception. But thanks to a bit of creative thinking by a Goodlettsville Democrat, the fight goes on:
A proposal to make it a crime for illegal immigrants to accept pay for work done in Tennessee is headed for floor votes in both chambers of the General Assembly. . . .
The measure sponsored by Sen. Joe Haynes, a Goodlettsville Democrat, could lead to fines of $500, up to six months in jail and require illegal immigrants to forfeit any earnings they receive.
Haynes says the Legislature is prevented from enacting tougher penalties against employers who hire illegal immigrants because the state must defer to federal laws on the matter.
But federal laws do not pre-empt increased penalties against workers.
Now that's thinking outside of the box.
Ben Cunningham wonders:
Isn't it time that we bury many of the myths forever about the "middle-class squeeze," "the war on the middle class," "the American middle class is fighting for its life," "Two Amercias," etc.
There are four times more crime in the capital of Norway than in New York, with a 20% increase in robberies over the last year alone. The Oslo police are blaming the increase on an influx of East Europeans.
Last month, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that supermarkets will be given a year to end their reliance on "single use" plastic bags. After that they face a fine of 5p or more for each plastic bag they give to customers.
Further, in an effort to force retailers to "go green", if the shop charges customers for plastic bags they will be required to publish how they use the proceeds. This measure is designed to put public pressure on the retailers to use the money for environmental causes.
Brown, of course, is from the Labour Party which occupies the point to the left of what passes for the middle of the political spectrum outside of the US. In other words, he would be perfectly happy cozying up to the Pelosis and Nadars of the US.
Conservatives responded to Brown's announcement by showcasing Labour's hypocrisy: over the last 2 years the government has purchased almost 1.3 million plastic bags emblazoned with departmental logos at a cost of over 91 million pounds. Eric Pickles, shadow communities and local government secretary, said:
“While Gordon Brown lectures the public on the environment, his own ministers are fuelling Britain’s throw-away culture.”
But it actually much worse than mere hypocrisy. Please read on.
The campaign to "ban the bag" was recently fueled by photographs in the UK Daily Mail. One showed a sea turtle swimming along side some plastic bags which the article claims:
Cut to the haunting image of a sea turtle, thousands of miles away, struggling through the deep ocean waters as discarded plastic bags wrap themselves around its flippers and body.
The turtle hardly seems entangled, but such is the rhetoric associated with this campaign. Worse, a second photograph shows a turtle apparently eating a bag.
These majestic animals are dying in alarming numbers because they mistake the flimsy translucent bags - which could in theory come from British supermarkets - for jellyfish, a key element of their diet.
The article had more photos, and even more inflammatory rhetoric. In response, environmental groups and publicity-seeking celebrities have flocked to embrace the campaign.
But what is the truth behind these claims?
First, Brown has long called plastic bags "one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste." Yet UK's DEFRA (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) website unequivocally contradicts this "fact" with real facts:
Second is the "single use" component of the war on plastic retail bags. The aforementioned DEFRA site states that "80% of UK consumers currently re-use their plastic bags at least once for a variety of purposes – such as bin liners, nappy sacks or lunch bags." Confirming this is the experience in Ireland: when a tax was placed on plastic bags in Ireland there was a massive increase of 300 to 500% in the sale of plastic refuse bags and bin liners! Note that these bags are thicker and heavier than plastic retail bags (see the next point below) and therefor the "green footprint" is much heavier. [Note to politicians: ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?]
Third, there are a whole lot of reasons to continue using plastic bags at grocery stores, from reducing energy to fighting shoplifting. And did you know that today's plastic bags use 70% less plastic than they did 20 years ago, yet are just as strong?
Fourth, the "science" used to support the fight against plastic is really the result of a a misrepresentation of a scientific study. That is, a boldfaced lie:
The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags.
Fifteen years later in 2002, when the Australian Government commissioned a report into the effects of plastic bags, its authors misquoted the Newfoundland study, mistakenly attributing the deaths to “plastic bags”.
The figure was latched on to by conservationists as proof that the bags were killers. For four years the “typo” remained uncorrected. It was only in 2006 that the authors altered the report, replacing “plastic bags” with “plastic debris”. But they admitted: “The actual numbers of animals killed annually by plastic bag litter is nearly impossible to determine.”
In a postscript to the correction they admitted that the original Canadian study had referred to fishing tackle, not plastic debris, as the threat to the marine environment.
Regardless, the erroneous claim has become the keystone of a widening campaign to demonise plastic bags.
That's right, there is no scientific evidence to support the outrageous claims of the granola-chomping, mantra-chanting, tree-sitting crowd (and a lot to discount it), yet the British government has embraced the plastic bag myth. As a result British taxpayer dollars pounds will be wasted and retail prices will rise, all for nothing.
Sounds a lot like the governmental embrace of global warming, doesn't it?
By simultaneously embracing appeasement, protectionism and retreat, President Obama would manage to make Jimmy Carter look like Teddy Roosevelt.
Now that's just funny, I don't care who y'are.
The quote is from WaPo columnist Michael Gerson, who writes a hilarious prognostication of Obama's First 100 Days. Read it all. You'll find little tidbits like this, as Gerson comments on Hillary's revived campaign and the resulting continuing war inside the Democrat party:
So now Clinton herself is the most effective agent of the vast right-wing conspiracy -- proving just how devious and subtle that conspiracy really is.
Today, Republicans are celebrating Victory over the Democrat Party.
Hillary won both Texas and Ohio, reviving her candidacy and giving her the momentum to keep her campaign going. From this point on, every Democrat primary matters, right down to the 3rd of June when Democrats in Montana and South Dakota go to the polls.
And so we have another three months of sniping within the Democrat Party and another $20 to $30 million in advertising in which Hillary and Obama tear each other apart.
Come November, three things will depress the Democrat turnout. First, all those young blacks that voted for Obama, and that gave money to a political campaign for the first time in their lives. If Hillary wins (or steals, via superdelegates) the nomination, those disaffected voters will stay home -- possibly for several voting cycles.
Second, there's all those women Boomers that supported Hillary, many of which dug into their fixed-income pockets and gave to her campaign. If Obama wins, look for them to stay home.
Third, enter Ralph Nadir, who will only siphon votes from the eventual Democrat candidate, whomever it turns out to be.
Complicating matters is the possibility of a Democrat primary re-vote in Michigan and Florida and those silly superdelegates. Both issues hold enormous emotional energy, the discharge of which could tear the Democrat Party apart.
Meanwhile John McCain gets to focus on framing his race the way he wants as he stands virtually unopposed. Huckabee has officially dropped out and Ron Paul, even though he gets to keep his day job, long ago became the Ross Perot of the 21st century.
Make no mistake, barring something on a seismic scale that alters the political landscape, John McCain will be our next president. Of the three Democrats running, he is the most electable. I only wish that there was a conservative choice that had a chance of winning.
On the other hand, I think back to the Conservative Leadership Conference in Reno last year, when every single panel member said emphatically and with great conviction that Hillary would be our next president, even the revered Captain Ed.
But for now, I'm sticking with my plan to vote for neo-Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root.
Postscript: Rush probably wasn't responsible for Hillary's win in Texas, but you know he'll be chortling today.
In their book Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069, William Strauss and Neil Howe identified four generational archetypes that appear again and again, one after another in an unbroken cycle. Lately:
Whether you agree with Strauss and Howe's work or not, their groundbreaking theories revolutionized generational thinking and has given historians a new way to look at modern history.
Blogging on Harvard Business, Tammy Erickson wonders Which Generation Will Give the U.S. Its Next President?
She notes that Strauss and Howe showed that Hero/Civic and Prophet/Idealist generations have historically produced the most U.S. presidents. The GI or