Monthly Archives: November 2012

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 11)

John Boehner, Speaker of the House

H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker,

I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but he will want you to leave runaway entitlement programs alone. When that happens then you have one thing you can hold over his head and that is the debt ceiling.

You must stand up to him and tell him that you can not raise it. In December of 2012 or January of 2013 at the latest we will be shutting down the government if we don’t increase the debt limit according to the LA Times. You got to listen to the Tea Party heroes like Rep. Todd Rokita,  Ben Quayle (R-AZ), Jeff Landry (R, LA-03),  Raúl R. Labrador , Tim HuelskampRep. Justin Amash (R-MI),  , Brooks, Mo (AL – 5), Buerkle, Ann Marie (NY – 25),Chabot, Steven (OH – 1),Duncan, Jeff (SC – 3), Fleischmann, Chuck (TN – 3) ,Gowdy, Trey (SC – 4) ,Griffith, H. Morgan (VA – 9) , Harris, Andy (MD – 1) ,Huizenga, Bill (MI – 2) , Mulvaney, Mick (SC – 5) , Pompeo, Mike (KS – 4) , Ribble, Reid (WI – 8), Rigell, E. Scott (VA – 2) , Ross, Dennis (FL – 12) ,Schweikert, David (AZ – 5), Scott, Austin (GA – 8) , Scott, Tim (SC – 1) , Southerland, Steve (FL – 2) , Stutzman, Marlin (IN – 3) , Walberg, Timothy (MI – 7) , Walsh, Joe (IL – 8),and Woodall, Rob (GA – 7) .

I feel so strongly about the evil practice of running up our national debt. I was so proud of Rep. Todd Rokita who voted against the Budget Control Act of 2011 on August 11, 2011. He made this comment: 

 For decades now, we have spent too much money on ourselves and have intentionally allowed our kids and grandkids to pay for it.  It is intergenerational theft—literally stealing from our best asset, our posterity.  The correct course of action, as I have said from the beginning, is to enact permanent and structural reform as the price for raising the debt ceiling.  Today’s bill does not do that.

Here he has called it for what it is: THEFT!!!

Ted DeHaven noted his his article, “Freshman Republicans switch from Tea to Kool-Aid,”  Cato Institute Blog, May 17, 2012:

This week the Club for Growth released a study of votes cast in 2011 by the 87 Republicans elected to the House in November 2010. The Club found that “In many cases, the rhetoric of the so-called “Tea Party” freshmen simply didn’t match their records.” Particularly disconcerting is the fact that so many GOP newcomers cast votes against spending cuts.

The study comes on the heels of three telling votes taken last week in the House that should have been slam-dunks for members who possess the slightest regard for limited government and free markets. Alas, only 26 of the 87 members of the “Tea Party class” voted to defund both the Economic Development Administration and the president’s new Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program (see my previous discussion of these votes here) and against reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank (see my colleague Sallie James’s excoriation of that vote here).

One of those Tea Party heroes was Congressman Todd Rokita of Indiana. Last year I posted this below concerning his conservative views and his willingness to vote against the debt ceiling increase:

Rokita Votes Against Debt Ceiling Increase

Aug 1, 2011 Issues: Spending Cuts and Debt
 
 
 

Rep. Todd Rokita voted against the Budget Control Act of 2011 because it fails to implement the long-term permanent and structural reforms necessary to put the nation back on a fiscally sustainable trajectory:

“I have heard a couple different definitions of leadership today.  Let me add mine: leadership is effectively persuading others of the proper course of action.  It is also about standing up for those who have no voice. For decades now, we have spent too much money on ourselves and have intentionally allowed our kids and grandkids to pay for it.  It is intergenerational theft—literally stealing from our best asset, our posterity.  The correct course of action, as I have said from the beginning, is to enact permanent and structural reform as the price for raising the debt ceiling.  Today’s bill does not do that.

This legislation is a Washington deal, and it barely begins to address our long-term spending problem. Our debt crisis is driven by mandatory spending on entitlement programs and this plan fails to address such spending.  Also, this plan only reduces the future debt we will pile on the backs of our kids from $10 trillion to around $7 trillion over the next decade.  It does not begin to reduce our $14 trillion in current debt. 

However, this legislation could eventually lead to the best permanent solution, a balanced budget amendment.  This is certainly worth fighting for and I will lead on that front.  But a vote alone is not worth the $2.5 trillion price tag, again to be paid by future generations. For that price, we should have required passage of a balanced budget amendment for state ratification.

I will continue to fight for a balanced budget amendment, lead our nation to live within its means and tackle out-of-control entitlement spending. It will be a long fight, but the enactment of a balanced budget amendment is the only way to fix the broken system that created this mess, both addressing our long-term fiscal health and giving Americans long-term peace of mind.”  

 

__________

Sincerely,

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

___________

Related posts:

Government shutdown coming, will there be any tea party heroes available to stand up to Obama?

DEBT LIMIT – A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. Uploaded by debtlimitusa on Nov 4, 2011 A satirical short film taking a look at the national debt and how it applies to just one family. Watch the guy from the Ferris Bueller Superbowl Spot! Produced by Seth William Meier, DP/Edited by Craig Evans, […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 1)

DEBT LIMIT – A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. Uploaded by debtlimitusa on Nov 4, 2011 A satirical short film taking a look at the national debt and how it applies to just one family. Watch the guy from the Ferris Bueller Superbowl Spot! Produced by Seth William Meier, DP/Edited by Craig Evans, […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 8)

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 7)

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]

Who are the Tea Party Heroes from the 87 Freshmen Republicans?

Here is a study done on the votes of the 87 incoming freshman republicans frm the Club for Growth. Freshman Vote Study In the 2010 election, 87 freshmen House Republicans came to Washington pledging fealty to the Tea Party movement and the ideals of limited government and economic freedom. The mainstream media likes to say […]

Tea Party Conservative Senator Mike Lee interview

Tea Party Conservative Senator Mike Lee interview Here is an excellent interview above with Senator Lee with a fine article below from the Heritage Foundation. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) came to Washington as the a tea-party conservative with the goal of fixing the economy, addressing the debt crisis and curbing the growth of the federal […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 6)

I feel so strongly about the evil practice of running up our national debt. I was so proud of Rep. Todd Rokita who voted against the Budget Control Act of 2011 on August 11, 2011. He made this comment:   For decades now, we have spent too much money on ourselves and have intentionally allowed our […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 5)

Rep. Quayle on Fox News with Neil Cavuto __________________ We have to get people realize that the most important issue is the debt!!! Recently I read a comment by Congressman Ben Quayle (R-AZ) made  after voting against the amended Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011. He said it was important to compel “Congressional Democrats and […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 4)

What future does our country have if we never even attempt to balance our budget. I read some wise words by Congressman Jeff Landry (R, LA-03) regarding the  debt ceiling deal that was passed on August 1, 2011:”Throughout this debate, the American people have demanded a real cure to America’s spending addiction – a Balanced Budget […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 3)

I read some wise comments by Idaho First District Congressman Raúl R. Labrador concerning the passage of the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 and I wanted to point them out: “The legislation  lacks a rock solid commitment to passage of a balanced budget amendment, which I believe is necessary to saving our nation.” I just […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 2)

Congressmen Tim Huelskamp on the debt ceiling I just don’t understand why people think we can go on and act like everything is okay when we have a trillion dollar deficit. Sometimes you run across some very wise words like I did the other day. Kansas Congressman Tim Huelskamp made the following comment on the […]

Don’t inner city kids deserve a better education?

The public school system in the inner cities in the USA is appauling. Don’t our inner city kids a better chance of going up the economic ladder?

I’ve criticized union bosses for fighting school reform, and I’ve condemned the so-called civil rights establishment for opposing school choice.

And here’s a powerful video from Reason TV that combines those themes, noting the unholy alliance of teacher unions and the NAACP.

The spiritual leader of the teacher unions?

Fortunately, the statists seem to be losing this issue. Louisiana recently adopted school choice legislation that will give poor children an opportunity to escape failing government schools.

But the left isn’t losing gracefully. In a move that would make George Wallace proud, they are threatening schools that will participate in the new program.

Here’s some powerful criticism of their sleazy tactics from today’s Wall Street Journal.

In some parts of the antebellum South, it was illegal to teach blacks how to read. Are teachers unions in Louisiana trying to turn back the clock? Last week, lawyers for the Louisiana Association of Educators, one of the state’s two major teachers unions, threatened private and parochial schools with lawsuits if the schools accept students participating in a new school choice initiative that starts this year. Education reforms signed into law in April by Governor Bobby Jindal include a publicly funded voucher program that allows low-income families to send their children to private or parochial schools. …lawyers representing the unions faxed letters to about 100 of the 119 schools that are participating in the voucher program. “Our clients have directed us to take whatever means necessary,” the letter reads. Unless the school agrees to turn away voucher students, “we will have no alternative other than to institute litigation.” The letter demanded an answer in writing by the next day. Louisiana’s voucher program is adjusted for family income and is intended above all to give a shot at a decent education to underprivileged minorities, who are more likely to be relegated to the worst public schools. …Demand for vouchers has been overwhelming: There were 10,300 applications for 5,600 slots. Despite claims to the contrary by school-choice opponents, low-income parents can and do act rationally when it comes to the education of their children. State officials have rightly slammed the union’s tactics. A spokesman for the Governor said in a statement that union leaders are “stooping to new lows and trying to strong-arm schools to keep our kids from getting a quality education.” State Superintendent John White said it was “shameful” that the unions were “trying to prevent people from doing what’s right for their children.” The unions claim that vouchers don’t benefit students, but we know from school-choice programs in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere that voucher recipients attend safer schools and enjoy higher graduation rates than their peers in public schools.

As I note in this post (featuring a great column by Jeff Jacoby), I’ve always believed that the school choice issue exposes the dividing line between honest liberals and power-hungry liberals.

Regardless of ideology, any decent person will favor reforms that enable poor kids to escape horrible government schools. Lots of liberals are decent people. The ones who oppose school choice, by contrast, are…well, you can fill in the blank.

P.S. Here’s some wisdom on the issue of school choice from a former University of Georgia quarterback.

P.P.S. Not surprisingly, Thomas Sowell nails the issue, as does Walter Williams, with both criticizing the President for sacrificing the interests of minority children to protect the monopoly privileges of teacher unions.

P.P.P.S. Chile has reformed its education system with vouchers, as have Sweden and the Netherlands, and all those nations are getting good results.

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 10)

John Boehner, Speaker of the House

H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker,

I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but he will want you to leave runaway entitlement programs alone.

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute has a simple good solution to our fiscal cliff problem right now in Washington. I agree it is a serious problem right now. There are not many people in our corner either. There were 66 brave Republicans that voted against the debt ceiling increase in August of 2011 and I have written posts about 49 of them. Again today we have newly re-elected President Obama coming back for another debt ceiling increase and we need more brave Republicans who will not give in.  

Below is Mitchell’s solution.

Augmented by some amusing cartoons, I’ve already warned that the hysteria about the fiscal cliff is basically a ploy by the politicians to extract more revenue to finance bigger government.

Obama Fiscal Manual

Elaborating on this concern, I wrote a column for today’s New York Daily News. I started with a description of the three issues that are getting lumped together.

…we face the threat of higher tax rates for some or all taxpayers on Jan. 1. …there’s also a possibility of a “sequester” — automatic budget cuts that also are scheduled to take place on Jan. 1. And politicians have been spending so much money that we’re about to bump up against the nation’s debt limit. So it’s likely that all these issues will get joined as President Obama and congressional leaders attempt to negotiate a deal.

I then outlined what might happen if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire.

The higher tax rate portion of the fiscal cliff exists because 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of the year. All taxpayers would see more of their earnings confiscated by the IRS beginning in January if Washington fails to act. All tax brackets would increase, taxes on dividends and capital gains would rise… The total yearly hike would be in the range of $400 billion. This could have profound implications, both because of immediate reductions in take-home pay and the negative long-run impact of economic stagnation.

And I explained how the problem should be solved, but warned that the biggest stumbling block is President Obama’s fixation on class-warfare tax policy.

Many are worried about these potential changes, with Congressional Budget Director Doug Elmendorf warning that Americans should expect a “significant recession” and the loss of some 2 million jobs. From my point of view, all the tax cuts should be made permanent. The bad news, to me, is that Obama wants to raise rates on investors, entrepreneurs, small business owners and other “rich” taxpayers. The sequester should be replaced by a more targeted set of fiscal reforms to restrain the growth of the entitlement state. Finally, the debt limit should be raised in exchange for a workable and enforceable cap on government spending.

I originally included an explanation of why the CBO estimate is flawed because of Keynesian methodology, but those sentences fell victim to space constraints. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that even folks on the left think big tax hikes aren’t a good idea (though they’re perfectly happy to have a series of small tax hikes that get you to the same Greek destination).

But set that aside. Is there any chance of seeing my solution adopted? Well, there’s no chance of a spending cap. The sequester will be stopped, but it won’t be replaced by better reforms.

The great unknown is what will happen on the tax side. I fear GOPers will surrender, even though they won the very same battle back in 2010 when they didn’t even control the House and had fewer seats in the Senate.

__________

Sincerely,

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

___________

Related posts:

Government shutdown coming, will there be any tea party heroes available to stand up to Obama?

DEBT LIMIT – A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. Uploaded by debtlimitusa on Nov 4, 2011 A satirical short film taking a look at the national debt and how it applies to just one family. Watch the guy from the Ferris Bueller Superbowl Spot! Produced by Seth William Meier, DP/Edited by Craig Evans, […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 1)

DEBT LIMIT – A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. Uploaded by debtlimitusa on Nov 4, 2011 A satirical short film taking a look at the national debt and how it applies to just one family. Watch the guy from the Ferris Bueller Superbowl Spot! Produced by Seth William Meier, DP/Edited by Craig Evans, […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 8)

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 7)

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]

Who are the Tea Party Heroes from the 87 Freshmen Republicans?

Here is a study done on the votes of the 87 incoming freshman republicans frm the Club for Growth. Freshman Vote Study In the 2010 election, 87 freshmen House Republicans came to Washington pledging fealty to the Tea Party movement and the ideals of limited government and economic freedom. The mainstream media likes to say […]

Tea Party Conservative Senator Mike Lee interview

Tea Party Conservative Senator Mike Lee interview Here is an excellent interview above with Senator Lee with a fine article below from the Heritage Foundation. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) came to Washington as the a tea-party conservative with the goal of fixing the economy, addressing the debt crisis and curbing the growth of the federal […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 6)

I feel so strongly about the evil practice of running up our national debt. I was so proud of Rep. Todd Rokita who voted against the Budget Control Act of 2011 on August 11, 2011. He made this comment:   For decades now, we have spent too much money on ourselves and have intentionally allowed our […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 5)

Rep. Quayle on Fox News with Neil Cavuto __________________ We have to get people realize that the most important issue is the debt!!! Recently I read a comment by Congressman Ben Quayle (R-AZ) made  after voting against the amended Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011. He said it was important to compel “Congressional Democrats and […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 4)

What future does our country have if we never even attempt to balance our budget. I read some wise words by Congressman Jeff Landry (R, LA-03) regarding the  debt ceiling deal that was passed on August 1, 2011:”Throughout this debate, the American people have demanded a real cure to America’s spending addiction – a Balanced Budget […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 3)

I read some wise comments by Idaho First District Congressman Raúl R. Labrador concerning the passage of the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 and I wanted to point them out: “The legislation  lacks a rock solid commitment to passage of a balanced budget amendment, which I believe is necessary to saving our nation.” I just […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 2)

Congressmen Tim Huelskamp on the debt ceiling I just don’t understand why people think we can go on and act like everything is okay when we have a trillion dollar deficit. Sometimes you run across some very wise words like I did the other day. Kansas Congressman Tim Huelskamp made the following comment on the […]

New movie about Abraham Lincoln (Part 6)

Still of Tommy Lee Jones in Lincoln

13 September 2012
Photo by Film Frame – © 2012 – DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC. All Rights Reserved.

I have written a lot about Abraham Lincoln in the past as you can tell from the “related posts” noted below. Most of my posts were concerning the movie “The Conspirator” which is one of my favorite movies.  I enjoyed reading about all the historical people involved with Lincoln. Boston Corbett is the man who shot Booth. Louis Weichmann was originally a suspect but he later became one of the chief witnesses for the prosecution.  John Wilkes Booth was the first man to kill an American President. Louis Powell attempted to kill Secretary of State Seward.  Mary Surratt was in the center of the conspiracy we are told, but is that true? (I believe the evidence shows that it was true that she was guilty of that.)

Christianity Today’s review below:

Lincoln

<!–
–>

our rating

4 Stars - Excellent
Average Rating

(2 user ratings)ADD YOURSHelp
mpaa rating

PG-13 (for an intense scene of war violence, some images of carnage and brief strong language)
Directed By

Steven Spielberg
Cast

Daniel Day-Lewis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Walton Goggins, Tommy Lee Jones
Theatre Release

November 16, 2012 by Dreamworks Pictures

The opening scene of Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln depicts a Civil War battle scene: scrappy, muddy, bayonet-to-bayonet fighting, a brutal slog over contested terrain. The rest of the film concerns something equally scrappy, muddy and messy: politics, specifically, the hard-fought battle to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery in the United States.

Based in part on the book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Goodwin, Lincoln is less a traditional biopic of our sixteenth president than a snapshot of one specific episode in his story—his last few months of life, at the start of his second term as U.S. president and in the final days of the Civil War. As the film begins, Lincoln (Daniel Day Lewis, in what is sure to be an Oscar-nominated role) is visiting Union troops and hears a handful of soldiers recite excerpts of what had already become an iconic presidential oration: the Gettysburg Address. The president—haggard, war-weary, solemn—listens intently as a black soldier recites the speech’s final line as he marches back to join his regiment: “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom …”

This preface appropriately sets up the film’s main conflict: Lincoln’s efforts to make good on that “new birth of freedom” by convincing enough congressmen in the House of Representatives to vote in favor of the Thirteenth Amendment. Lincoln’s conviction on the matter is evident from the start: he believes abolishing slavery is a necessary step to move the country forward in unity. But politics being the complicated game that it is, conviction alone won’t accomplish the goal. A good leader also needs skill in forging alliances, making deals, and charismatically bargaining with the other side to give and take for the common good. In other words: political skill. And Lincoln had it in spades.

One of the fascinating strengths of Lincoln is the way that it turns the nitty-gritty, inelegant work of politics into utterly compelling, even inspiring, drama. At a time when Americans are more cynical than ever about Congress and the partisan politics of no-compromise belligerence that threaten to pilot the nation over ominous “cliffs,” a film like Lincoln is helpful. It reminds us that amazing things can emerge from democracy even in the most divided of times. The country was extremely divided in 1865, and the tone in Washington wasn’t exactly civil (back then, politicians hurled insults like “you fatuous nincompoop!” at each other during House debates). And yet, with the guidance of Lincoln and the shrewd political maneuvering of his cabinet, enough votes were secured to get the amendment passed. Spielberg’s film is a captivating document of history, yes; but it’s also a reminder that working across party lines is not weak capitulation. On the contrary, it can birth revolutionary, healing change.

As much as Lincoln is about political process, it is also (obviously) about the man himself: Honest Abe. The beauty of this film is that it maneuvers effortlessly between the legislative drama and the intimate moments where we get glimpses—thanks to Day-Lewis’ remarkable performance—into the personality and character of Lincoln and his family. Much of the “iconic Lincoln” is on display here: the tall, lanky man with a scraggly beard and top hat; the unpolished frontier boy with log cabin roots (Lincoln puts his own wood logs in the fireplaces of the Oval Office). But as portrayed by Day-Lewis, he’s also a natural born storyteller and jokester, an individualist who values quiet time alone and has strained relationships with members of his own family. He’s a dignified man who is sober-minded and soft-spoken, but forceful and impassioned when he needs to be. Above all, he’s a commanding presence; when he opens his mouth, people listen.

Screenwriter Tony Kushner wisely creates plenty of breathing room in the script for Day-Lewis to really sink his teeth into the Lincoln persona. There are great scenes of Lincoln in meetings with his cabinet, where he effortlessly rambles in a manner that is half courtroom lawyering and half grandfatherly storytime, with an eloquence of language that feels like a cross between Shakespeare and Mark Twain. He’s a president who is as likely to refer to “flub-dubs” and “Tammany Hall hucksters” as he is to quote Euclid.

It’s the quieter moments, however, that moved me the most; the moments when Lincoln isn’t politicking or posturing, but reflecting. Grieving. Wondering why he was chosen to lead the nation through its darkest hour. “Doyou think wechoose to be born?” he asks one of aides in a particularly existential moment, “or arewefitted to thetimes we’reborn into?”

Though Lincoln’s Christian faith isn’t explicitly noted in the film, it is certainly clear that there is a higher truth guiding his convictions, a sovereign God who has entrusted him with an important role in an important time. Lincoln assumes this responsibility with deep reverence and humility. He is a humble man whose grief over the depth of loss his country has suffered is written all over his face—in the aged lines of his brow, in his dark, grave eyes. Like most presidents at the end of a term in office, he is grayer and more worn down by the end. And yet his resolve isn’t shaken. It’s a testament to the immense skill of Day-Lewis that his version of Lincoln feels at once familiar and new—consistent with how we imagined Lincoln and yet embodied in a way we’ve never quite seen: Lincoln the dad, the husband, the deal-maker, the joke-teller.

Spielberg shows us with Lincoln not only that he continues to be a master of epic filmmaking but also that he is a great actor’s director. Day-Lewis anchors the film but he is just one of a number of excellent actors who make up the ensemble cast. As Mary Todd Lincoln, Sally Field perfectly inhabits the famously unstable first lady, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is entirely believable as Robert, the college-aged son of the Lincolns who desperately wishes to fight in the war. The various political players are aptly performed by a who’s who of top-notch Hollywood actors, with the standout being Tommy Lee Jones as abolitionist leader Thaddeus Stevens, for whom the Thirteenth Amendment is the career capstone of a life’s work campaigning against slavery.

Artistically, Spielberg is at the top of his game. His usual collaborators are in fine form. John Williams’ gorgeous score is mature and understated when it could have so easily overpowered the film’s intimate ambiance. The excellent cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is similarly understated, in muted tones of greys, blues, and browns (with the occasional burst of red, white and blue). Spielberg’s art directors, production designers and costume designers perfectly capture the look and feel of 1865 Washington. It’s a place where canes and corsets prevail, handlebar moustaches are grown unironically, and everything is just a little bit creaky and covered in dust, fireplace soot, and tobacco smoke.

Lincoln is a masterpiece of period filmmaking, immersing the viewer in a pivotal period in American history through the eyes of one of its most iconic figures. From the acting to the language to the costumes (of course Lincoln wore a shawl on those cold nights in the White House!), nothing feels false in this film. For a filmmaker like Spielberg—who has been known to over-sentimentalize his material—Lincoln represents an impressively mature, restrained work. Apart from a few too many endings (Spielberg’s Achilles heel), it’s a very focused, concise treatment of a huge topic.

The film is bookended by two of Lincoln’s iconic speeches, opening with the aforementioned Gettysburg Address and ending with the iconic “with malice toward none, with charity for all” section from Lincoln’s second inaugural address. The latter—with its resolve to “strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds”—builds on the hopes of the former, with its desire to launch a “new birth of freedom” that will justify the blood shed by so many. In these two speeches we see how tragic and yet how inspirational is the story of Lincoln. He did much as president to bind up the nation’s wounds, and yet he died well before he could see the full legacy of the work in which he and others labored.

We see that legacy today, however. And Spielberg’s beautiful film helps us see it more clearly than ever.

Related posts:

Television interview of witness who saw Lincoln shot

  Pretty amazing video clip: Samuel J. Seymour, Last Surviving Witness Of Lincoln Assassination, Appears On Television In 1956 (VIDEO) Thanks to YouTube, this gem in American history has been preserved. In February 1956, two months before his death, 96-year-old Samuel J. Seymour appeared on the CBS television show “I’ve Got A Secret.” His secret: […]

Letters from a former slave to his former master

Fascinating story about a letter from a former slave to his former owner in Tennessee.  My grandfather who was born in 1903 told me about his great aunt who threw a fit in 1910 or so when someone mentioned Lincoln or Grant at the dinner table in Franklin, TN. She remembered the Northern soldiers coming […]

One the last civil war veterans: Julius Howell of Virginia (recording of interview included)

Uploaded by blackconfederate1 on Feb 1, 2011 Confederate soldier Julius Howell talking about his capture and imprisonment at the Union prison camp at Point Lookout, Md. Howell was born in 1846 near the Holy Neck section of Suffolk, in the Holland area. He was the youngest of 16 children, the son of a prominent Baptist […]

May 16-18, 1911 Confederate Veterans Reunion in Little Rock Pictures and story (Part 7)

Confederate soldier Julius Howell Interview What The south Fought For Confederate soldier Julius Howell talking about his capture and imprisonment at the Union prison camp at Point Lookout, Md. Howell was born in 1846 near the Holy Neck section of Suffolk, in the Holland area. He was the youngest of 16 children, the son of […]

Balanced Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no (Part 21, Milton Friedman’s view is yes)(The Conspirator Part 27)

  Ep. 10 – How to Stay Free [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted: The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 34)(The Conspirator Part 26, Boston Corbett, man who shot Booth),

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more […]

Balanced Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no (Part 20, Milton Friedman’s view is yes)(The Conspirator Part 25, Louis Weichmann)

Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted: The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 33)(Part 24, The Movie “The Conspirator,” John Wilkes Booth)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more […]

Gene Lyons: Tax Cuts always reduce tax revenues (Part 1)(The Conspirator Part 23)

Ep. 10 – How to Stay Free [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) Gene Lyons in his article “The futility of reasoning with crazy,” April 27, 2011 makes this simple straight forward statement: Also contrary to Republican mythology, the infamous Bush tax cuts did anything but increase revenue, as tax cuts never do. As […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 22)(The Conspirator Part 22)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more […]

Tim Griffin on Face the Nation: We need to drill for oil, Deal with Medicare and Debt Problem (The Conspirator, Part 21)

Tim Griffin on ‘Face the Nation’ Jason Tolbert reported yesterday: Tim Griffin was on CBS’ “Face the Nation” this morning…  He discussed the problem of the national debt and its impact on the economy, a reoccurring theme for Griffin.  He says that Medicare as we know it is on a path to bankruptcy in nine […]

Balanced Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no (Part 14, Milton Friedman’s view is yes)(The Conspirator, Part 20)

In his book Free to Choose, Milton Friedman described four ways to spend money. 1. You spend your own money on yourself. 2. You spend your own money on someone else. 3. You spend someone else’s money on yourself. 4. You spend someone else’s money on someone else. The graphic shown in the video that […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 20)(The Conspirator, Part 19, Lewis Powell Part B)

  Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few […]

Balanced Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no (Part 13, Milton Friedman’s view is yes)(The Conspirator Part 18, Lewis Powell Part A)

Dallas Fed president and CEO Richard W. Fisher sat down with economist Milton Friedman on October 19, 2005, as part of ongoing discussions with the Nobel Prize winner. In this clip, Friedman argues for a reduction in government spending. I really wish that Senator Pryor would see the wisdom of supporting the Balanced Budget amendment. […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 19)(The Conspirator Part 17)

  Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few […]

Will Senator Pryor be re-elected in 2014? Part 3 (The Conspirator Part 16)

U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor at the 2009 Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Dinner, Arkansas’s largest annual political event. Mark Pryor is up for re-election to the Senate in 2014. It is my opinion that the only reason he did not have an opponent in 2008 was because the Republicans in Arkansas did not want to go […]

Balanced Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no (Part 12, Milton Friedman’s view is yes)(The Conspirator Part 15)

  Professor Friedman examines the dynamics of “doing good” with other people’s money http://www.LlbertyPen.com Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, asserted: The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 18)(The Conspirator Part 14)

  Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few […]

Ronald Wilson Reagan (Part 78)(1981 Orsini McArthur murder case part 3)(The Conspirator Part 13, Mary Surratt Part D)

  (Picture from the Ronald Reagan Library) Ronald Reagan with his older brother Neil (Moon) Reagan. (Circa 1912) Second Reagan-Mondale presidential debate 1984 October 21, 1984 The Second Reagan-Mondale Presidential Debate MS. RIDINGS: Good evening from the Municipal Auditorium in Kansas City. I am Dorothy Ridings, the president of the League of Women Voters, the […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 17)(The Conspirator, Part 12, Mary Surratt part C)

  Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 16)(The Conspirator Part 10, Mary Surratt part A)

Here is clip from the new movie “The Conspirator” by Robert Redford about Mary Surratt. More on the movie below. Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I […]

Is the Bible historically accurate?(Part 14C)(The Conspirator Part 7)

Critics – Part 1 By Dr In my ongoing debate with other bloggers on the Arkansas Times Blog, I had an interesting response from Dobert: You can’t have it both ways. If the Gospel writers were allowed to adapt their message to a particular audience then it can’t be claimed that God literally took their […]

Balance Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no, Part 10 (The Conspirator part 6)

  Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted: The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and […]

Is the Bible historically accurate?(Part 14B)(The Conspirator Part 5)

The Institute for Creation Research equips believers with evidences of the Bible’s accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework. info@icr.org http://www.icr.org Last night I had the opportunity to go back and forth with a couple of bloggers on the Arkansas Times Blog and this […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (part 14)(The Conspirator part 3)

This is a quick summary of the Bible’s reliability by a famous and well-respected former atheist. Please check out his website (http://www.leestrobel.com) for hundreds of FREE high quality videos investigating the critical aspects of our faith. Todd Tyszka http://www.toddtyszka.com On April 19, 2011 on the Arkansas Blog an entry of mine got this response from […]

Balanced Budget Amendment the Answer? Pryor says no, Boozman says yes (part 8)(Famous Arkansan, Patsy Montana)(The Conspirator, part 2)

 It is 9:35 pm and we have been hiding from Tornadoes all night and I hope they are finished bothering us for the evening.  Ronald Reagan on Balanced Budget Amendment Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted: The disagreement is over the solutions — on […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 14)(“The Conspirator” movie, part 1)

  Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few […]

Balanced Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no (Part 11)(Conspirator Part 11)

Mark Levin interviews Senator Hatch 1/27/2011 about the balanced budget amendment. Mark is very excited about the balanced budget amendment being proposed by Senator Orin Hatch and John Cornyn and he discusses the amendment with Senator Hatch. Senator Hatch explains the bill it’s ramifications and limitations. Senator Hatch actually worked on this bill with renowned […]

Mark Pryor will not vote for debt limit increase unless there are real spending cuts (Conspirator part 9)

In the article “Mark Pryor: I won’t vote to raise debt limit without reforms,” April 20, 2011, Arkansas Business reports: U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor says he won’t vote to raise the federal government’s borrowing limit unless there is a “real and meaningful commitment” to reducing the nation’s debt by cutting spending and overhauling the tax […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 15)(Conspirator Part 8)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more […]

Balanced Budget Amendment the Answer? Pryor says no, Boozman says yes (part 9)(Famous Arkansan, Art Porter Sr.)(Conspirator Part 4)

I survived last night even though there were several tornadoes all through Arkansas last night. America has too many bureaucrats and they are dramatically overpaid. This mini-documentary uses government data to show how federal, state, and local governments are in fiscal trouble in part because of excessive pay for a bloated civil service. Steve Brawner […]

 

Is President Obama going to bankrupt our country by going from 10 trillion to 22 trillion in debt? (part 10)

Dan Mitchell explains in the above video that Europe can grow and prosper, but only if politicians are willing to reduce the burden of government spending and lower tax rates.

_____________

These posts are all dealing with issues that President Obama did not help on in his first term. I am hopeful that he will continue to respond to my letters that I have written him and that he will especially reconsider his view on the following import issue which deals with holding down federal spending!!! Is President Obama going to bankrupt our country by going from 10 trillion to 22 trillion in debt?

I have a lot of respect for Tea Party heroes like Tim Huelskamp and Justin Amash who are willing to propose deep spending cuts so we can eventually balance our budget.  

It is a fact that we must balance the budget soon. I do not believe that we can wait to balance the budget at some distant time in the future. The financial markets will not allow us a long time to get our house in order. Look at how things have been going the last four years and no matter how anyone tries to spin it, we are going down the financial drain fast. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute showed in an article that I posted earlier about how much spending has exploded the last four years.

John Brummett wrote in the online addition of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 30, 2012:

Obama did indeed run up the deficit with a stimulus measure to keep the economy from collapsing as he entered office…But in regard to budgets that he actually has proposed as president, beginning with the one for the fiscal year starting nearly a year after his election, Obama has raised spending at a slower rate than Clinton…

Republicans simply are more effective than Democrats at declaring a simple untruth loudly and repetitively through a pliable and powerful echo chamber of talk radio and cable news, thus embedding that untruth beneath the superficial consciousness of people otherwise disengaged.

__________

Now the truth of the matter is that Obama has spent around 25% of GDP when Clinton and most of the other presidents spent 20% or less. This fact allow disproves Brummett’s assertions listed above.

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute sets the record straight concerning Obama’s spending:

Last week, I jumped into the surreal debate about whether Obama has been the most fiscally conservative president in recent history.

I sliced the historical data from the Office of Management and Budget a couple of ways, showing that overall spending has grown at a relatively slow rate during the Obama years. Adjusted for inflation, both total spending and primary spending (total spending minus interest payments) have been restrained.

So does this make Obama a fiscal conservative?

And how can these numbers make sense when the President saddled the nation with the faux stimulus and Obamacare?

Good questions. It turns out that Obama supposed frugality is largely the result of how TARP is measured in the federal budget. To put it simply, TARP pushed spending up in Bush’s final fiscal year (FY2009, which began October 1, 2008) and then repayments from the banks (which count as “negative spending”) artificially reduced spending in subsequent years.

The combination of those two factors made a big difference in the numbers. Here’s another table from my prior post, looking at how the presidents rank when you subtract both defense and the fiscal impact of deposit insurance and TARP.

All of a sudden, Obama drops down to the second-to-last position, sandwiched between two of the worst presidents in American history. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

But this ranking is incomplete. At that point, I was trying to gauge Obama’s record on domestic spending, and the numbers certainly provide some evidence that he is a stereotypical big-spending liberal.

But the main debate is about which president was the biggest overall spender. So I’ve run through the numbers again, and here’s a new table looking at the rankings based on average annual changes in inflation-adjusted primary spending, minus the distorting impact of deposit insurance and TARP.

Obama is still in the second-to-last position, but spending is increasing by “only” 5.5 percent per year rather than 7.0 percent annually. This is obviously because defense spending is not growing as fast as domestic spending.

Reagan remains in first place, though his score drops now that his defense buildup is part of the calculations. Clinton, conversely, stays in second place but his score jumps because he benefited from the peace dividend after Reagan’s policies led to the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

Let’s now look at these numbers from a policy perspective. Rahn Curve research shows that government is far too big today, so the goal of fiscal policy should be to restrain the burden of government spending relative to economic output.

This means that policy moves in the right direction when government grows more slowly than the private sector, as it did under Reagan and Clinton.

But if government spending is growing faster than the productive sector of the economy, as has been the case during the Bush-Obama years, then a nation eventually will become Greece.

Gus Malzahn does a great job at Little Rock Touchdown Club (Part 2)

I really enjoyed hearing Gus Malzahn speak at the final Little Rock Touchdown meeting on Nov 19, 2012. He covered several subjects that he covered a few days earlier at a touchdown club in Huntsville. Here are some of his comments from that meeting:

But reports that he could be the next coach at Auburn, if the university parts ways with Gene Chizik, or Tennessee or Arkansas, don’t interest him, Malzahn said.

“I’m the head coach at Arkansas State, and that’s my only focus right now,” he told a gathering of media members before speaking to the New Horizons Credit Union 1st and 10 Club at Heron Lakes Country Club.

He echoed that sentiment when responding to a question from a club member after addressing the group: “The only thing I’m in the mix for is the Sun Belt Conference championship, and that’s all that’s on my mind right now.”

Malzahn has Arkansas State at 8-3 overall and atop the Sun Belt Conference with a 6-1 record. The Red Wolves have an open date this week before closing the regular season against Middle Tennessee in a game that will decide the conference’s champion.

Malzahn turned down the chance to be Vanderbilt’s coach when Auburn won the BCS national championship in 2010 before taking over at Arkansas State a season later. On Monday night, he gave several reasons why he’d like to stay with the Red Wolves and outlined his plan for the program in his home state.

“Things are going great,” Malzahn said. “We’ve set attendance records. We’re playing our best football right now. We’ve got a six-game winning streak. We’re playing for the conference championship in two weeks, which is very exciting. The future is very bright.”

But Malzahn has found some things to like beyond the football field at Arkansas State.

He mentioned a couple of times that the college football life can be hard on coaches’ families, and he said his youngest daughter, 18-year-old Kenzie, was “very happy” in their new situation. “That means a lot to a dad,” Malzahn said. He also said Jonesboro, Ark., was three- to three-and-half hours from where he grew up. “I got to see my mom on Mother’s Day for the first time since I started coaching college football,” Malzahn said of his first year at Arkansas State.

Still, the job is football. Malzahn pointed to plans for a $25 million football complex at ASU and said he was “motivated by the challenge of building.”

“I’ve told people I want to make Arkansas State the Boise State of the South,” Malzahn said. “We’re recruiting, not against the Sun Belt, but we’re recruiting against the SEC, we’re recruiting against the Big Ten.

“We want to make Arkansas State a top-25 team year in and year out. If we can finish this thing, we have a chance to do that this year.”

 

gus malzahn.jpg Arkansas State football coach Gus Malzahn was in Mobile on Monday, Nov. 19, 2012, to speak to the New Horizons Credit Union 1st and 10 Club at Heron Lakes Country Club. (Mike Brantley/mbrantley@al.com) 

Malzahn said he didn’t want Arkansas State to be “a one-hit wonder,” but hoped to have the type of program that goes to a bowl after every season.

“We are going to a bowl (this season),” Malzahn said, “and it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if we came here.”

The GoDaddy.com Bowl, which will be played Jan. 6 at Ladd-Peebles Stadium in Mobile, will match a team from the Sun Belt Conference against a team from the Mid-American Conference.

Malzahn has experience with the local game. He was the offensive coordinator for Tulsa when the Golden Hurricane won Mobile’s bowl after the 2007 and 2008 seasons. Last season, he watched Arkansas State play Northern Illinois in the GoDaddy.com Bowl after being named the successor to Hugh Freeze, who left the Red Wolves for Ole Miss.

“I’m a big fan of this area,” Malzahn said. “I came here for two years back when it was the GMAC Bowl with Tulsa, and now that I’ve been to some other bowls I can say the way that you all roll out the red carpet for the teams that come in is really unbelievable.”

If this year’s GoDaddy.com Bowl rolls out the red carpet for the Sun Belt champion, that team will be the winner of the Dec. 1 Arkansas State-Middle Tennessee game.

“That’s a team that beat Georgia Tech by two touchdowns earlier this year,” Malzahn said of the Blue Raiders, “so you’re talking about a team that can play with anybody.”

Malzahn said he had been impressed by the Sun Belt in his first season in the conference.

“I didn’t know what to think when I first got in because I had been in the SEC for three years,” Malzahn said. “But there are some great teams in this league. And I think you can see the way they’ve played out of conference. There’s some big wins, some close games. You look at Lafayette, the way they played Florida a couple of weeks ago. This is one of those up-and-coming conferences, and there’s a lot of good players and good teams.”

Arkansas State’s losses this season have come against Oregon, Nebraska and Western Kentucky. The Red Wolves lost to Oregon 57-34 on Sept. 1, and Malzahn said he was surprised the Ducks lost to Stanford last week.

“It shocked me they got beat,” he said. “It goes to show you that week to week anything can happen in college football. I thought that bunch was better than the team we played with Auburn (in the 2010 BCS national championship game). (Oregon coach) Chip Kelly, he’s a buddy of mine, and he thought they were, too.”

Before beginning his talk to the 1st and 10 Club, Malzahn said he needed “to take the lay of the land” and asked how many Auburn fans and how many Alabama fans were in the crowd.

Then he told them, “I didn’t wear red for three years until I got on that plane to go to Arkansas State.”

He also had a comment or two for fans of other teams.

To the Ole Miss faithful, Malzahn said of Freeze, “What he’s doing right now at that place is really unbelievable.”

_______

Related posts:

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 […]

Paul Finebaum speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 3

Harvey Updyke Interview on The Paul Finebaum Show 4 21 11 Part 3 Bobby Petrino going to Tennessee later this year? I thought he would jump at the chance to do that. However, the Vols have looked pretty good this year and if they go into Miss St’s homefield this week and beat the #17 […]

Paul Finebaum speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 2

Harvey Updyke Interview on The Paul Finebaum Show – 4-21-11 – Part 2 ___________ I attended the Little Rock Touchdown Club on Oct 8, 2012 and enjoyed it very much. I got to ask a question. “Will we ever get to the point where someone else besides a running back, quarterback or receiver is considered for the Heisman […]

Mark May at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 3

I went to hear Mark May speak at the Little Rock Touchdown Club on August 20, 2012 and he did a great job of giving some insights into the Penn St case and he also looked into the SEC race this year. I do think that May has some good insights and I think his […]

Mark May at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 2

Wally Hall wrote a fine article on the Little Rock Touchdown Club meeting yesterday that I got to attend. It was moving when Mark May got choked up responding to a question about the Penn St scandal. Wally refers to that. LIKE IT IS: ESPN analyst starts LRTC talks with bang Tuesday, August 21, 2012 […]

10 most hated men in SEC football

Got this off the internet: Nutt makes the top 10 for one of the few times in his SEC Coaching Career 10 Most Hated Men in the SEC There is no doubt that the college football conference with the most emotion is the SEC.  One of those emotions is hate and this is the list […]

Past Little Rock Touchdown Club meetings (Part 3)

This year’s Little Rock Touchdown Club speakers are very exciting and I am really excited about the first one being Mark May. Below that are some of the posts about past speakers. Here is an article from Arkansas Sports 360 on the lineup of speakers: ESPN’s Mark May Kicks Off Little Rock Touchdown Club Aug. 20 <!– 23 […]

Top 25 football teams for 2012

Photo by Erin Nelson Alabama head coach Nick Saban signs autographs for fans at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media days in Hoover, Ala. on Thursday, July 19, 2012. (AP Photo/The Tuscaloosa News, Erin Nelson) Photo by Butch Dill LSU coach Les Miles speaks to reporters at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media […]

Past Little Rock Touchdown Club meetings (Part 1)

This year’s Little Rock Touchdown Club speakers are very exciting. Below is this year’s list followed by some of the posts about past speakers. Mark May – ESPN ESPN College Football Analyst teaming with Lou Holtz for the popular College Football Scoreboard. Inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 2005, May was a 1st Team […]

Like this:

Be the first to like this.
By Everette Hatcher III, on November 19, 2012 at 1:53 pm, under Current Events. No Comments
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. Edit

Christopher Hitchens’ debate with Douglas Wilson (Part 12)

Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 12 of 12

Douglas Wilson

I am afraid your argument is tangled up with greater difficulties than the ethnicity of the Samaritan, and so that issue really need not detain us any longer. I have been asking you to provide a warrant for morality, given atheism, and you have mostly responded with assertions that atheists can make what some people call moral choices. Well, sure. But what I have been after is what rational warrant they can give for calling one choice “moral” and another choice “not moral.” You finally appealed to “innate human solidarity,” a phrase that prompted a series of pointed questions from me. In response, you now tell us that we have an innate predisposition to both good and wicked behavior. But we are still stuck. What I want to know (still) is what

warrant you have for calling some behaviors “good” and others “wicked.” If both are innate, what distinguishes them? What could be wrong with just flipping a coin? With regard to your retort that my “talent for needless complexity” has simply gotten me “God’s coexistence with evil,” I reply that I would rather have my God and the problem of evil than your no God and “Evil? No problem!”

After this many installments, I now feel comfortable in asserting that I have posed this question to you from every point of the compass and have not yet received anything that approaches the semblance of an answer. On this question I am tempted to quote Wyatt Earp from the film Tombstone— ”You gonna do something or just stand there and bleed?”—but I think I’ll pass.

Earp was not very much like the Good Samaritan. But it is interesting that the same thing happens to you when you have to give some warrant for trusting in “reason.”. I noted your citation of LaPlace in your book and am glad you  brought him up here. LaPlace believed he was not in need of the God hypothesis, just like you, but you should also know he held this position as a firm believer in celestial and terrestrial mechanics. He was a causal determinist, meaning that he believed that every element of the universe in the present was “the effect of its past and the cause of its future.”

So if LaPlace is why you think belief in God is now “optional,” this appeal of yours actually turns into quite a fun business. This doctrine means (although LaPlace admittedly got distracted before these implications caught up with him) that you, Christopher Hitchens, are not thinking your thoughts and writing them down because they are true, but rather because the position and velocity of all the atoms in the universe one hundred years ago necessitated it. And I am not sitting here thinking my Christian thoughts because they are the truth of God, but rather because that is what these assembled chemicals in my head always do in this condition and at this temperature. “LaPlace’s demon” could have calculated and predicted your arguments (and word count) a century ago in just the same way that he could have calculated the water levels of the puddles in my driveway — and could have done so using the same formulae. This means that your arguments and my puddles are actually the same kind of thing. They are on the same level, so to speak.

If you were to take a bottle of Mountain Dew and another of Dr. Pepper, shake them vigorously, and put them on a table, it would not occur to anyone to ask which one is “winning the debate.”

They aren’t debating; they are just fizzing. You refer to “language in which to write this argument,” and you do so as though you believed in a universe where argument was a meaningful concept. Argument?

Argument? I have no need for your “argument hypothesis.” Just matter in motion, man.

You dismiss the idea that the death of Jesus—the “torture and death of a single individual in a backward part of the Middle East” — could possibly be the solution to the sorrows of our brutish existence. When I said that Jesus is good for the world because he is the life of the world, you just tossed this away. You said, “You cannot possibly ‘know’ this. Nor can you present any evidence for it.”

Actually, I believe I can present evidence for what I know. But evidence comes to us like food, and that is why we say grace over it. And we are supposed to eat it, not push it around on the plate—and if we don’t give thanks, it never tastes right. But here is some evidence for you, in no particular order. The engineering that went into ankles. The taste of beer. That Jesus rose from

the dead on the third day, just like he said. A woman’s neck. Bees fooling around in the flower bed. The ability of acorns to manufacture enormous oaks out of stuff they find in the air and dirt.

Forgiveness of sin. Storms out of the North, the kind with lightning. Joyous laughter (diaphragm spasms to the atheistic materialist). The ocean at night with a full moon. Delta blues. The peacock that lives in my yard. Sunrise, in color. Baptizing babies. The pleasure of sneezing. Eye contact. Having your feet removed from the miry clay, and established forever on the rock. You may say none of this tastes right to you. But suppose you were to bow your head and say grace over all of it. Try it that way.

You say that you cannot believe that Christ’s death on the Cross was salvation for the world because the idea is absurd. I have shown in various ways that absurdity has not been a disqualifier for any number of your current beliefs. You praise reason to the heights, yet will not give reasons for your strident and inflexible moral judgments, or why you have arbitrarily dubbed certain chemical processes “rational argument.” That’s absurd right now, and yet there you are, holding it. So for you to refuse to accept Christ because it is absurd is like a man at one end of the pool refusing to move to the other end because he might get wet. Given your premises, you will have to come up with a different reason for rejecting Christ as you do.

But for you to make this move would reveal the two fundamental tenets of true atheism. One: There is no God. Two: I hate Him.

Related posts:

Christopher Hitchens’ view on abortion may surprise you

Christopher Hitchens – Against Abortion Uploaded by BritishNeoCon on Dec 2, 2010 An issue Christopher doesn’t seem to have addressed much in his life. He doesn’t explicitly say that he is against abortion in this segment, but that he does believe that the ‘unborn child’ is a real concept. ___________________________ I was suprised when I […]

Christopher Hitchens discusses Ron Paul in 3-2-11 inteview

Max Brantley in the Arkansas Times Blog reports that Ron Paul is leading in Iowa. Maybe it is time to take a closer look at his views. In the above clip you will see Chistopher Hitchens discuss Ron Paul’s views. In the clip below you will find Ron Paul’s latest commercial. Below is a short […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 3)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 07 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death:   Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust   DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 08 Author and […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 2)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 04 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 05 Author and speaker Christopher […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 1)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 01 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust Author and speaker Christopher Hitchens, a leader of an aggressive form of atheism that eventually […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 172)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 3 of series on Evolution)

The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 4 of 6

Uploaded by  on Aug 30, 2010

http://www.icr.org/
http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2
http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASG
http://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog

______________________________________

 

President Obama c/0 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.

I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate your view on evolution:

Q: York County was recently in the news for a lawsuit involving the teaching of intelligent design. What’s your attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools?

A: “I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.”

I was really enjoyed this review of Carl Sagan’s book “Pale Blue Dot.”

Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot

by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. *

On December 6, 1994, Carl Sagan, author of Cosmos, well-known astronomer and speaker, appeared before the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco to introduce his new book, Pale Blue Dot.1

Earlier in the day I had the opportunity to briefly talk with him during a break in presentations at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union. I introduced myself and found him very cordial but extremely animated and energetic in attempting to convince me that the Bible is not a valid source of truth and that science has proven it wrong.

I was puzzled at his enthusiasm until I purchased and read his book. In it he presents the case that the earth and man are not at the center of the universe or God’s attention. In fact, he stresses that science has disproved the Bible and that man is an insignificant species on a remote planet whirling through the vast reaches of space. He suggests space exploration and colonization as a vision for developing anew meaning in life to replace that given historically by religion.

Since Carl Sagan is such an effective spokesman for the naturalistic world view which prevails in the modern scientific community, and for his concept that a creator God is an outdated “geocentrist conceit” concocted by our less enlightened forefathers and foisted upon the human culture, I felt a review and rebuttal of his new book was in order.

REVIEWAt the heart of Dr. Sagan’s argument for a universe without a creator is the progressive disillusionment he believes science has handed those who believe in religion. This he calls “The Great Demotions.” He suggests that observation of the night-time sky by our ancestors led to a misplaced sense of importance of man:

And if the lights in the sky rise and set around us, isn’t it evident that we’re at the center of the Universe? These celestial bodies—so clearly reveals that we are special. The Universe seems designed for human beings. It’s difficult to contemplate these circumstances without experiencing stirrings of pride and reassurance. The entire Universe, made for us! We must really be something.

This satisfying demonstration of our importance, buttressed by daily observations of the heavens, made the geocentrist conceit a transcultural truth—taught in the schools, built into the language, part and parcel of great literature and sacred scripture. Dissenters were discouraged, sometimes with torture and death. It is no wonder that for the vast bulk of human history, no one questioned it.

Over the past 300 years, Sagan says, science began to strip away this “geocentrist conceit” starting with Copernicus’ finding that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the sun around the earth. Next it was determined that our earth is only one of a myriad of worlds, the sun is only one of our galaxy, and our galaxy is only one of a myriad of galaxies in the universe. Apparently, there is nothing special about our position in the universe. Einstein’s theory of relativity then discredited the view held by Newton and all other great classical physicists that the velocity of the earth in space constituted a “privileged frame of reference.” Next, the age of the solar system was calculated to be about 4.5 billion years old and the universe about 15 billion. The final demotion was the conclusion by Darwin that man is not a special creation but, rather, evolved in the primordial ooze from simple, single-celled organisms. Man is simply the end-product in a long chain of evolutionary change.

These “great demotions” lead to the conclusion that there is no meaning or purpose in our existence. Sagan bemoans this loss of meaning by lampooning the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden:

There was a particular tree of which we were not to partake, a tree of knowledge. Knowledge and understanding and wisdom were forbidden to us in this story. We were to be kept ignorant. But we couldn’t help ourselves. We were starving forknowledge—created hungry, you might say. This was the origin of all our troubles. In particular, it is why we no longer live in a garden: We found out too much. So long as we were incurious and obedient, I imagine, we could console ourselves with our importance and centrality, and tell ourselves that we were the reason the Universe was made. As we began to indulge our curiosity, though, to explore, to learn how the Universe really is, we expelled ourselves from Eden. Angels with a flaming sword were set as sentries at the gates of Paradise to bar our return. The gardeners became exiles and wanderers. Occasionally we mourn that lost world, but that, it seems to me, is maudlin and sentimental. We could not happily have remained ignorant forever.

Sagan admits several times in his book that “there is in this Universe much of what seems to be design.” Yet, he can not bring himself to attribute this design to a Designer. He does go so far as to say in one place that, “Maybe there is one [a designer] hiding, maddeningly unwilling to be revealed.” However, he finally concludes that the evidence does not require a Designer. He also admits that without a Designer there is no purpose and without purpose man cannot survive. Sagan has been building a justification for the remainder of his book. He now states in egotistical terms his agenda for the human race:

The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is then determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life’s meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal. On behalf of Earthlife, I urge that, with full knowledge of our limitations, we vastly increase our knowledge of the Solar System and then begin to settle other worlds.

REBUTTALThe crux of Sagan’s arguments is the validity of his “great demotions.” Has science shown the Bible to be untrue and that the earth and man are insignificant random combinations of molecules near a remote star in a vast, uncaring universe? I do not believe that the sun revolves around the earth. However, I strongly hold to the view that man is at the center of God’s care and concern, if not very near the center of His creation.

The Bible nowhere says that the sun revolves around the earth. It simply uses the common everyday reference system we are all familiar with when referring to the motions of the sun. References to sunrise and sunset appear in the newspaper each day, and there is no difficulty in understanding their meaning. Similar terms are used in surveying, nautical navigation, even orbital mechanics. They communicate information just as does the Bible.

In the covenant with Abraham God implied that there is a myriad of stars in the universe. He said, “look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them….”Sagan believes some of these stars may have planets circling them with life on them. However, Sagan recently admitted in a radio interview that after 25 years of searching for intelligent life, he has been unable to find evidence of life anywhere else in the universe. (Sagan has stated that he would even be happy to find stupid life.) He went so far as to say, “there must be something unique about the earth.” Einstein’s theories of relativity and the great ages of our solar system and universe both have yet to be proven. If relativity can be shown to be true, some believe the effect could possibly explain the apparent great times of light traveling from distant stars.2

The theory of evolution is the greatest house of cards of all. It flies in the face of the well-founded Second Law of Thermodynamics, cannot be supported by the fossil record, violates common sense in the development of complex systems, and could not even occur in 15 billion years.

These “great demotions” then are the result of misapplying faulty theories rather than validating God’s statements in Scripture regarding our position and purpose.

God has declared our standing as follows:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26).

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

It is evident from only these few selected Scripture passages that God created the universe and cares for us to the point of providing His own Son as a sacrifice for our sins. In our finiteness we don’t fully understand an infinite God, but how dare we arrogantly deny such a God.

REACTIONSDr. Sagan is an excellent writer and public speaker. He has a very engaging writing style and dares to discuss controversial issues. His Cosmos series and book sold more copies than any science book ever written in English. He has won the Pulitzer Prize for his writing. However, he is wrong. Carl Sagan is blinded to the evidence that God exists and created man as His special object of love and concern.

This point of view among so many scientists today is described in Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Dr. Sagan has rejected out of hand the evidences he has clearly seen for design in the universe. Although he has expressed a reluctant need to find a Designer, he has given up on the search and has constructed his own “Tower of Babel.”

A recurrent theme throughout the book is his allegorizing of the Biblical account and an assumption that it is a transcription of man’s uninformed experiences. No place is given to the possibility that Scripture is inspired by the Creator. Dr. Sagan’s goal in Pale Blue Dot is to substitute his “creation myth” and purpose for “Earthlife” for the creation account and dominion mandate found in Genesis. Sagan even raises the specter of “becoming like the Most High.” I fear for men who would place themselves in such opposition to God and His Word.

CONCLUSIONSBecause of the kinship I feel toward scientists like Carl Sagan, I am saddened greatly by their actions. Scientists have the greatest opportunities of all to see the evidence of God’s marvelous provision for man in His creation. Those who can’t see God’s hand in the universe around them should be encouraged to ask God to reveal Himself to them. God is not hiding. He is waiting for us to see Him. Please pray for Carl Sagan and others like him who, in their conceit declare, “There is no God!” (Psalm 14:1).

REFERENCES

1. C. Sagan. Pale Blue Dot (Random House, 1994), 429 pp.
2. R. Humphries. Starlight and Time (Master Books, 1994), 133 pp.

* Dr. Vardiman is Administrative Vice President and Chairman of the Astro/Geophysics Department at ICR.

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

Other posts that relate to Carl Sagan:

Atheist says “It’s not about having a purpose in life..” (Arkansas Atheist, Part 1)

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. _________________________- I want to make two points today. 1. There is no […]

Ancient Sea Monsters (A Creationist point of view Part 3)

Leviathan: the Fire-Breathing Dragon: Kent Hovind [6 of 7] Everybody is trying to get info on this subject. Here is what the Bible has to say about it. Mace Baker wrote the aritcle, “Sea Dragons – The Institute for Creation Research,” and here is the third portion of that article:  Pterosaurs were the flying reptiles of the ancient world. Why […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)Other posts concerning Carl Sagan:

Atheists confronted: How I confronted Carl Sagan the year before he died

In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]

More about the historical characters mentioned in the movie “Lincoln” by Steven Spielberg (Part 3) “Robert Todd Lincoln”

I have written a lot about Abraham Lincoln in the past as you can tell from the “related posts” noted below. Most of my posts were concerning the movie “The Conspirator” which is one of my favorite movies.  I enjoyed reading about all the historical people involved with Lincoln. Boston Corbett is the man who shot Booth. Louis Weichmann was originally a suspect but he later became one of the chief witnesses for the prosecution.  John Wilkes Booth was the first man to kill an American President. Louis Powell attempted to kill Secretary of State Seward.  Mary Surratt was in the center of the conspiracy we are told, but is that true? (I believe the evidence shows that it was true that she was guilty of that.)

Here is more on Lincoln’s first born son:

Robert Todd Lincoln

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Robert Todd Lincoln
Robert Todd Lincoln, photographed by Harris & Ewing.
35th United States Secretary of War
In office
March 5, 1881 – March 5, 1885
President James Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Preceded by Alexander Ramsey
Succeeded by William C. Endicott
United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom
In office
1889–1893
President Benjamin Harrison
Preceded by Edward J. Phelps
Succeeded by Thomas F. Bayard
Personal details
Born (1843-08-01)August 1, 1843
Springfield, Illinois, U.S.
Died July 26, 1926(1926-07-26) (aged 82)
Manchester, Vermont, U.S.
Resting place Arlington National Cemetery
Arlington County, Virginia
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Mary Eunice Harlan
Children Mary Todd Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln II
Jessie Harlan Lincoln
Alma mater Harvard University
Old University of Chicago
Profession Lawyer, Politician
Signature
Military service
Service/branch Union Army
Rank Captain
Battles/wars American Civil War

Robert Todd Lincoln (August 1, 1843 – July 26, 1926) was an American lawyer and Secretary of War, and the first son of President Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd Lincoln. Born in Springfield, Illinois, United States, he was the only one of Lincoln’s four sons to live to adulthood.

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Family and early life

Lincoln graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy in 1860, then studied at Harvard University from 1861 to 1864, where he was a member of Delta Kappa Epsilon (Alpha chapter).[1] He then enrolled in Harvard Law School but did not graduate.[citation needed] Much to the embarrassment of the President, Mary Todd Lincoln prevented Robert Lincoln from joining the Union Army until shortly before the war’s conclusion in 1865.[citation needed] He held the rank of captain, serving in the last weeks of the American Civil War as part of General Ulysses S. Grant‘s immediate staff, a position which sharply minimized the likelihood that he would be involved in actual combat. He was present at Appomattox when Lee surrendered.[2]

Lincoln c. 1865

Lincoln had a distant relationship with his father, in part because Abraham Lincoln spent months on the judicial circuit during his formative years. Robert would later say his most vivid image of his father was of his packing his saddlebags to prepare for his travels through Illinois.[3] Abraham Lincoln was proud of Robert and thought him bright, but also saw him as something of a competitor, and someone once said, “he guessed Bob would not do better than he had.”[4] The two lacked the strong bond Lincoln had with his sons Willie and Tad, but Robert deeply admired his father and wept openly at his deathbed.[5]

Following his father’s assassination, in April 1865, Robert moved with his mother and his brother Tad to Chicago, where Robert completed his law studies at the Old University of Chicago (whose law school later became part of Northwestern University). He was admitted to the bar on February 25, 1867.[6]

On September 24, 1868, Robert married the former Mary Eunice Harlan (September 25, 1846 – March 31, 1937), the daughter of Senator James Harlan and Ann Eliza Peck of Mount Pleasant, Iowa. They had two daughters and one son.[7]

Robert Lincoln’s home in Washington, DC from 1918 until his death in 1926.

Robert Todd Lincoln’s mansion Hildene in Manchester, Vermont.

His mother’s “spend-thrift” ways and eccentric behavior concerned Robert Lincoln. Fearing that his mother was a danger to herself, he was left with no choice but to have her committed to a psychiatric hospital in Batavia, Illinois in 1875. With his mother in the hospital, he was left with control of her finances. On May 20, 1875, she arrived at Bellevue Place, a private, upscale sanitarium in the Fox River Valley.[8] Three months after being installed in Bellevue Place, Mary Lincoln engineered her escape. She smuggled letters to her lawyer, James B. Bradwell, and his wife, Myra Bradwell, who was not only her friend but also a feminist lawyer and fellow spiritualist. She also wrote to the editor of the Chicago Times, known for its sensational journalism. Soon, the public embarrassments Robert had hoped to avoid were looming, and his character and motives were in question. The director of Bellevue, who at Mary’s trial had assured the jury she would benefit from treatment at his facility, now in the face of potentially damaging publicity declared her well enough to go to Springfield to live with her sister as she desired.[9] The committal proceedings led to a profound estrangement between Lincoln and his mother, and they never fully reconciled.[citation needed]

[edit] Politics

[edit] Secretary of War (1881–1885)

In 1877 he turned down President Rutherford B. Hayes‘ offer to appoint him Assistant Secretary of State, but later accepted an appointment as President James Garfield‘s Secretary of War, serving from 1881 to 1885 under Presidents Garfield and Chester A. Arthur. During his term in office, the Cincinnati Riots of 1884 broke out over a case in which a jury gave a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder in a case that many suspected was rigged. Forty-five people died during three days of rioting before U.S. troops dispatched by Lincoln reestablished calm.[10]

Chief Justice Taft, President Harding and Lincoln at the dedication of the Lincoln Memorial in 1922.

Following his service as Secretary of War, Lincoln helped Oscar Dudley in establishing the Illinois Industrial Training School for Boys in Norwood Park in 1887, after Dudley discovered “more neglected and abandoned children on the streets than stray animals.”[this quote needs a citation] The school relocated to Glenwood, Illinois in 1899. It first enrolled girls in 2001.

[edit] Minister to the Court of St. James’s

Lincoln served as the U.S. minister to the United Kingdom from 1889 to 1893 under President Benjamin Harrison. Afterwards, he returned to private business as a lawyer.[citation needed]

[edit] Later life

Lincoln was general counsel of the Pullman Palace Car Company under George Pullman, and was named president after Pullman’s death in 1897. According to Almont Lindsey‘s 1942 book, The Pullman Strike, Lincoln arranged to have Pullman quietly excused from the subpoena issued for Pullman to testify in the 1895 trials of the leaders of the American Railway Union for conspiracy during the 1894 Pullman strike. Pullman hid from the deputy marshal sent to his office with the subpoena and then appeared with Lincoln to meet privately with Judge Grosscup after the jury had been dismissed. (p. 303) In 1911, Lincoln became chairman of the board, a position he held until 1922.[11]

A serious amateur astronomer, Lincoln constructed an observatory at his home in Manchester, Vermont, and equipped it with a refracting telescope made in 1909 by Warner & Swasey with a six-inch objective lens by John A. Brashear Co., Ltd. Lincoln’s telescope and observatory still exist; it has been restored and is used by a local astronomy club.[12] Robert Lincoln made his last public appearance at the dedication ceremony in Washington, D.C. for his father’s memorial on May 30, 1922.[13]

[edit] Presence at assassinations

Robert Lincoln was coincidentally either present or nearby when three presidential assassinations occurred.[14]

Lincoln himself recognized the frequency of these coincidences. He is said to have refused a later presidential invitation with the comment “No, I’m not going, and they’d better not ask me, because there is a certain fatality about presidential functions when I am present.”[16] He did attend the dedication of the Lincoln Memorial, in 1922, in the presence of both President Warren G. Harding and former President William Howard Taft, however. Warren G. Harding later died in office.

[edit] Robert Lincoln and Edwin Booth

In an odd coincidence, Robert Lincoln was once saved from possible serious injury or death by Edwin Booth, brother of John Wilkes Booth. The incident took place on a train platform in Jersey City, New Jersey. The exact date of the incident is uncertain, but it is believed to have taken place in late 1864 or early 1865, shortly before John Wilkes Booth’s assassination of President Lincoln.

Robert Lincoln recalled the incident in a 1909 letter to Richard Watson Gilder, editor of The Century Magazine:

The incident occurred while a group of passengers were late at night purchasing their sleeping car places from the conductor who stood on the station platform at the entrance of the car. The platform was about the height of the car floor, and there was of course a narrow space between the platform and the car body. There was some crowding, and I happened to be pressed by it against the car body while waiting my turn. In this situation the train began to move, and by the motion I was twisted off my feet, and had dropped somewhat, with feet downward, into the open space, and was personally helpless, when my coat collar was vigorously seized and I was quickly pulled up and out to a secure footing on the platform. Upon turning to thank my rescuer I saw it was Edwin Booth, whose face was of course well known to me, and I expressed my gratitude to him, and in doing so, called him by name.

Months later, while serving as an officer on the staff of General Ulysses S. Grant, Robert Lincoln recalled the incident to his fellow officer, Colonel Adam Badeau, who happened to be a friend of Edwin Booth. Badeau sent a letter to Booth, complimenting the actor for his heroism. Before receiving the letter, Booth had been unaware that the man whose life he had saved on the train platform had been the President’s son. The incident was said to have been of some comfort to Edwin Booth following his brother’s assassination of the President.[17][18]

[edit] Republican politics

From 1884 to 1912, Lincoln’s name was mentioned in varying degrees of seriousness as a candidate for the Republican presidential or vice-presidential nomination. At every turn, he adamantly disavowed any interest in running and stated he would not accept either position if nominated.[19]

[edit] Death

Lincoln’s sarcophagus at Arlington National Cemetery

Robert Todd Lincoln died in his sleep at Hildene, his Vermont home, on July 26, 1926. He was 82. The cause of death was given by his physician as a “cerebral hemorrhage induced by arteriosclerosis“.[20]

He was later interred in Arlington National Cemetery[21] in a sarcophagus designed by the sculptor James Earle Fraser. He is buried with his wife Mary and their son Jack, who died of blood poisoning at the age of 16 in London, England.

Lincoln was the last surviving member of both the Garfield and Arthur Cabinets.

Of Robert’s children, Jessie Harlan Lincoln Beckwith (1875–1948) had two children, Mary Lincoln Beckwith (“Peggy” 1898 – 1975) and Robert (“Bud”) Todd Lincoln Beckwith (1904–1985), neither of whom had children of their own. Robert’s other daughter, Mary Todd Lincoln (“Mamie”) (1869–1938) married Charles Bradley Isham in 1891. They had one son, Lincoln Isham (1892–1971). Lincoln Isham married Leahalma Correa in 1919, but died without children.

The last person known to be of direct Lincoln lineage, Robert’s grandson “Bud” Beckwith, died in 1985.[22]

___________

Related posts:

More about the historical characters mentioned in the movie “Lincoln” by Steven Spielberg (Part 1)

13 September 2012 Photo by David James, SMPSP – © 2012 – DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC. All Rights Reserved. Titles: Lincoln Names: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Robert Lincoln Characters: Robert Todd Lincoln I have written a lot about Abraham Lincoln in the past as you can tell from the “related posts” noted below. Most of my […]

New movie about Abraham Lincoln (Part 4)

13 September 2012 Photo by David James, SMPSP – © 2012 – DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC. All Rights Reserved. Titles: Lincoln Names: Daniel Day-Lewis Characters: Abraham Lincoln I have written a lot about Abraham Lincoln in the past as you can tell from the “related posts” noted below. Most of my posts were concerning […]

New movie about Abraham Lincoln (Part 3)

8 August 2012 Photo by David James – © 2012 – DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC. All Rights Reserved. Titles: Lincoln Names: Daniel Day-Lewis Characters: Abraham Lincoln I have written a lot about Abraham Lincoln in the past as you can tell from the “related posts” noted below. Most of my posts were concerning the […]

New movie about Abraham Lincoln (Part 2)

13 September 2012 Photo by Film Frame – © 2012 – DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC. All Rights Reserved. Titles: Lincoln Names: Daniel Day-Lewis Characters: Abraham Lincoln I have written a lot about Abraham Lincoln in the past as you can tell from the “related posts” noted below. Most of my posts were concerning the […]

New movie about Abraham Lincoln (Part 1)

13 September 2012 Photo by David James, SMPSP – © 2012 – DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC. All Rights Reserved. Titles: Lincoln Names: Daniel Day-Lewis Characters: Abraham Lincoln Still of Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln I have written a lot about Abraham Lincoln in the past as you can tell from the “related posts” noted below. […]

Television interview of witness who saw Lincoln shot

  Pretty amazing video clip: Samuel J. Seymour, Last Surviving Witness Of Lincoln Assassination, Appears On Television In 1956 (VIDEO) Thanks to YouTube, this gem in American history has been preserved. In February 1956, two months before his death, 96-year-old Samuel J. Seymour appeared on the CBS television show “I’ve Got A Secret.” His secret: […]

 

Milton Friedman’s fight for the volunteer force versus the draft

Milton Friedman did not believe in the military draft and he argued against it.

Boudreaux: Milton Friedman, a centennial appreciation

Originally published: July 30, 2012 10:56 AM
Updated: July 30, 2012 12:15 PM
By DONALD J. BOUDREAUX, The Free Lance-Star

Milton Friedman, left, winner of the Nobel Prize

Photo credit: AP, 1978 | Milton Friedman, left, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, grips the hand of Sweden’s King Carl Gustaf as he receives his award in Stockholm.

At the height of the Vietnam War, U.S. commander Gen. William Westmoreland testified before the President’s Commission on an All-Volunteer Force. The 15 members of that commission were charged with exploring the feasibility of ending the military draft.

Staunchly opposed to an all-volunteer military, which must pay its soldiers market wages, Gen. Westmoreland proclaimed that he did not want to command “an army of mercenaries.” One of the commission members immediately shot back with a question: “General, would you rather command an army of slaves?” That penetrating query was posed by Milton Friedman, a diminutive (he stood only 5 feet 3 inches tall) giant among 20th-century scholars. Were he still alive – he died in 2006 – Friedman would celebrate his 100th birthday on July 31.

Bald and bespectacled, Friedman looked every part the University of Chicago economics professor that he was. During his long tenure at that celebrated institution, he produced a stream of cutting-edge research on consumer behavior, on the role of money, and on the history of U.S. and British monetary policy. The impressive quantity, quality, and importance of this research without doubt places Friedman among the top two or three economists of the past century.


MORE: Analysis and discussion from Viewsday | Newsday columnists | More opinion

CARTOONS: Walt Handelsman’s Cartoons | National Cartoon Roundup


Friedman, indeed, is one of the few scholars whose receipt of the Nobel Prize in Economics – which he received in 1976 – did at least as much to bestow prestige on that award as that award did to bestow prestige on him. (The first Nobel Prize in Economics wasn’t awarded until 1969.) Friedman’s stupendous scholarly achievements alone justify commemoration of the centenary of his birth.

But at least as important as Friedman’s scholarship was his lucid and energetic public advocacy of limited government and free markets. He explained with unmatched clarity how a modern economy’s complexities, nuances, and dynamism almost always thwart even the best-intentioned efforts by government officials to intervene into markets.

In a scene from the opening episode of his successful 10-part 1980 PBS series “Free to Choose,” Friedman held in his hand an ordinary pencil. Looking into the camera, and speaking without a script, he explained that a pencil – so seemingly simple – requires for its production the knowledge and labors of millions of people from around the world.

Some workers cut down the trees; other workers make the chainsaws used to cut down the trees; yet other workers make the steel used to manufacture the chainsaws; and yet other workers specialize in mining the iron ore used to make the steel. Still other workers mine the graphite to make the “lead” for the pencil, while many others work in factories to make the yellow paint that commonly adorns pencils, while still other workers perform the many tasks required to produce the rubber for each pencil’s eraser.

Just to list the number of different, highly specialized jobs that must be performed to produce a commonplace pencil would take volumes. Few of these workers know each other, and none of them knows how to do any more than one or two of the countless jobs that must be done if we are to be well-supplied with pencils.

Friedman explained how free-market prices, along with the lure of profit and the fear of loss, guide entrepreneurs, firms, and workers from across the globe to produce just the right amounts of wood, graphite, paint, erasers, and the many other parts of pencils.

No government commissars are involved. There’s no central plan for the production of pencils. Yet we have high-quality pencils in abundance and for sale at low prices. What’s true for pencils, of course, is true also for more complex items such as automobiles, electric lighting, MRI machines, and on and on – that is, for nearly every good commonly found in modern industrial society.

No one equaled Friedman’s skill at explaining how free markets succeed at coordinating the activities of legions of individuals to produce the goods and services that we today take for granted. Likewise, no one equaled his skill at explaining how government regulators are typically oblivious to the complexity of the coordination achieved by markets. Being oblivious, regulators’ interventions too often obstruct this market coordination.

Note that Friedman would heartily agree with President Obama that no one prospers in today’s economy exclusively through his or her own individual efforts. Where Friedman would disagree – and disagree strongly – is with Obama‘s suggestion that the main source of help that each of us gets from others is government. While government might supply some necessary pieces, such as highways and law courts, the vast bulk of what society supplies for each person’s sustenance and success comes not from government but from the ongoing private efforts of millions of individuals acting in free markets.

Friedman’s brilliant use of the pencil, like his reply to Gen. Westmoreland, reveals the great talent Friedman had for cutting to the heart of the matter in ways easily understood by almost everyone.

Revealing the awesome complexity of the humble pencil makes clear that no government regulators can ever hope to know enough about the entire economy to regulate it as well as it is regulated by free-market forces. Calling the military’s seizure of years of labor from young men “slavery” reveals the fact that draftees – like plantation slaves of old – are forced against their will to work for others and on terms dictated by others.

Friedman’s response to Gen. Westmoreland is evidence also of Friedman’s lifelong commitment to the cause of human freedom. Not only was conscription economically inefficient (as Friedman showed in academic research), it was also an affront to the values of a free society.

In a free society government is kept as small and as constrained as possible, charged with doing only those few tasks that are widely believed to be doable only by government – tasks such as building roads and supplying national defense. All other tasks are left to the creative forces of the free market. And in doing those few tasks, Friedman maintained, the freedom and dignity of every individual must always be respected.

Americans of my generation likely first encountered Friedman through his regular column in Newsweek, which ran from 1966 through 1984. Each of these essays cogently made the case for reducing the reach of government. In making this case, Friedman consistently defied conventional stereotypes. He was, he always insisted, not a conservative but, rather, a liberal – a true liberal, in the original meaning of that term.

Being a classical liberal, Friedman vigorously championed not only economic freedoms but also freedoms emphasized by many folks on the political left, such as freedom of speech and of assembly. It speaks volumes of Friedman’s principles that he, the owlish and dedicated scholar so beloved by many establishment conservatives for his support of free enterprise, was among the most vocal and unwavering opponents of the “war on drugs.” He insisted, with characteristic wit, that “the government has no more right to tell me what goes into my mouth than it has to tell me what comes out of my mouth.” Truly great men and women are rare. What they all share is the courage of their convictions, the wisdom to distinguish cant from reality, and enormous energy and ability in working to make the world a better place. Milton Friedman was one such genuinely great man.

Writer Donald J. Boudreaux is professor of economics at George Mason University and is author of “Hypocrites & Half-Wits.” His email address is dboudrea@gmu.edu. He wrote this for The Free Lance-Star newspaper of Fredericksburg, Va.