Monthly Archives: February 2012

Did Steve Jobs help people even though he did not give away a lot of money?

Did Steve Jobs help people even though he did not give away a lot of money?

Uploaded by  on Sep 16, 2010

clip from The First Round Up *1934* ~~enjoy!!

______________________________________________

In the short film above you can see that it was the kindness of the two “haves” to the other “havenots” that allowed everyone to eat. However, the article below shows that the best way to help people is give them a job instead of a one time gift.

Rich People Should Help the Poor by…Making Smart Investments and Earning Big Profits

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

There’s a very provocative article on the New York Times website that criticizes Steve Jobs for his supposed lack of charitable giving:

Surprisingly, there is one thing that Mr. Jobs is not, at least not yet: a prominent philanthropist. Despite accumulating an estimated $8.3 billion fortune through his holdings in Apple and a 7.4 percent stake in Disney (through the sale of Pixar), there is no public record of Mr. Jobs giving money to charity. He is not a member of the Giving Pledge, the organization founded by Warren E. Buffett and Bill Gates to persuade the nation’s wealthiest families to pledge to give away at least half their fortunes. (He declined to participate, according to people briefed on the matter.) Nor is there a hospital wing or an academic building with his name on it. …the lack of public philanthropy by Mr. Jobs — long whispered about, but rarely said aloud — raises some important questions about the way the public views business and business people at a time when some “millionaires and billionaires” are criticized for not giving back enough… In 2006, in a scathing column in Wired, Leander Kahney, author of “Inside Steve’s Brain,” wrote: “Yes, he has great charisma and his presentations are good theater. But his absence from public discourse makes him a cipher. People project their values onto him, and he skates away from the responsibilities that come with great wealth and power.”

But why, to address Leander Kahney’s criticism, should we assume that Mr. Jobs has done nothing for the poor? He’s built a $360 billion company. That presumably means at least $352 billion of wealth in the hands of people other than himself. And that doesn’t even begin to count how consumers have benefited from his products, the jobs he has created, and the indirect positive impact of his company on suppliers and retailers.

To give credit where credit is due, the article does present this counterargument. It reports that Mr. Jobs told friends, “that he could do more good focusing his energy on continuing to expand Apple than on philanthropy.”

This is a critical point. Do we want highly talented entrepreneurs and investors dropping out of the private sector and giving their money away after they’ve reached a certain point, say $5 billion? Or do we want them to focus on creating more wealth and prosperity?

Interestingly, Warren Buffett used to understand this point (before he started arguing that politicians could more effectively spend his money). And Carlos Slim Helu still does:

Mr. Jobs, 56 years old, is not alone in his single-minded focus on work over philanthropy. It wasn’t until Mr. Buffett turned 75 that he turned his attention to charity, saying that he was better off spending his time allocating capital at Berkshire Hathaway — where he believed he could create even greater wealth to give away — than he would ever be at devoting his energies toward running a foundation. And last year, Carlos Slim Helú, the Mexican telecommunications billionaire, defended his lack of charity and his refusal to sign the Giving Pledge. “What we need to do as businessmen is to help to solve the problems, the social problems,” he said in an interview on CNBC. “To fight poverty, but not by charity.”

None of this is to say that charitable giving is wrong. I’m proud to say that my employer, the Cato Institute, refuses to accept money from government. This means we are completely dependent on private philanthropy.

But those of us who work at Cato understand that creating wealth—maximizing the size of the economic pie—is the most important priority. And if the pie is big, generous people then have more ability to make contributions to worthy causes such as school choice scholarship funds, the Salvation Army, or (ahem) America’s best think tank.

Advertisements

Remembering Francis Schaeffer at 100 (Part 13)

schaeffer

THE FRANCIS SCHAEFFER CENTENNIAL – INVOCATION – PASTOR TONY FELICH

Uploaded by on Feb 3, 2012

Pastor Tony Felich of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Overland Park, KS gives the invocation to the mini conference event in honor of Francis Schaeffer’s 100th Birthday.

__________________________

This year Francis Schaeffer would have turned 100 on Jan 30, 2012. I remember like yesterday when I first was introduced to his books. I was even more amazed when I first saw his films. I was so influenced by them that I bought every one of his 30 something books and his two film series. Here is a  tribute that I got off the internet from Chuck Colson’s website www.breakpoint.org :

A Brief Evangelical History of Worldview
ruggedcross

By John Stonestreet|Published Date: June 14, 2010

Evangelicals and Worldview (2)

Two Calvinists

David Naugle traces the use of worldview among Christians to the teachings and writings of James Orr (1844-1913) and Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), and claims that each, having emerged from a Calvinist tradition, utilized the concept of worldview via its widely-accepted use in German philosophy. These two men are the “headwaters” from which emerged a stream of Christian worldview thinkers.

Orr’s influence can be seen in the writings of Gordon Clark (1902-1986) and Carl F.H. Henry (1913-2003), while Kuyper’s influence is seen primarily among reformed thinkers, most prominently Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) and Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984).[i] The influence of these men can be further seen in the writings of others, including Ronald Nash, Albert Wolters, Arthur Holmes, W. Gary Phillips and William E. Brown, Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Charles Colson, Nancy Pearcey, James Sire, David Noebel, and David Naugle.[ii]

James Orr

When James Orr delivered the Kerr Lecture is 1891, he appropriated the idea of worldview and applied it to Christianity. Although Christianity had been seen holistically by many before him, he was the first to specifically utilize the English translation of weltanschauung which, as already noted, had become a significant concept in German philosophy. Living during the time some had called the “un-Christening of Europe,”[iii] Orr noted that there was a growing confidence in the coherence of the universe and the ability to achieve a synthesis of knowledge about the universe, and that Christianity would stand or fall according to its ability to answer challenges that were comprehensive. Christianity, also, had a “worldview”[iv] in that sense, and Orr asserted that it should be talked about as such.

Further, Orr saw it as the natural tendency of humans to theorize towards a comprehensive view of things, and practically to seek answers to ultimate questions of origin and destiny.[v] Worldviews, to Orr, were human nature. Additionally, Orr believed there were four advantages of thinking of Christianity in this way: (1) it would highlight the differences between Christianity and modernist views; (2) the debate over miracles would be reconfigured from particular miracles to the nature of reality; (3) it would alter the Christian’s approach to other worldviews and the truth that is found in those views; and (4) it would tie the Old and New Testaments together.[vi]

Orr’s influence can be easily traced. The title of Clark’s book A Christian View of Men and Things suggests that he was influenced by Orr’s The Christian View of God and the World, and was even attempting to take Orr’s work further. To Clark, only the Christian worldview could adequately explain the way the world is, offer legitimate meaning and hope, and support the existence of truth that is attainable.[vii] Through Clark’s influence, the language of worldview gained further momentum. For example, Ron Nash, a student and admirer of Clark, utilizes the language of worldview in many of his books and has influenced other students to think along those lines as well.[viii]

More prominent in Orr’s legacy is Carl F. H. Henry, who pointed to the influence of Orr as key to his worldview approach. This is evident in Henry’s masterful God, Revelation and Authority.[ix] Although it would be hard to fully measure the influence of Henry on twentieth century evangelicalism, it can certainly be seen in David Noebel’s contribution to worldview thinking, Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today’s Worldviews.[x]

Abraham Kuyper

Kuyper, in Lectures on Calvinism (the published form of his 1898 Stone Lectures at Princeton University) stated, “Two life systems are wrestling with one another, in mortal combat. This is the struggle in Europe, this is the struggle in America …”[xi] To Kuyper, these two systems were modernism and Christianity, and if modernism were a comprehensive system, then Christianity ought to be conceived of as comprehensive as well. If non-Christian worldviews were marked out across the spectrum of society, so too should Christianity be worked out and applied to every area. When fully applied and compared, Christianity would naturally prove to be the “more brilliant” and “the more capable of taking us to a higher level as a civilization.”[xii]

This approach, Kuyper thought, would be more effective than traditional apologetics, which, “has not advanced us one single step.”[xiii] For Kuyper, the goal was the transformation of all of culture, at every level, to recognize God’s authority. Key to Kuyper’s approach, and legacy, are the following themes: (1) a cosmic understanding of salvation, that grace restore nature as well as souls; (2) the sovereignty of God over all of life and order; (3) the cultural mandate as prior to, and unlocking the meaning of, the great commission; and (4) a spiritual antithesis characterizes the relationships of believers and unbelievers.[xiv]

Kuyper exerted significant influence on future worldview thinkers through the founding of the Free University of Amsterdam, as well as through his considerable success in Dutch politics. This influence continued through the work of Dooyeweerd, who emerged as Kuyper’s heir at Free University and has been called “the most creative and influential philosopher among neo-Calvinists in the 20th century.”[xv]

Dooyeweerd followed up on Kuyper’s concept of worldview early in his career, altered it later in his career, and became a key individual in the academic discussion of worldview. His influence can be especially seen through Calvin College and the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto, Canada.[xvi] Writers on Christian worldview that have followed in the Kuyperian tradition include Albert Wolters, Arthur Holmes, Richard Middleton and Brian Walsh, Charles Colson, and Nancy Pearcey.

Francis Schaeffer

Still, the one who may have influenced Protestant Evangelicalism more than any other towards worldview thinking is Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer’s most significant contribution was bringing the concept of Christian worldview out of the academy to popular Christian thought. Through books like How Should We Then Live[xvii], videos, and his L’Abri Study Center, Schaeffer made worldview thinking accessible and applicable to non-academics, demonstrated the broad relevance of Christianity to culture, paved the way for para-church organizations committed to Christian worldview thinking, and influenced the worldview writings of individuals such as Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey. Naugle traces Schaeffer’s thought back to Kuyper, pointing to Schaeffer’s wide application of Christianity to culture. However, Schaeffer’s varied approach to worldview thinking suggests that his use of the concept went beyond the Kuyperian tradition.

Orr vs. Kuyper

While Orr and Kuyper shared a belief in a common foe (modernism), and though it is believed that Kuyper relied heavily on Orr’s earlier lectures[xviii], their overall approach to worldview differed. Though Orr was clearly a Calvinist, he did not emphasize it as much as Kuyper did, who attempted to understand everything first and foremost in light of the absolute sovereignty of God. Kuyper’s famous line from a speech delivered at the opening of the Free University in Amsterdam, which he founded, reflects his starting point of thinking about Christianity as a worldview, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”[xix]

So, while Orr focused on Christianity as a total belief system in contrast with other systems, Kuyper focused on Christianity applied (more specifically Calvinism) compared with modernism applied. For Kuyper, worldview was a notion that offered an apologetic primarily not by comparison with other worldviews, but by allowing it to provide cultural leadership in a wide variety of areas;[xx] and he is well-known for his attempts to actually apply a Christian worldview to diverse areas of culture in The Netherlands through his various roles as scholar, journalist, writer, pastor, and politician. The heritage of the two diverging approaches of Orr and Kuyper can be seen in the different approaches to worldview study today.

Questions for Study or Discussion

  • What do Orr’s and Kuyper’s understanding of worldview have in common? Where do they differ?
  • Why is it essential to keep both of these understandings of worldview in mind as we work to build our on Christian worldview?
  • What are some aspects of contemporary Christian belief that might frustrate our attempt to construct a comprehensive Christian worldview?
  • In what areas of contemporary culture do you think a Christian worldview is most urgently needed?
  • Why does Francis Schaeffer matter so much in the discussion of Christian worldview?

[i]Naugle, Worldview, 5, 6-15, and 16-32. See also, Peter S. Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism, 88-95.

[ii]Ronald Nash, Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992); Albert Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview (Grand Rapids,Mich.:

Eerdman’s, 1985); Arthur Holmes, Contours of a Worldview (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdman’s, 1983); Brown and Phillips, Making Sense of Your World; Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984); Colson and Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live?; Pearcey, Total Truth; James Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, 4th ed. (Downers Grove,

Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004); David Noebel, Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of Our Day and the Search for Truth (Eugene, Or.: Harvest House, 1991); David Naugle, Worldview. Many more could be added here, but these are among the more important who reflect a direct influence from Orr, Kuyper, Clark, Henry, Dooeyweerd, and Schaeffer.

[iii]See Naugle, Worldview, 6.

[iv]Orr, A Christian View, 8-9.

[v]Ibid, 6-7.

[vi]See Naugle, Worldview, 11-12.

[vii]Gordon H. Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things, 218.

[viii]Most significant are Worldviews in Conflict and Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1968). Nash’s influence can be seen in Phillips and Brown, Making Sense of Your World.

[ix]See Naugle, Worldview, 15.

[x]For example, Noebel, Understanding the Times, 12, 25, 89-90, 166-167.

[xi]Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 11.

[xii]Ibid, 41.

[xiii]Ibid, 11. Cf. Naugle, Worldview, 18-19.

[xiv]Naugle, Worldview, 22-23.

[xv]Naugle, Worldview, 25. See also, Nash, Dooyeweerd and the Amsterdam Philosophy (Grand Rapids,Mich.:

Zondervan, 1962).

[xvi]See Naugle, 25-29; Also, Paul Marshall, Sander Griffioen, Richard J. Mouw, eds. Stained Glass: Worldviews and  Social Science (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1989) and James Sire, Naming the Elephant (Downers Grove,Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

[xvii]Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Wheaton,Ill.: Crossway, 1983).

[xviii]Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview, 92-95. Heslam cites the following point made by Kuyper that were initially made by Orr: (1) Christianity and modernism each derived from separate, antithetical “first principles;”

(2) the only Christian defense against modernism is the development of a comprehensive, coherent worldview;

(3) the concept of worldview had bearing on all theoretical thought, not just religion; (4) all true religions possess a worldview of their own; and (5) the purpose of the lecture series itself was to show that Christianity had a definite view on things.

[xix]Kuper, “Sphere Sovereignty.” Quoted in Naugle, Worldview, 16.

[xx]Wolters, “On the Idea of Worldview and Its Relationship to Philosophy” in Stained Glass, 20.

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer would be 100 years old this year (Schaeffer Sunday)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2 Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970′s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him. Francis Schaeffer 1912-1984 Christian Theologian, Philosopher, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]

Fellow admirer of Francis Schaeffer, Michele Bachmann quits presidential race

What Ever Happened to the Human Race? Bachmann was a student of the works of Francis Schaeffer like I am and I know she was pro-life because of it. (Observe video clip above and picture of Schaeffer.) I hated to see her go.  DES MOINES, Iowa — Last night, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann vowed to […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]

Francis Schaeffer would be 100 years old this year (Schaeffer Sunday)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2 Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970′s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him. Francis Schaeffer 1912-1984 Christian Theologian, Philosopher, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward […]

Andy Rooney was an atheist

How Now Shall We LiveClick here to purchase Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey’s How Now Shall We Live?, dedicated to Francis Schaeffer.


Click here for a list of Francis Schaeffer’s greatest works, from the Colson Center store!
SchaefferBooks

The Monkees and the inventor of “liquid paper”

Uploaded by on Apr 7, 2011

The Monkees perform their fourth single, originally broadcast on the episode “Monkee Mayor” The boys are tight! Micky’s vocals are killer as is the harmony with Mike. Peter’s keyboards are jammin’ especially in the bridge, and producer Chip Douglas who actually plays bass on this cut holds it all together. Anyone that says they didn’t play their own instruments needs to seriously listen to this cut. I did intersperse a few editorial pics for seasoning.

Very interesting trivia fact from Wikipedia:

Bette Claire Graham (23 March 1924 – 12 May 1980) was an American typist, commercial artist, the inventor of Liquid Paper, and mother of musician and producer Michael Nesmith.[1]

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Biography

Graham was born in Dallas,Texas to Jesse McMurray, an automotive supply company manager, and Christine Duval.[2] She was raised in San Antonio and graduated from Alamo Heights High School.[3] She married Warren Audrey Nesmith (1919–1984) before he left to fight in World War II, but they divorced in 1946. To support herself as a single mother, she worked as a secretary at Texas Bank and Trust, a bank in Texas. She eventually attained the position of the executive secretary, the highest position open at that time to women in the industry.

It was very difficult to erase mistakes made by early electric typewriters, which caused problems for Graham. In order to make extra money she used her talent painting holiday windows at the bank. She realized, as she said, “with lettering, an artist never corrects by erasing, but always paints over the error. So I decided to use what artists use. I put some tempera water-based paint in a bottle and took my watercolor brush to the office. I used that to correct my mistakes.”

Graham secretly used her white correction paint for five years, making some improvements with help from her son’s chemistry teacher at Thomas Jefferson High School in Dallas. Some bosses admonished her against using it, but coworkers frequently sought her “paint out.” She eventually began marketing her typewriter correction fluid as “Mistake Out” in 1956. The name was later changed to Liquid Paper when she began her own company.

In 1962 Bette Nesmith married Robert Graham, who joined her in running the company.[4]

_________

This song below was written by Nesmith:

In 1979 she sold Liquid Paper to the Gillette Corporation for USD $47.5 million. At the time, her company employed 200 people and made 25 million bottles of Liquid Paper per year.[5]

Bette Nesmith died in 1980, at the age of 56, in Richardson, Texas.[6]

Uploaded by on Dec 7, 2006

Here’s the video from the episode “Royal Flush” for the song “The Girl I Knew Somewhere”. This is from the 1967 rerun version of the episode. The song originally appearing in this sequence was “Take a Giant Step”.

_________________

[edit] Legacy

Her only son, Michael, inherited half of his mother’s $50+ million estate.[7] A portion financed the Gihon Foundation which established the Council on Ideas, a think tank with a retreat center located north of Santa Fe, New Mexico active from 1990–2000 and devoted to exploring world problems.[8]

Bette Nesmith Graham

Bette Nesmith Graham, with son Michael
Born Bette Claire McMurray
March 23, 1924(1924-03-23)
Dallas, Texas
Died May 12, 1980(1980-05-12) (aged 56)
Richardson, Texas
Spouse Warren Audrey Nesmith (1919-1984) (m. 1942–1946) «start: (1942)–end+1: (1947)»”Marriage: Warren Audrey Nesmith (1919-1984) to Bette Nesmith Graham” Location: (linkback://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bette_Nesmith_Graham)Robert Graham (m. 1962–1975) «start: (1962)–end+1: (1976)»”Marriage: Robert Graham to Bette Nesmith Graham” Location: (linkback://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bette_Nesmith_Graham)
Children Michael Nesmith

Davy Jones of the Monkees passes away

Davy Jones from The Monkees-The O’Reilly Factor-Bill OReilly

Uploaded by on Jun 16, 2007

Davy Jones of The Monkees sits down with Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor to discuss Jann Wenner and the Rock and Rock Hall of Fame Contraversy.

_____________________

We lost a great one.

(Reuters) – Davy Jones, former lead singer of the 1960s made-for-television pop band The Monkees, died on Wednesday at a hospital in Florida, according to an official from the local medical examiner’s office.

Jones, 66, born in Manchester, England, became the principal teen idol of the rock quartet featured on the NBC comedy series “The Monkees,” which was inspired in part by the Beatles film “A Hard Day’s Night” and ran from the fall of 1966 to August of 1968.

Although not allowed to play their own instruments on their early records, Jones and his three cohorts – Micky Dolenz, Michael Nesmith and Peter Tork – had several hits that sold millions of copies, including “Last Train to Clarksville” and “I’m a Believer.”

(Reporting by Christine Kearney; Writing by Steve Gorman; Editing by Greg McCune and Vicki Allen)

Brantley says Obama’s stimulus package worked

The government can not spend themselves out of a recession. It doesn’t work. Japan did 8 stimulus packages in the last 20 years but it has never worked. The best approach to get out of a recession was done by Ronald Reagan in the early 1980’s when he cut taxes then we experienced 7% economic growth. However, somehow Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times claims today that the stimulus did work and that we should have done more!!!

Steve Chapman  rightly noted in his article “Stimulus to Nowhere” noted:

Mired in excruciating negotiations over the budget and the debt ceiling, President Barack Obama might reflect that things didn’t have to turn out this way. The impasse grows mainly out of one major decision he made early on: pushing through a giant stimulus.

When he took office in January 2009, this was his first priority. The following month, Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with a price tag eventually put at $862 billion.

It was, he said at the time, the most sweeping economic recovery package in our history,” and would “create or save three and a half million jobs over the next two years.”

The president was right about the first claim. As a share of gross domestic output, it was the largest fiscal stimulus program ever tried in this country. But the second claim doesn’t stand up so well. Today, total nonfarm employment is down by more than a million jobs.

What Obama didn’t foresee is that his program would spark a populist backlash and give rise to the tea party. Where would Michele Bachmann be if the stimulus had never been enacted — or if it had been a brilliant success?

To say it has not been is to understate the obvious. The administration says the results look meager because the economy was weaker than anyone realized. Maybe so, but fiscal policy is a clumsy and uncertain tool for stimulating growth, which the past two years have not vindicated.

The package had three main components: tax cuts, aid to state governments and spending on infrastructure projects. Tax cuts would induce consumers to buy stuff. State aid would prop up spending by keeping government workers employed. Infrastructure outlay would generate hiring to build roads, bridges and other public works.

That was the alluring theory, which vaporized on contact with reality. The evidence amassed so far by economists indicates that the stimulus has come up empty in every possible way.

Consider the tax cuts. Wage-earners saw their take-home pay rise as the IRS reduced withholding. But as with past rebates and one-time tax cuts, consumers proved reluctant to perform their assigned role.

Claudia Sahm of the Federal Reserve Board and Joel Slemrod and Matthew Shapiro of the University of Michigan found that only 13 percent of households indicated they would spend most of the windfall. The rest said they preferred to put it in the bank or pay off debts — neither of which boosts the sale of goods and services.

This puny yield was even worse than that of the 2008 tax rebate devised by President George W. Bush. Neither attempt, the study reported, “was very effective in stimulating spending in the near term.”

The idea behind channeling money to state governments is that it would reduce the paring of government payrolls, thus preserving the spending power of public employees. But the plan went awry, according to a paper by Dartmouth College economists James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

“Transfers to the states to support education and law enforcement appear to have little effect,” they concluded. Most likely, they said, states used the money to avoid raising taxes or borrowing money.

That’s right: The federal government took out loans that it will have to cover with future tax increases … so states don’t have to. It’s like paying your Visa bill with your MasterCard.

The public works component could have been called public non-works. It sounds easy for Washington to pay contractors to embark on “shovel-ready projects” that needed only money to get started. The administration somehow forgot that even when the need is urgent, the government moves at the speed of a glacier.

John Cogan and John Taylor, affiliated with Stanford University and the Hoover Institution, reported earlier this year that out of that $862 billion, a microscopic $4 billion has been used to finance infrastructure. Even Obama has been chagrined.

“There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects,” he complained last year.

Even if jobs were somehow created or saved by this ambitious effort, they came at a prohibitive price. Feyrer and Sacerdote say the costs may have been as high as $400,000 perjob.

Based on all this evidence, we don’t really know whether the federal government can use fiscal policy to engineer a recovery. We do know it can go broke trying.

 

“Everybody is a Murray St fan now”

The other day my son Hunter went into a store with his Murray St shirt on and the person behind the counter said, “Now that Murray St is undefeated and ranked in the top ten in basketball everybody is jumping on the bandwagon now!!” My son replied, “My cousin Davis Sayle is a freshman football player for them and my whole family got Murray State shirts before the season started this year!!”

My nephew Davis was an all state football player for Briarcrest the last 3 years and I saw him play often. Briarcrest is the school the film Blindside is about (below is more about the people involved in the movie Blindside).

Davis’ bio in NCSA says: 2010 TN Sportswriters 1st Team All-State D… a 3 year starter…3 Interceptions as a Senior…National Honor Society, Ambassador, Honor counsel
 
Major…Pre-Med/Biology….Family: Father Brian Sayle, Mother Beth Sayle,   Harrison, Walker and Gretchen…
 

Actually the Murray St football schedule came out and they play UCA this coming year. Below is the schedule:

Date Time Opponent Location H/A Conf. Game Time/Result Details
9/1/2012 TBA Florida State Tallahassee, Fla. A   TBA Details
9/8/2012 TBA Central Arkansas Stewart Stadium H   TBA Details
9/15/2012 TBA Missouri State Springfield, Mo. A   TBA Details
9/22/2012 TBA Eastern Illinois* Charleston, Ill. A   TBA Details
9/29/2012 TBA Tennessee Tech* Stewart Stadium H   TBA Details
10/6/2012 TBA Austin Peay* Clarksville, Tenn. A   TBA Details
10/13/2012 TBA UT Martin* (Homecoming) Stewart Stadium H   TBA Details
10/27/2012 TBA Jacksonville State* Jacksonville, Ala. A   TBA Details
11/3/2012 TBA Tennessee State* Stewart Stadium H   TBA Details
11/10/2012 TBA Eastern Kentucky* Richmond A   TBA Details
11/17/2012 TBA Southeast Missouri* Stewart Stadium H   TBA Details
11/24/2012 TBA First Round FCS Playoffs TBA H   TBA Details

 Here is more about the people in the movie “The Blindside:”

The Blind SIde: The Journey of Michael Oher

Sandra Bullock plays Leigh Anne Tuohy – The Blind Side Interview

Uploaded by on Feb 3, 2010

If youre looking for an inspirational and heartwarming film, go no further than The Blind Side. Oscar nominated Sandra Bullock gives a riveting performance as real life mother and housewife Leigh Anne Tuohy. The Tuohys, a well-to-do white family, took Michael Oher, a homeless African-American youngster from a broken home, into their home and helped him fulfill his potential. At the same time, Oher’s presence in the Tuohys’ lives leads them to some insightful self-discoveries of their own. Living in his new environment, the teen faced a completely different set of challenges to overcome. As a football player and student, Oher worked hard and, with the help of his coaches and adopted family, became an All-American offensive left tackle and now plays in the NFL for the Baltimore Ravens.

Huckabee Interview with the Tuohy family who adopted Michael Oher – Blind Side 2

Phillip Fulmer in Blind Side

Phillip Fulmer in Blind Side

TUOHY’S TRIUMPH:EXCLUSIVE!

Leigh Anne Tuohy shares her story with SheKnows in a deeply personal interview that gets to the heart behind the heart-filled Sandra Bullock instant classic, The Blind Side.

Tuohy famously took in a homeless teenager in Memphis, Tennessee who would find his calling and become a football superstar. What led this wife of an entrepreneur who owned over 80 fast food restaurants to spearhead an effort to make Michael Oher a home that could not have been further from where he grew up?

The Tuohy family in San Diego for gameday against the Chargers

How that path was paved is not completely told on screen in The Blind Side directed by John Lee Hancock (The Rookie). Tuohy sat with SheKnows at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills after a long day of interviews with the film’s cast. Stay tuned for our exclusive video interviews with stars Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw!

After sitting amongst the hugest stars in the film and music business, the playing field leveler was Leigh Anne Tuohy. Equal parts firecracker, strong Southern woman, inspiration, motherly to all (including yours truly!), pragmatic and one-hundred percent what made what The Guess Who so perfectly called the iconic American Woman.

Leigh Anne, husband Sean and their two children, Sean Jr (SJ) and Collins, did not simply adopt Michael Oher, the engulfed him in familial love that has changed lives exponentially. With The Blind Side’s arrival on November 20 in theaters everywhere, look for the inspiration to explode.

TUOHY TRIUMPH AND TRAVAILS

SheKnows: Hello Leigh Anne, it is such a pleasure to sit with you after witnessing your stirring story. I think the film is a strong statement for women. How do you think your story speaks to women?

Leigh Anne Tuohy: Southern women are strong natured anyway. It’s kind of a characteristic. Maybe, a characteristic flaw (laughs). I’m very strong willed. I think at this point in our society and in our country right now, everybody’s got to be strong willed. I think women have to wear a lot of different hats. Not only do you have to be the mother the nuturerer, but also the wife and the housekeeper and now, so many have to and want to have a career. So, you have to wear a lot of hats. I’m not a big women’s liberation person — not at all — but I do think right now, women have to contribute to all facets.

SheKnows: I wondered what you thought of hearing Sandra Bullock was going to play you?

Leigh Anne Tuohy: I was thrilled. There were names and names and names that were thrown out over a year-and-a-half. It’s all about timing. It was a rollercoaster. Finally, they said it was going to be Sandra Bullock. I thought, “yeah, I’m sure it’s going to be somebody else.” Three weeks later they called and said she signed on. I was pleasantly surprised. I fell in love with her. She did a great job.

SheKnows: For some, Virginia isn’t quite “the South,” any issues with a Washington, DC suburb of Arlington, Virginia-native tackling Tennessee?

Leigh Anne Tuohy: (Laughs) I think Virginia’s South!

Sandra Bullock makes her point in Warner Bros' The Blind Side

SheKnows: I’m sure Sandra does too. You had kindred spirits heading in to telling this story. One theme that arose for me from The Blind Side is how you did not really change Michael’s life, he changed yours. How can you quantify in a way that your life would be different without him in it?

A FAMILY FINDS ITSELF

Leigh Anne Tuohy: If Michael had not come into our lives it would have been extremely different. With all that being said, we have a different view of life now. We view everybody different than we did. We realized that there’s a need out there that we didn’t really know about. We were living in our own little cocoon. You tend to realize that there is a lot going on out there that you’re not aware of and it brought so much to light. Even relationship aspect-wise, it all brought us closer together. We had that common bond. We went through trenches that a lot of other families don’t go through.

Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw as Leigh Ann and Sean Tuohy

SheKnows: Indeed…

Leigh Anne Tuohy: We came out of this as a stronger family. I’m thankful. I also think that we are so much aware of all people now and feelings and their needs. You don’t know what the guy next to you has going on. He’s got mud on his shoes or a tattoo. We’re so quick to judge. We are so, so quick to judge. You don’t know the worth of that person or what they could contribute to society. We tend to put labels on people. There’s a lot of things that we’ve come through so much, I think, the better.

SheKnows: You’re talking people judging a book by the cover, I know they show in the film, when you first meet Michael where it’s cold and raining and he’s wearing shorts and a T-Shirt in November. What was that moment really like?

Leigh Anne Tuohy: John Lee (Hancock, director) took some liberties with that, but the scene really happened. It was the Tuesday or Wednesday before Thanksgiving and the kids had just gotten out of school and we had been over my mom’s dicing nad getting ready to cook for Thanksgiving. We were coming back home and Michael was walking and he had on shorts and it was…it’s almost become an urban legend (laughs). It was a blizzard (laughs). It was chilly, it was like 40 degrees. I just commented that he looked like a fish out of water for an African-American kid to be where he was at that moment in our neighborhood. You just don’t see African-American kids walking around the neighborhood at 9:30 pm at night in shorts. I said, “who is that?” SJ (her son) said, that’s a new guy at our school. I thought, “what he’s doing out here?” SJ told me he plays basketball. But, school was closed. Sean (her husband) wondered if maybe he had gone to shoot some hoops. I said, “turn around the car.”

FATE BLIND-SIDED LEIGH ANN

SheKnows: You were compelled?

Leigh Anne Tuohy: It was obvious after we turned around and chatted a few minutes that he had no mission, no plan. We thought he was going to the gym because it was warm. Sean said that the gym is not open, let us take you home. He wouldn’t let us take him home, but he let us take him to a bus station about six or seven miles away. So, we drove him that night to the bus stop. Then, he went back home. Flash forward a couple weeks and that was the first time he spent the night on our coach. When I pulled over, it was a seed that was planted. I immediately knew after the conversation. I come to find out, none of that was really the truth. It snowballed. I went in on Monday after Thanksgiving and asked about Michael and who was this kid. Why doesn’t he have long pants on in November? Where does he live? Where are his parents? I didn’t get any of the answers I wanted yet. I just took it from there.

SheKnows: In the film, and also in real life, it seems that adopting Michael really happened naturally.

Leigh Anne Tuohy: It did. It really did.

SheKnows: There was a natural Michael coming into the family that felt effortless. When Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw and the kids are gathered around the table and ask Michael if he’d like to be part of the family, it felt truly as if that moment was incredibly organic.

Leigh Anne Tuohy: It was, there was never an agenda. There was never a moment. That was so authentic. It just happened. People find it so hard to believe. We have crazy lives. My husband has a very successful business and he tries to run 80-plus fast food stores, and yet he broadcast (play by play) for Memphis’ NBA team, I’m trying to get here yesterday, he could less, but he needs five suits out because they’re leaving for a week of road games. He needs his suits. That’s what was important right then. That’s how we operate. Whatever the need is at that moment, we take care of it. You throw in a daughter that is a level-nine gymnast and a state champion pole-vaulter and we drive two days a week to Arkansas because that’s where the Olympic guys are, and then you throw in Michael playing three sports and constantly needing everything to get through those sports and then you have Sean, Jr (laughs) who’s just along for the ride and always helping out. Our lives are always crazy. It was like, to Michael, if you want to jump in this frying pan, let’s go!

TIM MCGRAW AS HUSBAND

SheKnows: Lastly, your husband in the film is portrayed by Tim McGraw. Tell me your girlfriends in Memphis were not so excited for you!

Leigh Anne Tuohy: Isn’t that fun (laughs)?

Tim McGraw stars in The Blind Side

SheKnows: That has to be a blast.

Leigh Anne Tuohy: He did a good job as Sean. He’s cocky and a little arrogant. He’s a smart ass and I think Tim nailed all three of those beautifully. My husband’s personal assistant is a huge Tim McGraw fan, so she was in heaven getting to hang out with him. That was a big feather throughout this whole thing is getting to hang out with Tim McGraw.

The Blind Side Movie Trailer

Uploaded by  on Aug 24, 2009

This November, you’ll get a hard-hitting football movie featuring no less than Sandra Bullock, Kathy Bates and Tim McGraw. It’s called The Blind Side, and it might be the Rudy of the new millenium.

When a high school student, operating under the perfect storm of being poor, wildly undereducated and badly out of shape, gets recruited by a major football program that grooms him into the exact opposite, his life will change forever. But will it change it for the better? Check out the trailer.

November is the perfect time of year for this kind of movie to hit because it so clearly wants to go for an Oscar run. But at the same time, it should prove accessible to anyone who watches it. Dust off your thesauruses–you’ll need synonyms for “heart-warming” because EVERYONE’S going to call it that. But do you want your heart warmed? Or does this one leave you cold? Hit the comments section and tell us what you think. Thanks for watching!

The Blind Side Cast: Sandra Bullock, Kathy Bates, Kim Dickens, Tim McGraw, Quinton Aaron, Rhoda Griffis, Ray McKinnon, Lily Collins

The Blind Side movie trailer courtesy 20th Century Fox. The Blind Side open in US theaters November 20th, 2009. The Blind Side is directed by John Lee Hancock

_________________________________

Related posts:

Knoxville newspaper says Hogs, Bama and LSU will stay in top 10 in 2012

 

The good character of new Arkansas St Coach Gus Malzahn

Gus Malzahn is the new Arkansas State Football Coach and will paid 850,000 per year according to the Arkansas Times Blog and not 750,000 like other outlets reported earlier.  Arkansas 360 is reporting that Ark St has a press conference scheduled for 3:30pm today. Malzahn replaces his good friend Hugh Freeze as the new Ark […]

Petrino upset with Miles over field goal

I remember when USC beat Arkansas 70 to 17 back in 2005. The score was 49 to 7 in the first half and USC could have made it 100 to 7 if they wanted to but they put in their subs in the 3rd quarter. However, Wally Hall said they ran up the score because […]

2011 Arkansas Baptist Eagle Football team best ever?: Barton game will answer that question

On November 18, 2011 the Arkansas Baptist Eagle football team went to 11-1 for the year with a hard fought 26-6 victory at Camden Harmony Grove. Before this game Barry Groomes of Hootens Arkansas Football picked Camden to win over the eagles because Arkansas Baptist had never won a playoff game on the road. Actually […]

Michael Dyer trash talking before Arkansas game on Oct 8th?

I don’t know what it exactly means, but you can judge for yourself after watching the video above. Football: Auburn Duo Eager For Arkansas Homecoming Posted on 06 October 2011 By Robbie Neiswanger Arkansas News Bureau • rneiswanger@arkansasnews.com FAYETTEVILLE — Kiehl Frazier began attending Arkansas games when he was five years old. Over the years, […]

Auburn’s Pat Dye at Little Rock Touchdown Club on Oct 3, 2011

We have had some great speakers at the Little Rock Touchdown Club and Auburn’s Pat Dye has to be included in that list. Jim Harris: No Little Rock Touchdown Club Speaker Quite Like Former Auburn Coach Pat Dye by Jim Harris 10/3/2011 at 3:22pm The last time former Auburn head football coach Pat Dye addressed […]

 

“Jesus Discovery” video clip, pictures and story

 

 

 
1
 / 11
 
 
 
SHARE THIS SLIDE
The Garden tomb entrance between the apartments — it is covered by the cement slab at bottom center.

Uploaded by on Feb 28, 2012

The story of a stunning new discovery that provides the first physical evidence of Christians in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus and his apostles.

____________________

Jonah And The Whale Jesus Discovery

First Posted: 02/28/2012 7:27 am Updated: 02/28/2012 12:04 pm

Great story below with other links.

‘Jesus Discovery:’ Jerusalem

Archeology Reveals Birth Of Christianity

The following is an excerpt by James D. Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici, authors of The Jesus Discovery: The New Archaeological Find That Reveals the Birth of Christianity

On the morning of Tuesday, June 29, 2010, outside the Old City of Jerusalem, we made an unprecedented archaeological discovery related to Jesus and early Christianity. This discovery adds significantly to our understanding of Jesus, his earliest followers, and the birth of Christianity. In this book we reveal reliable archaeological evidence that is directly connected to Jesus’ first followers, those who knew him personally and to Jesus himself. The discovery provides the earliest archaeological evidence of faith in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, the first witness to a saying of Jesus that predates even the writing of our New Testament gospels, and the earliest example of Christian art, all found in a sealed tomb dated to the 1st century CE.

We refer to this tomb as the Patio tomb, since it is now located beneath an apartment patio, eight feet under the basement of a condominium complex. Such juxtapositions of modernity and antiquity are not unusual in Jerusalem, where construction must often be halted to rescue and excavate tombs from ancient times. The Patio tomb was first uncovered by construction work in 1981 in East Talpiot, a suburb of Jerusalem less than two miles south of the Old City.

Our discoveries also provide precious new evidence for evaluating the Jesus son of Joseph’s tomb, discovered a year earlier, which made international headlines in 2007. We refer to this 1980 tomb as the Garden tomb, since it is now situated beneath a garden area in the same condominium complex. These two tombs, both dating to around the time of Jesus, are less than two hundred feet apart. Together with a third tomb nearby that was unfortunately destroyed by the construction blasts, these tombs formed a cluster and most likely belonged to the same clan or extended family. Any interpretation of one tomb has to be made in the light of the other. As a result we believe a compelling argument can be made that the Garden tomb is that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. We argue in this book that both tombs are most likely located on the rural estate of Joseph of Arimathea, the wealthy member of the Sanhedrin who according to all four New Testament gospels took official charge of Jesus’ burial.

Who was Joseph of Arimathea and how did he enter the historical picture? The Jesus Discovery explores the answers to this and a series of related questions. The recent discoveries in the Patio tomb put the controversy about the Jesus family tomb in new light. We now have new archaeological evidence, literally written in stone, that can guide us in properly understanding what Jesus’ earliest followers meant by their faith in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, with his earthly remains, and those of his family, peacefully interred just yards away. This might sound like a contradiction, but only because certain theological traditions regarding the meaning of resurrection of the dead have clouded our understanding of what Jesus and his first followers truly believed. When we put together the texts of the gospels with this archaeological evidence, the results are strikingly consistent and stand up to rigorous standards of historical evidence.

Ossuary Niche
 
 
5  of  11
 
 
FIRST SLIDE
 
PREVIOUS SLIDE

 
NEXT SLIDESHOW
 
PLAY

 

FULLSCREEN

 

ZOOM

<!–

COMMENT
SAVE THIS SLIDE

–>

 
 

SHARE THIS SLIDE 

First view of a previously unseen ossuary in niche one, blocking stone at the side.
________________________

Accessing the sealed Patio tomb was a tremendous challenge. The technological challenge alone was daunting. Our only access to this tomb was through a series of eight-inch drill holes in the basement floor of the condominium. We were not even positive these probes would open into the tomb. We literally had only inches to spare. Investigating the tomb required getting agreements from the owners of the building over the tomb; the Israel Antiquities Authority, which controls permission to carry out any archaeological work in Israel; the Jerusalem police, whose task is to keep the peace and avoid incitements to riot; and the Heredim, the ultra-Orthodox authorities whose mission is to protect all Jewish tombs, ancient or modern, from any kind of disturbance. None of these parties had any particular motivation to assist us and for various reasons they disagreed with one another about their own interests. Any one of them could have stopped us at any point along the way, and there were many anxious times when we thought the exploration would never happen. Ultimately we were able to persuade each group to support the excavation. That we succeeded at all is more than a minor miracle. At the same time we had no evidence that our exploration of this tomb, if it were possible, would yield anything of importance. But we both agreed it was a gamble worth taking.

At many points the entire operation seemed likely to collapse. We pushed on, however, not because we knew what was inside the tomb, but because we could not bear the thought of never knowing. Since that time we have begun to put the entire story together and a coherent picture is emerging that offers a new understanding of Jesus and his earliest followers in the first decades of the movement.

Archaeologists who work on the history of ancient Judaism and early Christianity disagree over whether there is any reliable archaeological evidence directly related to Jesus or his early followers. Most are convinced that nothing of this sort has survived, not a single site, inscription, artifact, drawing, or text mentioning Jesus or his followers, or witnessing to the beliefs of the earliest Jewish Christians either in Jerusalem or in Galilee.

Jesus was born, lived, and died in the land of Israel. Most scholars agree he was born around 5 BCE and died around 30 CE. We have abundant archaeological evidence from this period related to Galilee, where he began his preaching and healing campaigns, and Jerusalem, where he was crucified. There is evidence related to Herod Antipas, the high priest Caiaphas, and even Pontius Pilate, who had him crucified, but nothing that would connect us to Jesus himself, or even to his earliest followers — until now. Our hope is that these exciting new discoveries can become the catalyst for reconsidering other archaeological evidence that might well be related to the first Jewish-Christian believers.

The oldest copies of the New Testament gospels date to the early 4th century CE, well over two hundred years after Jesus’ lifetime. There are a few papyri fragments of New Testament writings that scholars have dated to the 2nd century CE, but nothing so far in the 1st century. The earliest Christian art is found in the catacomb tombs in Rome, dating to the late 2nd or early 3rd centuries CE. Our discovery effectively pushes back the date on early Christian archaeological evidence by two hundred years. More significantly, it takes us back into the lifetime of Jesus himself.

This has been the most extraordinary adventure of our careers, and we are pleased to be able to share with readers the surprising and profound story of The Jesus Discovery.

Related posts:

Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 25)

Several names of Bible characters are verified by secular documents in this video clip below. From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (part 24)

The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 6 In the next few days I will be sharing portions of the article “Archaeology and the new Atheism:The Plausibility of the Biblical Record,” Apologetic Press. Dewayne Bryant is the author and in the third portion he notes: Archaeology […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (part 23)

The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 5 In the next few days I will be sharing portions of the article “Archaeology and the new Atheism:The Plausibility of the Biblical Record,” Apologetic Press. Dewayne Bryant is the author and in the second portion he notes: Archaeology […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (part 22)

 The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 4 In the next few days I will be sharing portions of the article “Archaeology and the new Atheism:The Plausibility of the Biblical Record,” Apologetic Press. Dewayne Bryant is the author and in the first portion he notes: […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 19)

The Bible and Archaeology (4/5) The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy. The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One […]

Is the Bible historically accurate?(Part 18)

The Bible and Archaeology (3/5) The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 17)

The Bible and Archaeology (2/5) The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy. From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 16)

The Bible and Archaeology (1/5) The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy. From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 15)

Archaeology and the Bible (ICR) From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the Bible is backed up by many archaeological facts. The Book […]

France will learn just like Obama will learn about class warfare

Uploaded by on May 3, 2011

This Economics 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity gives seven reasons why the political elite are wrong to push for more taxes. If allowed to succeed, the hopelessly misguided pushing to raise taxes would only worsen our fiscal mess while harming the economy.

The seven reasons provided by the video against this approach are as follows:

1) Tax increases are not needed;
2) Tax increases encourage more spending;
3) Tax increases harm economic performance;
4) Tax increases foment social discord;
5) Tax increases almost never raise as much revenue as projected;
6) Tax increases encourage more loopholes; and,
7) Tax increases undermine competitiveness

_____________________

Raising the taxes on the rich may sound good in a class warfare strategy but it doesn’t work out like people would think. Here goes France again.

France Will Show U.S. How (Not) to Do It

Posted by Marian L. Tupy

Francois Hollande is a man on a mission—to increase the top rate of tax on income to 75 percent. The Socialist candidate, who is poised to beat Nicolas Sarkozy in the French presidential election, said, “Above 1m euros [£847,000; $1.3m], the tax rate should be 75% because it’s not possible to have that level of income.”

Hollande’s “unassailable” logic aside, the measure would remind those who are too young to remember the 1970s of what happens when the rapacious state makes work really unprofitable. I can just see the Whitehall mandarins wring their hands with joy as thousands of French high-earners, from actors to businessmen, pour across the English Channel to London. If anything, the disastrous effect of the French tax will be greater than four decades ago—the world, after all, has become even more competitive and the cost of relocation has fallen appreciably. Karl Marx is supposed to have said that “history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” Hollande may well prove him right.

Remembering Francis Schaeffer at 100 (Part 12)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Naturalistic, Materialistic, World View

This year Francis Schaeffer would have turned 100 on Jan 30, 2012. I remember like yesterday when I first was introduced to his books. I was even more amazed when I first saw his films. I was so influenced by them that I bought every one of his 30 something books and his two film series. Here is an article that I got off the internet that quotes Schaeffer and it comes from Chuck Colson’s website www.breakpoint.org :

Piece By Piece
By Chuck Colson|Published Date: July 25, 2011

Taking Apart a Worldview

fence-sky1

First published in February, 1998, this BreakPoint commentary reminds us of the utter necessity of confronting and dealing with sin.

How important is it to understand another person’s worldview—someone’s conception of the world, of human life, of reality? It took a former communist to remind me of the answer: It’s absolutely essential.

A few months ago I traveled to Eastern Europe to meet with Prison Fellowship volunteers in a number of countries. One stop was Bulgaria. At the prison in Sofia, we dedicated a prison hospital, provided by Prison Fellowship Holland, and a new prison chapel that had been built by Bulgarian Christians.

It was a glorious occasion. Bulgaria’s national press corps were in attendance, along with the minister of justice, a former Communist and an atheist.

During the dedication ceremonies I told the crowd that crime was a moral problem. Thus, the chapel was vital in dealing with crime, because it would address the restoration of souls.

The minister of justice, who had stood indifferently through most of the proceedings, now stared intently at me as I spoke. Later, he invited me to drop by his office. A remarkable conversation followed.

“Mr. Colson,” the justice minister said, “you speak of crime as a moral problem. What do you mean? Is that a sociological statement?”

I told him that crime was caused by sin—by people choosing to do wrong. He looked bewildered and shook his head. “Oh, no,” he said. “Crime is caused by economic factors.”

At that moment I realized I was face to face with an absolutely alien worldview. As a Communist, this man had been steeped in dialectical materialism—the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism. That is, that economics determines how we behave. That’s the way he saw reality and life.

I realized that before I could even begin to witness to this man, I would have to engage in what the late Francis Schaeffer called “pre-evangelism.” So during the next 90 minutes, I took apart this man’s most basic suppositions, piece by piece. I talked about human sin—the evidence of it in the tragedies of the twentieth century. I talked about the fact that people are motivated by spiritual forces, not by economics. I talked about the relationship of morality to crime.

It was fascinating to watch his expression change as I challenged his view of human nature and of reality. Finally-after an hour and 20 minutes—I was able to openly share what Jesus Christ had done in my life. At that point the minister could understand it; it was as if a dark cloud had lifted.

My experience in Bulgaria is a metaphor for what Christians face—not only in foreign lands but here at home, as well. You see, if people believe there is no such thing as sin, then talk of a Savior makes no sense. If they believe that man is in charge of his destiny—that he can create utopia—then to their minds they make the law, and there is no such thing as a law above the law.

That Bulgarian bureaucrat reminds us that what stands between many people and the Lord is a worldview that cannot accommodate the essential truths of the faith. Until Christians understand this, it will be next to impossible for us to communicate with the modern, secular mind.

Because the man, whether in Bulgaria or America, who does not believe in sin will not believe in a Savior.

BookYou should get a copy of Cornelius Plantinga’s book, Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be, from our online store. Dr. Plantinga can help you to understand better the devastating effects of sin. You should also read the article, “Slaves to Sin,” by T. M. Moore.

An open letter to President Obama (Part 21 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

Congressman Rick Crawford State of the Union Response 2012

Uploaded by  on Jan 24, 2012

Rep. Rick Crawford responds to the State of the Union address January 24, 2012

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012

Barack Obama  (Photo by Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

The President’s Heroics and Other Tall Tales about the Auto Industry

Posted by Daniel Ikenson

Newt Gingrich defeated communism, someone hacked Anthony Wiener’s Twitter account, and President Obama saved the U.S. automobile industry.  Grandiosity, denial, and revisionism are all noted indulgences of the political breed.  That’s why we should always be skeptical of their words and pity the partisan lemmings who mindlessly parrot their rhetoric.

In his SOTU speech last night, the president claimed credit for rescuing the auto industry:

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S.than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S.plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

This is a claim that is likely to be repeated as the president campaigns across the country this year, so it may be worthwhile to examine its merits.  (Who knows, maybe an effective debate moderator or Sunday news show host might find his way to asking the right questions of the president or members of his administration.)

Closer analysis reveals that President Obama (enabled by President Bush’s complicity) bailed out specific stakeholders at two auto companies at great cost to U.S.taxpayers and at great expense to important U.S. institutions.

The assertion – or implication – that he saved the auto industry is bogus. The auto industry was never on the verge of collapse.  GM and Chrysler were in deep trouble, but Ford, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Kia, Hyundai, BMW and Mercedes Benz (to name some U.S. producers) were fine.  Yes, in 2008-2009 the economy was in recession and automobile demand had tanked.  The companies that had been the most profligate, the most reckless, and the least disciplined were exposed, but talk of industry collapse was the product of a Detroit public relations campaign that featured the claim that 2 to 3 million jobs could be lost if the government didn’t funnel huge sums of cash to the Big Three. (Details here.)

I have shouted from the rooftops about this issue for over three years.  So rather than present all the facts and reconstruct all the arguments, let me economize with reference to this congressional testimony, given seven month ago. It pretty well sums up everything that’s wrong or misleading about the president’s narrative.

As I wrote last year:

The objection to the auto bailout was not that the federal government wouldn’t be able to marshal adequate resources to help GM. The most serious concerns were about the consequences of that intervention — the undermining of the rule of law, the property confiscations, the politically driven decisions and the distortion of market signals.

Any verdict on the auto bailouts must take into account, among other things, the illegal diversion of TARP funds, the forced transfer of assets from shareholders and debt-holders to pensioners and their union; the higher-risk premiums consequently built into U.S. corporate debt; the costs of denying Ford and the other more worthy automakers the spoils of competition; the costs of insulating irresponsible actors, such as the autoworkers’ union, from the outcomes of an apolitical bankruptcy proceeding; the diminution of U.S. moral authority to counsel foreign governments against market interventions; and the lingering uncertainty about policy that pervades the business environment to this day.

GM’s recent profits speak only to the fact that politicians committed more than $50 billion to the task of rescuing those companies and the United Auto Workers. With debts expunged, cash infused, inefficiencies severed, ownership reconstituted, sales rebates underwritten and political obstacles steamrolled — all in the midst of a recovery in U.S.auto demand — only the most incompetent operations could fail to make profits.

But taxpayers are still short at least $10 billion to $20 billion (depending on the price that the government’s 500 million shares of GM will fetch), and there is still significant overcapacity in the auto industry.

The administration should divest as soon as possible, without regard to the stock price. Keeping the government’s tentacles around a large firm in an important industry will keep the door open wider to industrial policy and will deter market-driven decision-making throughout the industry, possibly keeping the brakes on the recovery. Yes, there will be a significant loss to taxpayers. But the right lesson to learn from this chapter in history is that government interventions carry real economic costs — only some of which are readily measurable.

_______________________________
You don’t understand the free market and the fact that GM was in trouble does not mean the government needs to rush in and take them over. If GM had gone out of business then it may have helped us get more jobs in the long run by helping other car companies benefit. You need to check out Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose.”

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com