Monthly Archives: July 2012

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 20)

2007: Appalachian State v. Michigan (Drive-Thru)

Arkansas at Georgia Fantastic Finish 2010

Facing the Giants – Interview With Mark Richt

Uploaded by on Oct 24, 2008

Clip from”Facing the Giants: An inspiring interview with Mark Richt” A Head Coach at the University of Georgia, Bulldog Football Team

______________

Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country.

Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums  

By Alex Callos

(Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012 

When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a big thing in college football, and some teams have it way more than others.

There are 124 FBS college football teams, and when it comes to the stadiums they play in, they are obviously not all created equal.

There is a monumental difference from the top teams on the list to the bottom teams on the list. Either way, here it is: a complete ranking of the college football stadiums 1-124.

_________________

I really like Georgia’s coach. He is a fine Christian man. He has said before that he likes football but if he got fired tomorrow it was would not bother him because Christ is the Lord of his life and football is just a job.

4. Sanford Stadium: Georgia Bulldogs

300px-football_game_kickoff_georgia_vs_south_carolina_sanford_stadium_september_2007_display_image

Home to 92,746 fans on a Saturday afternoon, Sanford Stadium has been the home of the Bulldogs since 1929.

The student section is 10,000 strong every game, creating one of the most unique atmospheres in college football.

Georgia has had some good teams over the years, and when they have those teams, this place is even louder.

“Between the Hedges” is what they call it here, and beating Georgia at home is not an easy task for any SEC team.

 

3. Michigan Stadium: Michigan Wolverines

300px-michigan_stadium_2011_display_image

This stadium is known by everyone at simply “The Big House,” and that it is.

As the largest stadium in the country, “The Big House” seats 109,901 when at full capacity and has been around since 1927.

The marching band kicks everything off here about 20 minutes before kickoff.

Clapping to Hail to the Victors is another tradition that is certain to take place during a game. The scoreboards on each end of the field are 85 feet long, and even though nearly 110,000 fans pack in every Saturday, there is not a bad seat in the house.

Related posts:

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 10)

Tennessee Football – Johnny Majors – GREAT – Joining the VOLS in 1952 Uploaded by TheMemphisSlim on Sep 3, 2010 Johnny Majors from Huntland, TN tried out for the UT Football team weighing 150 pounds. His Father, Shirley Majors his HS Coach,encourage him and then 4 younger brothers all to be Vols. Johnny Majors was […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 9)

South Carolina D vs Arkansas O 2011 Tennessee ’86 Sugar Bowl Memories by Russ Finley Uploaded by yankeefanintenn on Dec 12, 2009 All video footage is copyright of WATE-TV6 and the University of Tennessee, but legally reproduced here in conjunction with Fair Use laws. Vols feature (1986 win over Miami 35-7 in the USF&G Sugar […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 8)

Vanderbilt Highlights vs. Arkansas – Oct. 29, 2011 Memphis 21 Tennessee 17 excerpt from “1996 Tiger Football Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 7)

Final Moments of Kentucky vs. Tennessee Football Game 2011 Uploaded by videorocker112 on Nov 27, 2011 Kentucky wins 10-7 and ends the 26 year losing streak!! Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 6)

THE FLEA KICKER – Nebraska vs. Missouri 1997 Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 5)

Arkansas vs. Troy (2007 Football) 2010 Music City Bowl North Carolina vs Tennessee Uploaded by piotrkol1 on Jan 1, 2011 Highlights of North Carolina’s win over Tennessee in the 2010 Music City Bowl. Tennessee had the home-field advantage with the game being played at LP Field in Nashville, and the Volunteers thought they had won […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 4)

Rice 27 BYU 14 (1997 2nd half) Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a big […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 3)

Kansas Football 2007 Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a big thing in college football, […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 2)

2011 Arkansas State Football Highlights Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a big thing in […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 1)

Arkansas VS Tulsa 2008 Uploaded by jonesark on Nov 2, 2008 Arkansas entering the field to play #19 Tulsa. Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When it comes to college football stadiums, for […]

 

Milton Friedman on “Firing Line” in 1968

Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan And William F. Buckley Jr.

Peter Robinson, 12.12.08, 12:01 AM EST

In a time of crisis, don’t forget what they had to say.

pic

As the federal deficit surpasses $1 trillion, Congress debates a bailout for the Detroit automakers and President-elect Barack Obama draws up plans for a vast new stimulus package, we Americans are being asked to do something odd: Ignore the lessons of more than half a century.

Limit government spending? Resist the creation of bureaucracies? Take a skeptical view of the experts, academics and other elites who are always ready to argue that they know more about what’s good for us than we do?

Forget it.

How long this great forgetting will last, nobody can say. But if you’re reluctant to participate, permit me to suggest a small act of civil disobedience.

Print the three quotations below, put them on your refrigerator and read them once in awhile.

Remember.

Milton Friedman: The political system “tends to give undue political power to small groups that have highly concentrated interests; to give greater weight to obvious, direct and immediate effects of government action than to possibly more important but concealed, indirect and delayed effects; to set in motion a process that sacrifices the general interest to serve special interests rather than the other way around. There is, as it were, an invisible hand in politics that operates in precisely the opposite direction to Adam Smith’s invisible hand.”

The general interest, sacrificed to the special interests: This is the iron law of government spending, the fundamental and everlasting equation.

Stroll down K Street, the home of Washington lobbying firms, any night this coming month; no matter how late the hour, you’ll see lights on in all the office buildings. Inside, highly paid professionals will be working with the feverish intensity of Santa’s elves. Only instead of producing gifts for good children, they’ll be scheming to grab goodies from the Obama stimulus package–billions of dollars’ worth of goodies–on behalf of the naughty adults who employ them.

Ronald Reagan: “A government bureau is the closest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

Like so much Reagan material, this aphorism isn’t merely amusing, it makes a vital point. The New Deal, the Square Deal, the Great Society–overwhelmingly, the programs that each of these expansions of the federal government entailed remain in place today. Why?

Because federal programs not only respond to special interests (see Milton Friedman, above), they create them–each new act of largesse calling into being a new group with enough at stake to become politically organized–paying lobbyists and consultants handsome sums to keep the government dollars coming.

The Obama administration’s huge new spending package might or might not stimulate the growth of economy. It will certainly stimulate the growth of government.

William F. Buckley Jr.: “I’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard.”

Ordinary Americans vs. the high priests of knowledge and culture. It would only make sense, you might think, to put the country in the hands of the priests. After examining the record of the closing decades of the 20th century, you’d think again.

Bigger government, higher taxes, modest defenses, détente with the Soviets–by and large, these were the policies of the intellectual establishment. During the 1970s, such policies nearly brought down the country. Limited government, tax cuts, rebuilding our defenses, standing up to the Soviets–by and large, these were the policies of ordinary Americans. During the 1980s, such policies brought down the Soviet Union.

“Jan. 20, 2009,” the New York Times columnist David Brooks recently wrote, “will be a historic day. Barack Obama (Columbia, Harvard Law) will take the oath of office as his wife, Michelle (Princeton, Harvard Law) looks on proudly. Nearby, his foreign policy advisers will stand beaming, including perhaps Hillary Clinton (Wellesley, Yale Law), Jim Steinberg (Harvard, Yale Law) and Susan Rice (Stanford, Oxford D. Phil.).”

The Obama administration, Brooks asserts, will represent “a valedictocracy.”

The rest of us may be forgiven for failing to share his enthusiasm.

Peter Robinson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institutionand contributor to RobinsonandLong.com, writes a weekly column for Forbes.com.

Dan Mitchell: Maryland to Texas, but Not Okay to Move from the United States to Singapore?

You can’t blame someone for leaving one state for another if they have a better an opportunity to make money.

Maryland to Texas, but Not Okay to Move from the United States to Singapore?

July 12, 2012 by Dan Mitchell

I’ve commented before about entrepreneurs, investors, and small business owners migrating from high tax states such as California to low-tax states such as Texas and nobody gets upset.

Indeed, I just appeared on Fox Business Network to talk about a new study showing an exodus from Maryland following the imposition of some class warfare tax hikes (which simply confirms earlier analysis showing the same trend), and at no point was there any discussion about whether the state’s taxpayers had some sort of moral obligation to stay put and get fleeced by Obama-style tax policy.

_________

But when a successful taxpayer decides to move from the United States to Singapore, there’s a different reaction. All of a sudden, that person becomes selfish, greedy, and unpatriotic.

Even though I’ve defended the right of people to protect themselves from greedy governments by moving across national borders, I can sort of understand why people tend to react in a negative fashion.

Simply stated, we self-identify as Americans (if we have any patriotism) and don’t have instinctive loyalty to individual states. So we don’t think there’s anything wrong when an American flees from New Jersey to Florida. But it rubs us the wrong way when American citizens renounce their citizenship. Even when we rationally understand that they are making the best possible choice for their families.

This issue has become hot again now that another big name has decided to escape the IRS, and I discuss the issue on Fox News. In my first soundbite, I warn that expatriation is driven by a combination of punitive tax policy and a growing perception that America will suffer a Greek-style fiscal crisis thanks to poorly designed entitlement programs.

________________

At this point, I can’t resist a detour. Shepard Smith goofed big time when he remarked that taxpayers would “lose” because of Denise Rich’s expatriation. Nonsense. If my neighbor puts locks on his doors and bars on his windows and no longer is being robbed, that doesn’t impose any cost on me. Indeed, I’m probably helped because thieves may get discouraged and decide to live honestly instead. And even if thieves now target me because my neighbor’s house is less vulnerable, that’s not the fault of my neighbor. We should always remember that the blame should fall on the thieves. Or, in this case, the politicians. As if there’s a difference.

Now, back to the main topic, Fox did the same report at a different point in the day, but they used a different soundbite. In my second appearance (only an excerpt, not the entire segment), I explain that it doesn’t make sense to drive the geese with the golden eggs out of the country.

_____________

Interestingly (or perhaps I should say disturbingly), even France has a better approach to tax expatriation than the U.S. government. That tells us something about how American policy has veered in the wrong direction.

The big picture, as I’ve noted before, is that we want people to have the freedom to cross borders as a means of disciplining politicians who will over-tax and over-spend if they think taxpayers have no choice but to meekly submit.

Which is why all of us should be very happy that tax havens exist. Imagine how high taxes would be if politicians didn’t have to worry that people had escape options.

Milton Friedman believed in liberty (Interview by Charlie Rose of Milton Friedman part 1)

Charlie Rose interview of Milton Friedman

My favorite economist:

Milton Friedman : A Great Champion of Liberty  by V. Sundaram  

Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who advocated an unfettered free market and had the ear of three US Presidents – Nixon, Ford and Reagan – died last Thursday (16 November, 2006 ) in San Francisco at the age of 94. Gordon St Angelo, President and CEO of the Milton and Rose D Friedman Foundation in Indianapolis said in a statement, ‘Milton’s passion for freedom and liberty has influenced more lives than he ever could possibly know. His writings and ideas have transformed the minds of U.S. presidents, world leaders, entrepreneurs and freshmen economic majors alike.’

While honoring Milton Friedman at a public function in 2002, US President Bush said: ‘Milton Friedman has used a brilliant mind to advance a moral vision – the vision of a society where men and women are free, free to choose, but where government is not as free to override their decisions. That vision has changed America, and it is changing the world.’

The Great Depression of the 1930s was blamed on free markets and brought a vast expansion of government interference with the economy. Then came the II World War and with that the position became even worse with government controlling all aspects of the economy in USA. After the war, when anybody who favored rolling back the power of government inevitably faced the question, ‘What about the Great Depression?’. Without all the laws from that era, it was feared, there would again be high unemployment, chronic monopolies and gross inequalities. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman did more than anyone else to change thinking on these issues. He gathered massive documentary evidence to show that the Great Depression occurred primarily because the money supply contracted by one-third between 1929 and 1933, although the Federal Reserve (Central Bank) in USA had been granted the power to prevent such a catastrophe.

Milton Friedman argued that the Great Depression was a government failure. Further he also proved that – inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. He made a formidable case that government ‘fine-tuning’ is more likely to backfire: by the time Central Bankers realize that the economy is slipping into a recession or depression and they inflate the money supply, the effects are likely to be felt after the economy has already recovered, worsening the subsequent inflation. Conversely, by the time Central Bankers realize inflation is a problem and they contract the money supply, the effects are likely to be felt after the economy has slowed down, worsening the next recession or depression. Thus Friedman effectively proved that Government is the biggest source of instability in the economy. All this he proved in his most important single work on economics called ‘A Monetary History of the United States 1867 – 1960’ which he co-authored with Anna Jacobson Schwartz and which was published in 1963.

Many champions of liberty have generally done well to achieve significant impact on a single area of public policy. Bur Friedman has had a significant impact on many public policies in USA. He helped usher in the era of free foreign exchange markets. He campaigned for ballot initiatives to limit government spending and taxes. He inspired the movement for educational choice using tuition vouchers that would enable poor people to opt out of public schools. He courageously spoke out against drugs prohibition and he helped fight President Clinton’s effort to seize an eighth of the US economy in his plan for Government-run health care. His greatest achievement of which he was most proud was that of helping to end military conscription in the United States.

Milton Friedman was born on 31 July, 1912 at Brooklyn in New York. He entered Rutgers University in 1928. He graduated from Rutgers University in 1932. He moved over to University of Chicago in 1932 for higher studies. In Jacob Viner’s Price Theory class, the student who always sat next to him was the petite and lively Rose Director. She was to become his future wife. She was doing Ph D in economics under Frank Knight and Friedman worked as assistant under another economics professor Henry Schultz. Friendship between the two developed into romance and Milton and Rose got married in New York on 25 June, 1938. Another Chicago economist Henry Simons had a big impact on Friedman. In 1934, Simons wrote A Positive Programme for Laissez Faire in which he emphasized that people generally share common goals, such as promoting prosperity and the major differences of opinion are often about the most effective ways to achieve the goals. Friedman won over millions by embracing this fundamental approach and making a practical case that private individuals in competitive markets are much better at solving problems than bureaucrats are. Simons had warned that political liberty can survive only within an effective competitive economic system and this became a major theme of Friedman.

In 1937 Friedman went to Columbia University to do his Ph D. In September 1937, future Nobel laureate Simon Kuznets invited Friedman to work at the National Bureau of Economic Research where he studied independent professionals, lawyers, accountants, engineers, dentists and doctors. This work became the basis for Friedman’s doctoral dissertation and first book, Income from Independent Professional Practice, co-authored by Simon Kuznets.

From 1941 to 43, Friedman worked in the Treasury Department’s Division of Tax Research. In September 1946, Friedman began teaching at the University of Chicago and became an international celebrity. His most widely quoted essay The Methodology of Positive Economics published in 1953 maintained that when one makes statements about phenomena, they ought to be verified by some kind of observation. The primary test of economic analysis is the correctness of predictions. In 1956, William Volker Charities Fund arranged for Friedman to deliver a series of lectures about general principles and major public policy issues such as unemployment, monopolies, racial discrimination, social security and international trade. His wife Rose Friedman edited the lectures into a book, Capitalism and Freedom, which the University of Chicago published in 1962. This book went on to sell some 500,000 copies. It was smuggled into the Soviet Union and served as the basis for an underground edition. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, this book was translated into Serbo-Croatian, Chinese, Polish and Estonian and many other languages.

In his next important book, ‘A Theory of the Consumption Function‘ published in 1957 Friedman explained that people decide how much to spend and save according to their expected earning, not the amount of government spending. Friedman’s work, together with data developed by Simon Kuznets and others, overthrew a key Keynesian claim that government spending was essential for prosperity. In 1962 and 1963, Friedman and his wife traveled around the world, visiting 21 countries. He reported in Harper’s, ‘Wherever we found any large element of individual freedom, some beauty in the ordinary life of the ordinary man, some measure of real progress in the material comforts at his disposal, and a live hope of further progress in the future – there we also found that the private market was the main device being used to organize economic activity. Wherever the private market was largely suppressed and the State undertook to control in detail the economic activity of its citizens, there the ordinary man was in political fetters, had a low standard of living, and was largely bereft of any conception of controlling his own destiny.’

In 1966, Newsweek’s editor invited Milton Friedman to contribute a weekly column on public issues. All his writings in Newsweek were collected and published in three volumes : An Economist’s Protest (1972), There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch (1975) , and Bright Promises, Dismal Performance (1983). Milton Friedman continued to contribute articles to the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle and other publications.
In 1976 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in the field of consumption analysis, monetary history and stabilization policy. His theory of monetarism, adopted in part by the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, opposed the traditional Keynesian economics that had dominated US policy since the New Deal. He was a member of Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board.
In 1977, Friedman was requested to present a TV programme under the title Free to Choose and the first part of this programme was broadcast in January 1980. It became one of the most popular programs around the world. Later it came in the form of a book Free to Choose and became the top selling non fiction book in the 1980s. It was translated into 17 languages.

In numerous books, a Newsweek magazine column and a PBS show, Milton Friedman championed individual freedom in economics and politics. He pioneered a school of thought that became known as the Chicago school of economics.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said: ‘Milton Friedman was an intellectual freedom fighter. He revived the economics of liberty when it had been all but forgotten. Never was there a less dismal practitioner of a dismal science.’
President Bush in his memorial tribute has said that ‘America has lost one of its greatest citizens. Milton Friedman was a revolutionary thinker and extraordinary economist whose work helped advance human dignity and human freedom.’

 26-Nov-2006

Open letter to President Obama (Part 116.9)

Published on Apr 19, 2012 by

Cam Edwards talks to Katie Pavlich from Townhall about her new book, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up – NRA News – April 18, 2012.

_______________

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. 

What really happened with this?

Katie Pavlich

Rob Bluey

April 28, 2012 at 9:32 am

(3)

Katie Pavlich’s new book, “Fast and Furious,” assembles the devastating evidence that implicates the Obama administration for its ill-advised gun-walking operation and ensuing scandal to mislead Congress and the American people.

Few journalists have devoted as much time reporting on Fast and Furious as Pavlich. As the news editor of Townhall, she has asked questions the mainstream media ignored. Now her book pieces the story together for a complete picture of how a government-run operation turned deadly. 

Operation Fast and Furious began in 2009 as an effort to eliminate high-level arms trafficking networks. Guns were allowed to “walk,” and rather than arresting straw purchasers and cartel buyers, hundreds were used to commit crimes in the United States and Mexico. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed with one in 2010 and an estimated 1,400 guns remain missing.

The book details President Obama’s lifelong mission to subvert the Second Amendment, long before he was seeking federal office. Pavlich also documents how Fast and Furious plays into his administration’s anti-gun agenda. She cites a Washington Post story from Dec. 15, 2010, before details of Fast and Furious had emerged, in which federal authorities attempt to blame the rise in gun violence on U.S. gun shops.

The podcast runs about eight minutes. It was produced with the help of Hannah Sternberg. Listen to previous interviews on Scribecast or subscribe to future episodes. Photo by Don Irvine

___________

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

Sincerely,

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

Free or equal? 30 years after Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (Part 1)

Free or Equal?: Johan Norberg Updates Milton & Rose Friedman’s Free to Choose

I got this below from Reason Magazine:

Swedish economist Johan Norberg is the host of the new documentary Free or Equal, which retraces and updates the 1980 classic Free to Choose, featuring Milton and Rose Friedman. Like the Friedmans, Norberg travels the globe to look at the conditions under which prosperity and freedom flourish – and under what conditions they wither and die. Made by the same producer who created Free to Choose, Free or Equal will be appearing on PBS in 2011. For more information, a clip of the new documentary and the entire Free to Choose series, go here.

Norberg is the author of numerous books, including In Defense of Global Capitalism (2002) and Fiscal Fiasco (2009), a look at how the U.S. government’s policies contributed to and have exacerbated the length and intensity of the Great Recession.

Reason’s Nick Gillespie sat down with Norberg to discuss how the changes in the world since the Friedmans’ earlier documentary effect their basic argument that individual economic freedom is a building block for a prosperous and open society. Overall, says Norberg, the Friedmans’ basic insights hold true and some of the places they celebrated – such as Hong Kong, then under British protection and now part of the People’s Republic of China – are still flourishing. But in countries and regions that continue to constrain economic and political liberties, reports Norberg, fear and privation still dominate.

About 6 minutes. Shot by Jim Epstein and Joshua Swain; edited by Swain.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

For an earlier Reason.tv interview with Norberg (about his book Fiscal Fiasco), go here.

Johan Norberg – Free or Equal – Free to Choose 30 years later 1/5

Published on Jun 10, 2012 by

In 1980 economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman inspired market reform in the West and revolutions in the East with his celebrated television series “Free To Choose.”
Thirty years later, in this one-hour documentary, the young Swedish writer, analyst and Cato Institute Fellow Johan Norberg travels in Friedman’s footsteps to see what has actually happened in the places Friedman’s ideas helped transform. In location after location Norberg examines the contemporary relevance of Friedman’s ideas in the 2011 world of globalization and financial crisis. Central to his examination are the perennial questions concerning power and prosperity, and the trade-offs between individual liberty and income equality.

___________

I have enjoyed reading this series of reviews by T. Kurt Jaros on Milton and Rose Friedman’s book “Free to Choose.” I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

I have posted several transcripts and videos of the FREE TO CHOOSE film series on my blog. My favorite episodes are the “Failure of Socialism” and  “Power of the Market.” (This is the 1990 version but the 1980 version is good too.) Today with the increase of the welfare state maybe people should take a long look again at the episode “From Cradle to Grave.” 

Milton Friedman’s  view on vouchers for the schools needs to be heeded now more than ever too. “Created Equal” is probably the episode that I wanted President Obama to see the most and I wrote several letters to him suggesting that.

T. Kurt Jaros is currently a Master’s student studying Systematic Theology at King’s College in London.  He holds a B.A. in Philosophy and Political Science cum laude and an M.A. in Christian Apologetics high honors from Biola University, an evangelical Christian university outside of Los Angeles.

He enjoys learning and thinking about theology, specifically historical theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, and issues pertaining to monergism and synergism.  Additionally, he enjoys learning and thinking about political philosophy, economics, American political history, and campaigns.

Free to Choose

T. Kurt Jaros on Economics
4 comments

This is part of a series on Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.”

This Christmas I asked for and received Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman. I’ve been a big fan of Milton for a while now, be it reading some articles online or watching YouTube videos of him. My goal over the next several weeks is to write a post for each of the chapters to summarize his points and present something I’ve learned. There are ten in all, but this one will include the introduction.

Milton Friedman Free to Choose

Friedman begins the book by writing that there have been two miracles in the United States: one political and one economic. Coincidently, both miracles were the consequences of two written documents form 1776. The first, Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, explained how it could be that two parties could both achieve their objectives through cooperation in the marketplace. However, the only way for that to be done is if the cooperation is voluntary. This cooperation is also done out of the individuals self-interest (not necessarily greed). We all work so that we can pay our bills and make a good life for our children and ourselves. This is the building block of an economy. The second document was Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence from British rule. Jefferson’s words marked the first time in history that a nation was formed based upon the belief that men have inalienable, God-given rights. Among those rights are the rights to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness.

Friedman notes that there is a strong correlation between economic and political freedom. This is one-two punch of freedom allowed for a huge growth in wealth during the 19th century.  In the late 18th century, “it took nineteen out of twenty workers to feed” the 3 million inhabitants of the country and yet today “it takes fewer than one out of twenty” to feed 330 million. What is the cause of this miracle? It’s obvious that there was no central government planning in agriculture (that first happened in the 1930s under the progressive Franklin Delano Roosevelt). The true cause of this change was “private initiative operating in a free market open to all” in the form of the industrial revolution.

Smith and Jefferson both believed that the role of government was to be a referee in the marketplace and not a player. Yet that view began to change over the course of time and people thought that perhaps government could help those that are less fortunate, if only government organization were in the right hands. This explains why the federal government has grown massively over the past 80 years. How much longer are we willing to let the government grow to create a massive entitlement state? “Adam Smith’s invisible hand has been powerful enough to overcome the deadening effects of the invisible hand that operates in the political sphere,” but for how much longer?

As each day goes on, we move closer and closer to the point of no return. Politicians keep spending other people’s money on themselves, their buddies in the special interests, and perpetual “temporary” programs. Our debt keeps increasing, states are going bankrupt, and soon enough the entitlement game will be over. We should stop it before it’s too late.

Related posts:

Reason Magazine’s rightly praises Milton Friedman but makes foolish claim along the way

I must say that I have lots of respect for Reason Magazine and for their admiration of Milton Friedman. However, I do disagree with one phrase below. At the end of this post I will tell you what sentence it is. Uploaded by ReasonTV on Jul 28, 2011 There’s no way to appreciate fully the […]

Video clip:Milton Friedman discusses his view of numerous political figures and policy issues in (Part 1)

Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 1 of 2 Uploaded by PenguinProseMedia on Oct 25, 2011 Says Federal Reserve should be abolished, criticizes Keynes. One of Friedman’s best interviews, discussion spans Friedman’s career and his view of numerous political figures and public policy issues. ___________________ Two Lucky People by Milton and Rose Friedman […]

Milton Friedman remembered at 100 years from his birth (Part 1)

What a great man Milton Friedman was. The Legacy of Milton Friedman November 18, 2006 Alexander Tabarrok Great economist by day and crusading public intellectual by night, Milton Friedman was my hero. Friedman’s contributions to economics are profound, the permanent income hypothesis, the resurrection of the quantity theory of money, and his magnum opus with […]

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 7

Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 7 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]

Milton Friedman at Hillsdale College 2006 (part 1)

Milton Friedman at Hillsdale College 2006 July 2006 Free to Choose: A Conversation with Milton Friedman Milton Friedman Economist Milton Friedman is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Chicago, where he taught from 1946-1976. Dr. Friedman received the Nobel Memorial […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 116.6)

Milton Friedman said that getting George Bush I to be his vice president was his biggest mistake because he knew that Bush was not a true conservative and sure enough George Bush did raise taxes when he later became President. Below is a speech by George W. Bush honoring Milton Friedman: Milton Friedman Honored for […]

Transcript and video of Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan (Part 1)

Below is a discussion from Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. February 10, 1999 | Recorded on February 10, 1999 audio, video, and blogs » uncommon knowledge PRESIDENTIAL REPORT CARD: Milton Friedman on the State of the Union with guest Milton Friedman Milton Friedman, Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution and Nobel Laureate in […]

Dan Mitchell’s article on Chili and video clip on Milton Friedman’s influence

Milton Friedman and Chile – The Power of Choice Uploaded by FreeToChooseNetwork on May 13, 2011 In this excerpt from Free To Choose Network’s “The Power of Choice (2006)”, we set the record straight on Milton Friedman’s dealings with Chile — including training the Chicago Boys and his meeting with Augusto Pinochet. Was the tremendous […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 116.5)

Milton Friedman’s negative income tax explained by Friedman in 1968: 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 […]

“Friedman Friday” :“A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy” VTR: 5/31/77 Transcript and video clip (Part 5)

Milton Friedman on the American Economy (5 of 6)   Uploaded by donotswallow on Aug 9, 2009 THE OPEN MIND Host: Richard D. Heffner Guest: Milton Friedman Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77 _____________________________________ Below is a transcipt from a portion of an interview that Milton Friedman gave on 5-31-77: Friedman: […]

Marina Erakovic “Tennis Tuesday”

One on One With Marina Erakovic

Uploaded by on Jan 1, 2011

James McOnie talks with Marina Erakovic and gets some positive reinforcement.

__________________________________

From Wikipedia:

Jump to: navigation, search
Marina Erakovic

Erakovic at the 2009 ASB Classic
Country  New Zealand
Residence Auckland, New Zealand
Born 6 March 1988 (1988-03-06) (age 23)
Split, SFR Yugoslavia
(now Croatia)
Height 1.74 m (5 ft 9 in)
Weight 65 kg (140 lb)
Turned pro 2005
Plays Right-handed (two-handed backhand)
Career prize money US$666,012
Singles
Career titles 0 WTA, 9 ITF
Highest ranking No. 49 (7 July 2008)
Current ranking No. 54 (20 February 2012)
Grand Slam results
Australian Open 2R (2009, 2012)
French Open 2R (2008)
Wimbledon 3R (2008)
US Open 1R (2008, 2011)
Doubles
Career record 76–41
Career titles 5 WTA, 5 ITF
Highest ranking No. 43 (27 October 2008)
Current ranking No. 48 (21 November 2011)
Grand Slam Doubles results
Australian Open 1R (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)
French Open 1R (2008)
Wimbledon SF (2011)
US Open QF (2008)
Last updated on: 5 September 2010.

Tax increases are not the way to go

Tax increases are not the way to go

President Obama just does not get it.

Liberals love tax increases.

Seven Reasons Why Tax Increases Are the Wrong Approach

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

________________________

The Real Budget Problem

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Added to cato.org on June 15, 2011

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on June 15, 2011.

If you listen to the discussion of the deficit in the mainstream media or the talking points from leading Democrats on the Hill (but I repeat myself), the refrain is that tax increases must be part of any deficit fix.

There is a superficial moderation to that appeal, a sort of splitting the difference between Republicans who want to cut spending and Democrats who want to pay for popular programs. And, frankly, some tax breaks and loopholes should be eliminated — ethanol subsidies, for example — not as revenue raisers, but because they are such bad economic policies.

But raising taxes to reduce the deficit would be bad policy for several reasons:

There’s not really a revenue problem. Democrats correctly point out that federal tax revenues are now just 16.5 percent of GDP, well below the post–World War II average of roughly 18 percent. This would have meant a bigger budget deficit than usual even if spending hadn’t exploded in recent years. But much of that decline is due to the economic slowdown, not to the Bush tax cuts or other policy changes. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that as economic growth returns, federal tax revenues will grow by an average of 7.3 percent annually over the next ten years. By the end of the decade, taxes will have pushed back through the 18 percent level, and be headed toward 20 percent — all without any changes in tax policy.

Government is too big, too intrusive, and too expensive. It doesn’t take more taxes to fix that.

There is a spending problem. Focusing on taxes implies that the problem is how to pay for spending — taxes or debt — not the spending itself. But, as Milton Friedman constantly pointed out, the real cost of government is the size of government. According to the CBO, the federal government is on track to consume 42 percent of GDP by 2050. (State and local governments will consume another 10 to 15 percent of GDP.) Would we really be better off if we raised taxes enough to pay for all that spending?

You can’t tax enough. The president keeps talking about solving our deficit problems by taxing millionaires and billionaires. Congressional Democrats throw in oil companies. But you could confiscate — not tax, confiscate — every penny belonging to every millionaire in America and cover barely one-tenth of our government’s total indebtedness (including the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare). Meanwhile the tax breaks for oil and gas companies amount to about $1.4 billion annually. Those tax breaks may or may not be defensible, but they amount to less than 1 percent of this year’s budget deficit.

Bait and switch.  If you look at most of the deficit-cutting proposals, including the president’s, they call for tax increases today in exchange for spending cuts somewhere in the future. I think we’ve seen that movie before. In fact, the president’s proposal actually makes the bait-and-switch game worse. His proposal says that if Congress didn’t actually make those spending cuts, there would be additional tax increases. So Republicans would be agreeing to tax increases today in exchange for . . . more tax increases tomorrow.

Tax hikes are bad for the economy and for freedom. Of course it’s an exaggeration to suggest that all tax cuts pay for themselves, but there is no doubt that high taxes discourage the type of investment and risk-taking necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. Every dollar that the federal government takes in taxes is one less dollar that the private sector can save, invest, or spend as it sees fit. Unless you believe that the government knows better than the private sector what to do with that money, this exchange hurts the economy. And unless you believe that our money really belongs to the government, it means we are less free to make use of the fruits of our labor as we see fit.

Republicans should not fall into the trap of reflexively defending every special-interest loophole in the tax code. But neither should they be seduced by the argument that we need a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction that includes tax increases. Government is too big, too intrusive, and too expensive. It doesn’t take more taxes to fix that.

Reason Magazine’s rightly praises Milton Friedman but makes foolish claim along the way

I must say that I have lots of respect for Reason Magazine and for their admiration of Milton Friedman. However, I do disagree with one phrase below. At the end of this post I will tell you what sentence it is.

Uploaded by on Jul 28, 2011

There’s no way to appreciate fully the contributions of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006), who would have turned 99 years old this weekend, to the growth of libertarian ideas and a free society.

This is the man, after all, who introduced the concept of school vouchers, documented the role of government monopolies on money in creating inflation, provided the intellectual arguments that ended the military draft in America, co-founded the Mont Pelerin Society, and so much more. In popular books such as Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose, written with his wife and longtime collaborator Rose, he masterfully drew a through-line between economic freedom and political and cultural freedom.

Yet his ultimate contribution to freedom and liberty is found less in any of the specific argument he made and more in the ways he made them. Friedman provided an all-too-rare example of a public intellectual who was scrupulously honest, forthright, and fair in every debate he entered. Whether he was duking it out with fellow Nobel Prize winners and other high-profile economists or making the case for the morality of capitalism with TV hosts such as Phil Donahue and angry students, he always argued in good faith, admitted when he was wrong, and enlarged the circle of debate.

Long after some of his technical points and social insights have been superseded, that commitment to relentless inquiry and search for truth wherever it takes us will survive.

Milton Friedman gave us something much better than revealed truth: He showed us the process by which we might continue to indefinitely learn about our world and the human condition. In this sense, the Friedman Century is far from over; indeed, it’s just getting started.

Written and narrated by Nick Gillespie. Produced and edited by Jim Epstein, with help from Jack Gillespie.

About 2.30 minutes.

For Reason’s coverage of and interviews with Milton Friedman over the years, go here now.

_________

Here are the words that I take exception to: “Milton Friedman gave us something much better than revealed truth: He showed us the process by which we might continue to indefinitely learn about our world and the human condition.”

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am an evangelical christian. The fact is that we can’t possess ultimate answers apart from the reference point of the infinite personal God himself. Without this “revealed knowledge” then we are left in a hopeless case that gives us no chance at having any lasting meaning to our lives. 

I had the chance to correspond with Carl Sagan in the last year of his life. Sagan insisted that  prophecies from the Old Testiment were too vague but I have have not found that to be the case. (Also the evidence from archaeology backs up the historicity of the Bible.) Carl Sagan could not rid himself of the “mannishness of man.” Those who have read Francis Schaeffer’s many books know exactly what I am talking about. We are made in God’s image and we are living in God’s world. Therefore, we can not totally suppress the objective truths of our unique humanity. In my letter of Jan 10, 1996 to Dr. Sagan, I really camped out on this point a long time because I had read Sagan’s  book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors  and in it  Sagan attempts to  totally debunk the idea that we are any way special. However, what does Dr. Sagan have Dr. Arroway say at the end of the movie Contact when she is testifying before Congress about the alien that  communicated with her? See if you can pick out the one illogical word in her statement: “I was given a vision how tiny, insignificant, rare and precious we all are. We belong to something that is greater than ourselves and none of us are alone.” 

Dr Sagan deep down knows that we are special so he could not avoid putting the word “precious” in there. Schaeffer said unbelievers are put in a place of tension when they have to live in the world that God has made because deep down they know they are special because God has put that knowledge in their hearts.We are not the result of survival of the fittest and headed back to the dirt forevermore. This is what Schaeffer calls “taking the roof off” of the unbeliever’s worldview and showing the inconsistency that exists. 

In several of my letters I quoted this passage below:

Romans 1:17-22 (Amplified Bible)

17For in the Gospel a righteousness which God ascribes is revealed, both springing from faith and leading to faith [disclosed through the way of faith that arouses to more faith]. As it is written, The man who through faith is just and upright shall live and shall live by faith.(A)

    18For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.

    19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

    20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(B)

    21Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [a]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.

    22Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].

 

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Uploaded by on Oct 3, 2010

__________________

Some wise words below I got off the internet:

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

The Infinite-Personal God: Thoughts from Francis Schaeffer’s Escape from Reason

 

Perhaps you are familiar with the indie band Arcade Fire. Their most recent album is entitled Neon Bible. The songs on Neon Bible certainly reflect something of the Bible itself in so far as it raises some of life’s biggest questions. Some of these questions are about fear, faith, love and disappointment. On the album is an update version of their song “No Cars Go” in which we hear the eerie tone of the line “Don’t know where we are goin.’ The line gives the listener the sense that there is no certainty to what our end is. This captures much of what I think indie music captures about our fragmented culture where the greatest questions are asked, but with very few answers.Because we live in a postmodern culture where many are not afraid to ask honest questions about life, the concept of faith is quite popular. Francis Schaeffer’s work and his book Escape from Reason have made a tremendous contribution to an understanding of Christian faith in this type of cultural context. In Escape from Reason, Schaeffer is clear in pointing out that the Bible reveals that God is both infinite and personal.He is the infinite-personal God whom created all things out of nothing and therefore the creation is finite or limited. Only God alone is the infinite Creator, the Creator without limitations. On the side of infinity, Schaeffer points out that, humans are “as separated from God as is the machine.” (pg. 26)On the side of human personality, Schaeffer is clear that humans, being made in the image of God, were made to have a personal relationship with God. Schaeffer states, “On the side of personality you are related to God. You are not infinite but finite; nevertheless, you are truly personal; you are created in the image of the personal God who exists.” (pg. 26-27)

As Schaeffer fleshes this idea out in Escape from Reason, he presents a clear Biblical view of human persons. About the Biblical view of the whole of a human being, Schaeffer states,

“It is not a Platonic view. The soul is not more important than the body. God made the whole man and the whole man is important. The doctrine of the biblical resurrection of the dead is not an old-fashioned thing. It tells us that God loves the whole man and the whole man is important. The biblical teaching, therefore, opposes the Platonic, which makes the soul (“the upper”) very important and leaves the body (“the lower”) with little importance at all. The biblical view opposes the humanistic position where the body and autonomous mind of man become important, and grace becomes very unimportant.”(pg. 28)

God made the whole human being and cares about the whole human being.Schaeffer goes on to point out the importance of understanding historically the philosophical schools that have help to shape where we are today. He points out that in Western philosophy, from the rise of Greek philosophy until now, the commonly held belief that the hope of finding complete answers which would encompass all of thought and life would come through rationalism plus rationality rather than rationality and faith in the God of the Bible. In his book Death in the City Schaeffer states,

The Bible puts its religious teaching in a historic setting. It is quite the opposite of the new theology and existential thought, quite the opposite of the twentieth century’s reduction of religion to the “spiritual” and the subjective. Scripture relates true religion to space-time history which may be expressed in normal literary form. And that is important, because our generation takes the word religion and everything religious and turns it into something psychological or sociological…a holy and loving God really exists, and He works into the significant history which exists” (Death in the City, pg. 17)

The philosophical thought during the time of Kant and Rousseau in the late 1700’s was a time of fighting for freedom. The freedom that was sought after was an autonomous freedom in which human freedom would have no restraint or limitations. The quest for this kind of freedom took place during a time when Western philosophy was rationalistic, rational, and sought to find a unified field of knowledge.Rationalism as Schaeffer puts it in Escape from Reason is “man begins absolutely and totally from himself, gathers the information concerning the particulars and formulates the universals.” (pg. 34) The term “rational” on the other hand has no relationship to “rationalism.” This term “rational” is the act in which “man’s aspirations for the validity of reason are well founded.” In other words, if something is true the opposite is not true. Schaeffer states,

The basic position of man in rebellion against God is that man is at the centre of the universe, that he is autonomous – here lies his rebellion. Man will keep his rationalism and his rebellion, his insistence on total autonomy or partially autonomous areas, even if it means he must give up his rationality.”(pg. 42)

With this quest for autonomy, humans began to view reality in which there is a large gap between nature and universals. Schaeffer states,

“The hope of a connecting link between two spheres has completely disappeared. There is a complete dichotomy between the upper and lower storeys. The line between the upper and lower storeys has become a concrete horizontal, ten thousand feet thick, with highly-charged barbed-wire fixed in the concrete…Below the line there is rationality and logic. The upper storey becomes the non-logical and the non-rational.”(pg. 46)

With this dichotomy, on the basis of reason human have no meaning, purpose, or significance. On the basis of the non-rational and non-reasonable humans obtain a sense of optimism. But from this worldview humans are left with the need to take a leap of faith because they cannot rationally search for God.

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

The search for significance is intrinsic to who we are as people made in the image of God. Humans made in the image of God cannot live as though they are insignificant. But humans cannot live in the lower storey and find adequate answers concerning meaning, purpose, and significance. Yet as Schaeffer states, “in our day, the sphere of faith is placed in the non-rational and non-logical as opposed to the rational and logical.” (pg. 75)

Schaeffer points out some consequences of pitting faith against rationality. First, if we separate the upper storey or the world of universals from nature there is no way of establishing a relationship between the upper storey and everyday life in regard to morality. Schaeffer states, “You cannot have real morals in the real world after you have made this separation.” (pg. 80) The second consequence is that the separation creates no adequate basis for law. God revealed something real in the common world of life. Third, the separation, “throws away the answer to the problem of evil.” Schaeffer states,

“the True Christian position is that, in space and time and history, there was an unprogrammed man who made a choice, and actually rebelled against God…without Christianity’s answer that God made a significant man in a significant history with evil being the result of Satan’s and then man’s historic space-time revolt, there is no answer but to accept Baudelaire’s answer [‘If there is a God, He is the devil’] with tears. Once the historic Christian answer is put away, all we can do is to leap upstairs and say that against all reason God is good.”(pg. 81)

Without Christianity’s answer to the problem of evil what we have left is an irrational leap of faith.Christianity thoroughly provides an answer, but rationalism must be renounced and rationality embraced. Christianity provides a world and life view with a unified answer. Schaeffer states,

“On the side of infinity…we are separated from God entirely, but on the side of personality we are made in the image of God. So God can speak and tell us about Himself—not exhaustively, but truly. (We could not, after all, know anything exhaustively as finite creatures.) Then He has told us about things in the finite created realm, too. He has told us true things about the cosmos and history. Thus, we are not adrift.” (pg. 83)

I do recognize now that doubt is real and that doubt’s role is significant in our lives and yet at a fundamental level we have answers to our cry, “Don’t know where were goin.” Although we cannot have ultimate answers without something revealed about God and God indeed is made known in the person of Jesus Christ. The person and work of Christ is communicated to us in the story that the Bible tells. It is the story of the infinite-personal God drawing near because he cares. God cares about the whole of a human being. There is not an area of our life that he does not care about and there is not an area of our life that is autonomous. The Bible says first that there is an infinite-personal God who created all things. Because he created all things the universe begins as personal. Because it is personal the longings of love and communication are intrinsic to all of humanity.God has also always existed and has created all things. Not only has God created all things, but created them outside of himself. Because he created all things outside of himself the world is objectively real and therefore there is a true history and a true me. Schaeffer states,

“If the intrinsically personal origin of the universe is rejected, what alternative outlook can anyone have? It must be said emphatically that there is no final answer except that man is a product of the impersonal, plus time, plus chance.” (pg. 87)

Humanism or rationalism says that humans can built bridges to ultimate answers apart from anyone else, apart from an infinite-personal God. But this is impossible given that humans are finite. Humans cannot point to anything with ultimate certainty. Regarding human quests for answers Schaeffer states,

“beginning only from himself autonomously, it is quite obvious that, being finite, he can never reach any absolute answer. This would be true if only on the basis of the fact that he is finite; but to this must be added the Fall, the fact of his rebellion.” (pg. 89)

We are not only finite and limited, but by nature our own quest for true significance and meaning takes place in autonomous rebellion against the God who is there.But we have hope. The Bible states clearly that humans are made in the image of this infinite-personal God and this gives us a starting point at which to seek for ultimate answers.The Bible says even as lost and broken as we are, seeking to live life apart from the life source, the image of God is still exhibited in humans. We are not like from machines or plants as beautiful as they might be, because we are personal. But how can we seek the infinite-personal God if we ourselves are finite humans?We cannot possess ultimate answers apart from the reference point of the infinite God himself. The humanist or rationalist puts himself at the center of the universe in order to seek ultimate meaning and answers. Schaeffer says this persons “insists on being autonomous with only the knowledge he can gather, and has ended up finding himself quite meaningless.” (pg. 90) The knowledge we can gather is limited and if it comes only from within we have no hope for ultimate answers regarding meaning and life.

Christianity does provide a worldview in which to wrestle with ultimate questions in not simply a theoretical way, but in a personal way. Schaeffer states,

“Christianity is a system which is composed of a set of ideas which can be discussed. By ‘system’ we do not mean a scholastic abstraction, nevertheless we do not shrink from using the word. The Bible does not set out unrelated thoughts. The system it sets forth has a beginning and moves from that beginning in a non-contradictory way. The beginning is the existence of the infinite-personal God as Creator of all else. Christianity is not just a vague set of incommunicable experiences, based on a totally unverifiable ‘leap in the dark.’ Neither conversion (the beginning of the Christian life) nor spirituality (the growth) should be such a leap. Both are firmly related to the God who is there and the knowledge He has given us – and both involve the whole man.”

I would add that the Bible is not just a system, but also a story. It is a story where God is the ultimate actor and also the one who has written the script. It is a story that reveals that the infinite-personal God is there and has drawn near to his people with a passionate pursuit. He is infinite and he is personal. As finite persons we can have hope that God has drawn personally near in the person of Jesus in whom the whole story points to. Jesus is also the one who grants us the privilege of being included in this great story as well. Jesus through his death and resurrection from death provides a way to live personally with this infinite-personal God. Our response to his grace in drawing near ought to be acknowledging our rebellion as we have insistence on being autonomous. The meaningful life comes through acknowledging our dependence on the God who is there and in Jesus Christ as The Way, The Truth, and The Life.The story continues to move forward unfolding toward a day when lost people from all nations will have their story included in the great story of God’s personal restoration of his people and the world. The story unfolds until one day we will know fully the God who is there. No longer must we live out our own story without a script. No longer must we live out our own story by the line, “Don’t no where were goin!”

 
Posted by Mark Peach at 10:31 AM

 
 

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (2)

 

Preview of 2012 Arkansas football opponents (Alabama)

Alabama is the team to beat in the SEC. If you want to win the SEC then you will have to beat Bama. Over the years Bama has always had the big rivalry with in-state Auburn and with Tennessee (Third Saturday in October Rivalry as it was called). However, now it seems that LSU and Arkansas are starting to get Alabama’s attention.

At one point last year in November, LSU was ranked first and Alabama was second and Arkansas was ranked third. That had only happened one time earlier in the same conference back in 1971 when Oklahoma, Nebraska and Colorado did it. The funny thing is that Tennessee had to face LSU, Alabama and Arkansas from the Western division last year and Johnny Majors was quoted in the Knoxville paper saying he knew how tough it was to play #1, 2, 3 in the same year because his Iowa St team had to do it in 1971!!!! Johnny got his first head coaching job at Iowa St after being hired off the Arkansas football staff and he took Jackie Sherrill and Jimmy Johnson and Larry Lacewell with him to Iowa St.

2012 Alabama Crimson Tide Football Preview – Wide Receiver/Tight End Edition

| June 8, 2012

In the years since Nick Saban has taken over at Alabama, he has consistently recruited the top high school athletes in the country, and talent is stock-piled at every position on the field.

The position where this is most evident in 2012 is the wide-receivers and tight ends. With all the talk of the Tide’s stable of running-backs, a proven quarterback, and a defense that simply reloads, the receivers may be Alabama’s best-kept secret.

Alabama loses an electrifying receiver with the departure of Marquis Maze, who led the team with 56 receptions for 627 yards in 2011. Maze was the go-to guy who had the ability to shift the momentum of a game and shut down opposing defensive backs. Alabama also loses veteran Darius Hanks, a tough over the middle receiver that was never afraid of the big hit. Hanks averaged over twelve yards per catch for the Tide.

While Alabama loses two smart and speedy receivers in Maze and Hanks, who were always able to pick up a first down, they combined for only two touchdowns all season. In terms of touchdown production, the Tide doesn’t lose much at all, which is cause for optimism.

Alabama’s receiving touchdown leaders during 2011’s BCS title run were Brad Smelley with four and Trent Richardson with three. AJ McCarron has hinted that the Crimson Tide will show more of a down field passing attack this year, but expect Alabama to have continued success throwing the flat route passes and screens to guys like Eddie Lacy, Michael Williams, and maybe even Dee Hart or T.J. Yeldon.

As far as downfield passing goes, Kenny Bell and DeAndrew White look to be McCarron’s deep threats. Each caught two touchdown passes last year and proved that they could be playmakers down the stretch. These guys are going to be important come November 3rd if LSU’s defensive backs live up to all the hype they are getting right now.

Two receivers that emerged toward the end of last year and look to contribute significantly to the offense are Christion Jones and Kevin Norwood. Jones will likely be returning kicks and punts, however he could be a Maze-style replacement on offense. He showed flashes of greatness last year averaging an impressive 16.3 yards per catch, yet only reeled in three receptions. Norwood led all receivers in the BCS championship game. What is more impressive, however, is the way he shut down Tyrann Mathieu play after play, and finally gave the Honey Badger something to be afraid of.

Alabama loses Brad Smelley but returns physical tight end Michael Williams. Williams was a big contributor in the 2011 campaign with two touchdowns, and with his size and speed he will continue to be an integral part of an offense that utilizes tight ends effectively.

Other tight ends to look for this season are Barrett Jones’ brother Harrison Jones, who gained game experience last year, Brian Vogler who at 6’7 is the tallest man on the roster, and Malcolm Facaine.

Expect Alabama to continue its run-first offensive philosophy that few SEC teams have been able to slow down or stop the last few years, but don’t be surprised when McCarron starts airing it out downfield. It’s likely this group of receivers won’t stay the Crimson Tide’s best kept secret for too long.

2012 Alabama Crimson Tide Football Preview – Offensive Line Edition

We continue Alabama’s preseason position breakdowns this week with an offensive line that some are already calling “the best offensive line in Alabama’s history.”

That seems fitting. The Tide returns four starters on an offensive line that led Alabama to a national championship and blocked for the Doak Walker Award winner, Trent Richardson.

Phil Steel has already projected three linemen to be first team All-Americans in his annual preseason magazine. He includes Barrett Jones, D.J. Fluker, and Chance Warmack.

Anchoring the line this year at center looks to be returning senior Barrett Jones. This 6’5 monster is returning to Alabama after earning unanimous All-American honors, the Outland Trophy, the Wuerffel Trophy, and two BCS titles. He was without a doubt the leader on the offensive line in 2011 and a huge part of the Tide’s two recent championships.

Jones already has in-game experience at center, which eases the pain of losing departing center William Vlachos, who had started 40 consecutive games for the Tide.

Flanking Jones at the guard positions will be Chance Warmack and Anthony Steen, both of whom were starters in the 2011 season.

D.J. Fluker adds even more experience to the line, and NFL scouts are predicting him to be one of the first linemen taken in the 2013 NFL Draft. He has developed nicely into a premier tackle at Alabama, and at 6’6 335 lbs., he is the biggest player on a line that when combined weighs in at around 1600 pounds.

The only previous non-starter that looks to start this season is the highly touted Cyrus Kouandjio. This Cameroon-born big-man was ranked as the number one offensive linemen on all the major recruiting websites and caused a stir when he initially committed to Auburn on National Signing Day, only to flip the script and sign with Alabama a few days later.

Kouandjio played in eight games until a knee injury against Tennessee sidelined him for the rest of the season. He looks to be ready to go come September 1st and could make all the difference between the Tide having a great offensive line and the greatest offensive line in Alabama’s storied history.

With a stable of capable running-backs and a proven quarterback behind them, this offensive line has a chance to lead the Crimson Tide to yet another BCS title as they push around defenders and win the battle of the trenches week in and week out. And don’t be surprised at the end of the year if more than a couple of them earn All-SEC and All-American honors.