Yearly Archives: 2012

California has forgotten the lessons of Ronald Reagan

If our country is the grow the economy and get our budget balanced it will not be by raising taxes!!! The recipe for success was followed by Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s when he cut taxes and limited spending. As far as limiting spending goes only Bill Clinton (with his Republican Congress) were ability to control the growth of government better than Reagan.

I had the pleasure of hearing Arthur Laffer speak in 1981 and he predicted all the economic growth that we would see because of the Reagan tax cuts and he was right. Unfortunately in California today they have forgotten all of those lessons!!!

President Obama’s fiscal policy is a dismal mixture. On spending, he wants a European-style welfare state. On taxes, he is fixated on class-warfare tax policy.

If we want to know the consequences of that approach, we can look at the ongoing collapse of Greece. Or, if we don’t like overseas examples, we can look at California.

If the (formerly) Golden State is any example, it turns out that having high tax rates doesn’t necessarily translate into high tax revenues. Here’s a blurb from an editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal.

California Controller John Chiang reported last week that April tax collections were a gigantic 20.2%, or $2.44 billion, below 2012-13 budget projections. …Among the biggest surprises is a 21.5% or nearly $2 billion decline in personal income tax payments from what Governor Jerry Brown had anticipated. This reinforces the point that when states rely too heavily on the top 1% of taxpayers to pay the bills, fiscal policy is a roller coaster ride. California is suffering this tax drought even as most other states enjoy a revenue rebound. State tax collections were up nationally by 8.9% last year, according to the Census Bureau, and this year revenues are up by double digits in many states. The state comptroller reports that Texas is enjoying 10.9% growth in its sales taxes (it has no income tax), while California can’t seem to keep up despite one of the highest tax rates in the land.

The WSJ editorial suggests a supply-side response, but you won’t be surprised to learn that the state’s kleptomaniac governor is pushing an Obama-style soak-the-rich tax hike.

This would seem to suggest that California should try cutting tax rates to keep more people and business in the state, but Sacramento is intent on raising them again. Governor Brown and the public-employee unions are sponsoring a ballot initiative in November to raise the state sales tax by a quarter point to 7.5% and to raise the top marginal income-tax rate to 13.3% from 10.3%. This will make the state even more reliant on the fickle revenue streams provided by the rich. Meanwhile, an analysis by Joseph Vranich, who studies migration of businesses from one state to another, finds that since 2009 the flight of businesses out of California “has increased fivefold due to high taxes and regulatory costs.”

I’ll be very curious to see what happens this November when the people of California vote in the referendum. Will they be like the morons in Oregon, who approved a class-warfare tax hike? Or will they be like the voters of Switzerland and reject class warfare?

Sadly, I suspect Oregon will be their role model – even though that decision hurt the Beaver State’s economy.

But while voters can impose higher taxes, they can’t repeal the laws of economics. So if California voters do the wrong thing, they will learn a hard lesson about the Laffer Curve.

And then, as this cartoon demonstrates, they’ll learn the ultimate lesson about not biting the hand that you mooch from.

The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 1)

1 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

2 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American

Heritage Series / David Barton

4 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

5 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

__________________________________________

3 Of 3 / Faith Of The Founding Fathers / American Heritage Series / David Barton

__________________________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 1 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built.

___________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 2 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built.

___________________________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 3 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built.

___________________________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 4 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built.

______________________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 5 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built.

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life. WERE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS BELIEVERS IN CHRISTIANITY OR SECULAR HUMANISTS THEMSELVES?

I had a chance to take my kids to hear Ken Ham speak one time in Little Rock because I really respect him a lot. Evangelical leader Ken Ham rightly has noted, “Most of the founding fathers of this nation … built the worldview of this nation on the authority of the Word of God.”

Dr. Michael Davis of California has asserted that he has no doubts that our President is a professing Christian, but his policies are those of a secular humanist. I share these same views. However, our founding fathers were anything but secular humanists in their views. John Adams actually wrote in a letter, “There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost.”

David Barton has put together a great collection of quotes from the founding fathers about their faith in Christ:

The Founders As Christians

04/2006
(Note: this is a representative list only, there are many other quotes that could be listed)


Samuel Adams
Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.

Will of Samuel Adams


Charles Carroll
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.

From an autographed letter in our possession written by Charles Carroll to Charles W. Wharton, Esq., on September 27, 1825, from Doughoragen, Maryland.


William Cushing
First Associate Justice Appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court

Sensible of my mortality, but being of sound mind, after recommending my soul to Almighty God through the merits of my Redeemer and my body to the earth . . .

Will of William Cushing


John Dickinson
Signer of the Constitution

Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.

Will of John Dickinson


John Hancock
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I John Hancock, . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory-thanks be given to God-therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make and ordain this my last will and testament…Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I recommend to the earth . . . nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God. . .

Will of John Hancock


Patrick Henry
Governor of Virginia, Patriot

This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.

Will of Patrick Henry


1990 Cotton Bowl: Arkansas v. Tennessee

It was a very exciting game.

1990 Cotton Bowl — Tennessee 31, Arkansas 27

Posted on 03 January 2012

Editor’s Note: Arkansas will play in the Cotton Bowl for the 12th time when it meets Kansas State in Cowboys Stadium on Jan. 6. The bowl game has been an important part of Arkansas’ football history and, to mark this year’s trip, the Arkansas News Bureau will take a daily look back at its 11 appearances leading up to kickoff.

1990 Cotton Bowl — Tennessee 31, Arkansas 27

Arkansas made it back to the Cotton Bowl after another 10-1 regular season in 1989, marking the second time in school history the Hogs were playing in Dallas two consecutive years (joining the 1965 and 1966 games).

The Razorbacks — who were limited to 42 yards in the 1989 loss to UCLA — enjoyed much more offensive success  against Tennessee in their return, too. Arkansas piled up what were then Cotton Bowl records of 568 yards and 31 first downs, led by 100-yard rushing performances from James Rouse (134 yards) and Barry Foster (103 yards).

The problem: Tennessee and running back Chuck Webb enjoyed just as much success, piling up 470 yards. Webb led the Volunteers with 250 rushing yards and two touchdowns, including the game-breaking 78-yarder that give Tennessee a 31-13 lead in the third quarter.

It was enough to hold off Arkansas, which managed to score two fourth quarter touchdowns. The Razorbacks couldn’t complete the comeback and suffered their second straight loss in the Cotton Bowl.

The game also was the last for Arkansas coach Ken Hatfield, whose six-year tenure ended with two Cotton Bowl berths, three 10-win seasons, and six bowl games.

It would take Arkansas 10 more seasons — under three different coaches — to return to the Cotton Bowl.

_________

Sources: Arkansas and the Cotton Bowl

Don’t fear the Free Market like Obama wants you to

Michael Savage May 17 2012 hr 3 segment 3.wmv

Published on May 17, 2012 by

The Savage Nation

Savage guest Mark Calabria from the Cato Institute discusses J P Morgan in this segment.

www.cato.org

_________________

The free market works much better than federal officials do. Take a look at how how our money is managed every year by the federal government. The federal government has 2.1 trillion coming in and 3.6 trillion going out!! I sincerely hope the federal government will stay out of Wall Street business!!! TARP was a joke and it ended up with a government takeover of GM.

Mike Brownfield

May 15, 2012 at 8:55 am

The lingering headline on the front pages this week is that JP Morgan Chase suffered a massive loss on a hedging strategy, costing them $2 billion. That’s no small mistake, and it’s an example of how bad decisions in the free market can cost big money. But just because mistakes have consequences doesn’t mean that the mighty hand of government needs to step in to save us from ourselves. However, that’s what some on the left are now calling for.

The news of this blunder hit last week when JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon revealed that the bank took a $2 billion loss over the past six weeks in a strategy intended to hedge against risks to the bank’s assets that could come from market volatility caused by the Euro crisis. On Sunday’s Meet the Press, Dimon admitted, “In hindsight, we took far too much risk. The strategy we had was badly vetted. It was badly monitored. It should never have happened.”

The company is certainly paying the price in losses, as are those responsible for the bad decision making. The Los Angeles Times reports that the bank’s stock fell 12% since it disclosed the loss last week, the executive who oversaw the department responsible for the loss retired on Monday, and JP Morgan’s reputation as an extremely well managed bank has been damaged.

But does the flawed strategy and the resulting loss mean that Washington should step in with more regulation of Wall Street? Yesterday, White House press secretary Jay Carney used the news of JP Morgan’s loss to call for more regulations, remarking, “The president fought very hard against Republicans and Wall Street lobbyists to get Wall Street reform passed . . . I think that this event merely reinforces why the President was right to take on this fight and why we still need to make sure it’s implemented.”

Likewise, former Obama adviser Elizabeth Warren called for Dimon to resign from the New York Federal Reserve Board and slammed Wall Street. “What happened here is not just about JP Morgan case, it’s about the kind of attitudes, that the bank should be regulating themselves instead of having real oversight,” Warren said. “We have to say as a country, no, the banks cannot regulate themselves.”

What’s needed is some perspective, not more regulation from Washington. Heritage’s David C. John explains that while JP Morgan’s loss represents a clear failure of management, it’s not a systemic problem that requires or would be fixed by additional regulation. For starters, JP Morgan is a $2.3 trillion bank with a net worth of $189 billion, meaning that this loss reduced the bank’s capital ratio from 8.4 percent to 8.2 percent. In other words, the bank can absorb the loss, and it’s nowhere close to needing any form of federal intervention.

Some more perspective could be gleaned by examining the $3.2 billion loss the U.S. Post Office experienced in the most recent quarter, or the billions lost on risky green energy bets made by President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Only those losses weren’t incurred by private investors, but by you the taxpayer.

What’s more, John explains, the regulations that are now being called for — particularly the so-called Volcker Rule — would not have prevented the losses since it would not have affected this transaction. Finally, John writes, the system worked as is. “JPMorgan Chase losses were not discovered by regulators; they were discovered by the bank itself conducting its own management reviews.”

What America is witnessing is the left using the news of JP Morgan’s bad judgment as an excuse for more government regulation. But as even Carney acknowledged, regulations “can’t prevent bad decisions from being made on Wall Street.”

For all the wrangling over JP Morgan’s loss, John points out that the bank is still expected to make a healthy profit for all of 2012. Yes, it made a mistake, and yes, that mistake cost a lot of money. But risks, mistakes and costs are part of capitalism. They’re the price we pay for all the benefits that a free market affords us.

Open letter to President Obama (Part 84.3)

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

Great post from Dan Mitchell:

This image really captures the essence of the issue. Share this with your statist friends and maybe they’ll begin to understand.

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 84.2)

__________

Milton Friedman – Socialized Medicine at Mayo Clinic in 1978

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

It seems that government was in control of the desert then we would have a shortage of sand as Milton Friedman used to quip and that is why I am so against Obamacare.

Alyene Senger

March 28, 2012 at 5:15 pm

It has been two years since Obamacare was signed into law, and although the major provisions don’t begin until 2014, some have already been implemented. The parts of the law already in effect were thought by its proponents to be its most popular, but as detailed in Heritage’s “The Obamacare Two-Year Checkup: More Reasons for Repeal,” the law is already proving ineffective in some cases and harmful in others. Here are some of the biggest failures of Obamacare highlighted by the paper:

  • The disappearance of child-only policies. Obamacare requires insurers who sell child-only plans to accept all applicants regardless of health condition. This allows parents to wait until their children are sick to enroll them in health plans. Two years later, one survey found that “17 states indicated that no insurers were selling child-only policies to new enrollees, and 39 states responded that at least one insurer exited the child-only market since the new law took effect.”
  • “Free” preventive services cost Americans. Obamacare requires coverage of certain preventive services with no cost-sharing for the individual. Two years later, the list includes abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and other contraceptives as mandated coverage—even for many religious organizations. Heritage analysts report, “This created an outcry from members of many faiths who feel this decision is an attack on religious freedom and their ability to serve communities across the country.”
  • A failing small business tax credit. Obamacare provides a temporary tax credit to small employers as an incentive for them to offer health insurance to their employees. Two years later, the IRS reports that only 7 percent of the originally estimated 4.4 million eligible small businesses have claimed the credit.
  • A broke program for early retirees. Obamacare established a temporary reinsurance program from May 2010 to January 2014 to pay a portion of companies’ costs to insure early retirees between the ages of 55 and 65. Two years later, the program ran out of money almost three years early and is no longer accepting additional applications. As Heritage analysts explain, the program “clearly shifts the costs of paying for unsustainable promises made to public and private employees to federal taxpayers and further underscores how the true cost of implementing the health care law exceeds original estimates.”
  • Low enrollment in high-risk pools. Obamacare creates high-risk pools for individuals with pre-existing conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months to purchase insurance. Two years later, using the Administration’s own numbers, enrollment in the high-risk pools remains low: only 13 percent of initial estimates. Heritage analysts point out, “At the same time, medical-claims costs have been 2.5 times higher than initially projected, and the high-risk pools may still exhaust or exceed the available funding, even though they serve such a small portion of those they were intended to help.”
  • A damaging medical loss ratio (MLR). Obamacare requires insurers to spend 80 percent (85 percent for large group plans) of premium revenue on medical claims or quality improvement. Two years later, Heritage analysts point out, “Seventeen states applied for the MLR waivers, arguing that the regulations would destabilize their markets.” The Administration has granted a full waiver to only one state; six received a partial waiver, and 10 requests were rejected. Some insurers have already left the market because of the requirement, and the strict medical loss ratio threatens the existence of health savings accounts, which are used by 11 million Americans.
  • An unsustainable new entitlement. Obamacare created the CLASS Act, a government-run long-term care insurance program. Two years later, the Administration has declared the CLASS program unsustainable and halted its implementation. Heritage analysts report, “On February 1, 2012, the House of Representatives voted 267 (including 28 Democrats) to 159 to repeal the troubled CLASS program, and it now awaits consideration by the U.S. Senate.”

To read about all of the consequences of Obamacare chronicled in “The Obamacare Two-Year Checkup: More Reasons for Repeal,” click here.

______________

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

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? ( Thirsty Thursday, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor,

Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).

On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

You asked for ideas to cut spending, but you voted for the 800 billion dollar stimulus that did not help the economy at all. I have included an article below that makes a very good point about the Balanced Budget Amendment and the stimulus:

Lee believes there are several key components to a balanced budget amendment which he outlines in his book, including making tax increases contingent on a two-thirds vote in Congress so that the option to increase taxes is not the default maneuver to balance a budget. He believes the amendment should require Congress spends no more than it takes in, and in fact should cap the spending at a fixed percent of GDP (the proposal submitted in the Senate caps it at 18 percent of GDP, just about the historical average). There would also be a supermajority vote required to raise the debt ceiling.

And for those who argue that stimulus packages wouldn’t have been possible under the amendment, Lee sees little difficulty responding.

“That’s exibit A for why we ought to have it,” Lee said of the Obama stimulus package.

That is a very good point in favor of having a balanced budget amendment in my view. I have been critical of you for supporting the stimulus in the past.

Thank you again for your time and for this opportunity to share my ideas with you.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher

Lee Makes His Case for a Balanced Budget Amendment

By Elisabeth Meinecke

7/18/2011

As Washington spends the summer arguing over its spending addiction, GOP Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has a solution to help prevent the same crisis for future generations: a balanced budget amendment.

The House made news last week when, in the heat of negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, they announced a vote on a balanced budget amendment this Wednesday. Though the Senate GOP introduced a one earlier this year, President Obama has stated emphatically otherwise, telling Americans last week during a press conference that the country does not need a balanced budget amendment.

“Yes, we do,” Lee told Townhall when asked to respond to the president, adding later when talking about simultaneously raising the debt ceiling and cutting spending, “We can’t bind what a future Congress will do. We can pass laws that will affect this year, but there will be a new Congress that takes power in January of 2013, and then another new one that will take power in January 2015. And they will make their own spending decisions then — we can’t bind them unless we amend the Constitution to do so.”

Lee points out that the American people support the idea of a balanced budget – 65 percent, according to a Sachs/Mason Dixon poll from this year – but politicians have been reluctant to wade into the debate.

“The fact that we’re in this debate, the fact that we’re sort of deadlocked, or we’ve reached a point of gridlock in the discussions, is indicative of the problem that we have,” Lee said.

In fact, Lee thinks a balanced budget amendment is so important to the future of the country that he’s written a book on it: The Freedom Agenda: Why a Balanced Budget Amendment Is Necessary to Restore Constitutional Government.

Lee even takes the argument a step beyond fiscal issues, saying a balanced budget amendment safeguards individual liberties.

““The more money it [Congress] has access to, whether it’s through borrowing or through taxation, either way, that’s going to fuel Congress’ expansion, and whenever government acts, it does so at the expanse of individual liberty,” Lee said. “We become less free every time government expands.”

Lee believes there are several key components to a balanced budget amendment which he outlines in his book, including making tax increases contingent on a two-thirds vote in Congress so that the option to increase taxes is not the default maneuver to balance a budget. He believes the amendment should require Congress spends no more than it takes in, and in fact should cap the spending at a fixed percent of GDP (the proposal submitted in the Senate caps it at 18 percent of GDP, just about the historical average). There would also be a supermajority vote required to raise the debt ceiling.

And for those who argue that stimulus packages wouldn’t have been possible under the amendment, Lee sees little difficulty responding.

“That’s exibit A for why we ought to have it,” Lee said of the Obama stimulus package.

Lee also pointed out that his balanced budget amendment includes an exception to the spending restriction in time of war – “not a blank check, but to the extent necessary.” Congress would also be able to supersede the amendment with a two-thirds vote.

“We wanted to make it difficult, but not impossible, for Congress to spend more than it had access to,” Lee said, citing as an example a massive or immediate crisis created by a national emergency or natural disaster. “What this is designed to do is to make it more difficult – to make it impossible – for Congress to just do this as a matter of course.”

Elisabeth Meinecke

Elisabeth Meinecke is Associate Editor with Townhall.com

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)

The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6

Uploaded by  on Aug 30, 2010

I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s 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.”

This is a review I did a few years ago.

THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. New York: Random House, 1995. 457 pages, extensive references, index. Hardcover; $25.95.
PSCF 48 (December 1996): 263.
Sagan is the David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences at Cornell University. He is author of many best sellers, including Cosmos, which became the most widely read science book ever published in the English language.
In this book Sagan discusses the claims of the paranormal and fringe-science. For instance, he examines closely such issues as astrology (p. 303), crop circles (p. 75), channelers (pp. 203-206), UFO abductees (pp. 185-186), faith-healing fakes (p. 229), and witch-hunting (p. 119). Readers of The Skeptical Inquirer will notice that Sagan’s approach is very similar.
Sagan writes:
The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal is an organization of scientists, academics, magicians, and others dedicated to skeptical scrutiny of emerging or full-blown pseudo-sciences. It was founded by the University of Buffalo philosopher Paul Kurtz in 1976. I’ve been affiliated with it since its beginning. Its acronym, CSICOP, is pronounced Asci-cop C as if it’s an organization of scientists performing a police function Y CSICOP publishes a bimonthly periodical called AThe Skeptical Inquirer. On the day it arrives, I take it home from the office and pore through its pages, wondering what new misunderstandings will be revealed (p. 299).
Sagan points out that in 1991 two pranksters in England admitted that they had been making crop figures for 15 years. They flattened the wheat with a heavy steel bar. Later on they used planks and ropes, but the media paid brief attention to the confession of these hoaxers. Why? Sagan concludes, ‘Demons sell; hoaxers are boring and in bad taste’ (p. 76).
Christians must admire Sagan’s commitment to critical thinking, logic, and freedom of thought. He takes on many subjects in this book, and the vast majority of his analysis is exceptional. However, his opinions on religious matters are affected by his devotion to scientism. Sagan believes only that which can be proved by science is true. He disputes psychologist Charles Tart’s assertion that scientism is ‘dehumanizing, despiritualizing’ (p. 267). Sagan comments, ‘There is very little doubt that, in the everyday world, matter (and energy) exist. The evidence is all around us. In contrast, as I’ve mentioned earlier the evidence for something non-material called `spirit’ or `soul’ is very much in doubt’ (p. 267).
Science can only prove things about the physical world, and it cannot prove anything about the spiritual world. Does that mean that the mind and soul don’t exist? Of course not! First, we must realize that science is not the only way to truth. Even Sagan must admit that he must justify values like ‘be objective’ or ‘report data honestly’. Where do those values come from? They came from outside science, but they must be in place for science to work.
Sagan gives an illustration that contrasts physics and metaphysics. He shows that the physicist’s idea will have to be discarded if tests fail in the laboratory. Therefore, the main difference between physics and metaphysics is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory. This is a cute story, but can science answer the basic questions that underline all knowledge? Metaphysics is necessary for science to take place. It is not true that science is superior to metaphysics like Sagan would have us believe. The presuppositions of science can only be validated by philosophy. J. P. Moreland has correctly said, ‘The validation of science is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, and any claim to the contrary will be a self-refuting philosophical claim’ (Scaling the Secular City, p. 197).
Second, the absence of scientific evidence for the soul does not mean the soul does not exist. Sagan himself states,’Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ (p. 213).
I was impressed with the way Sagan put his inner thoughts on the table. For instance, he comments, ‘Plainly, there’s something within me that’s ready to believe in life after death…If some good evidence for life after death was announced, I’d be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real scientific data, not mere anecdote’ (pp. 203-204). What kind of evidence is Sagan looking for? It certainly is not vague prophecies. He states, ‘Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy…Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs…Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? (p. 30). The answer to that question is yes. Christianity can point to very clear passages such as Isaiah 53 and Daniel 11 written hundreds of years before the events occurred.
While comparing science to religion, Sagan comments, ‘Science is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge. It’s just the best we have (pp. 27-28). Here Sagan is only half right. Science is imperfect, but it is not better than the Bible.’
The Demon-Haunted Worldis a thought-provoking book that I thoroughly enjoyed. Some of Sagan’s anti-Christian views come through, but on the whole, this book uses critical thinking and logic and applies them to the claims of the paranormal and fringe-science of our day.
Reviewed by Everette Hatcher III, P.O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221.

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 […]

Dan Mitchell demonstrates again that spending is our problem but it can be solved

Sometimes it appears that our problems are impossible to solve. Take a look at a good solution:

New Congressional Budget Office Numbers Once Again Show that Modest Spending Restraint Would Eliminate Red Ink

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Back in 2010, I crunched the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office and reported that the budget could be balanced in just 10 years if politicians exercised a modicum of fiscal discipline and limited annual spending increases to about two percent yearly.

When CBO issued new numbers early last year, I repeated the exercise and again found that the same modest level of budgetary restraint would eliminate red ink in about 10 years.

And when CBO issued their update last summer, I did the same thing and once again confirmed that deficits would disappear in a decade if politicians didn’t let the overall budget rise by faster than two percent each year.

Well, the new CBO 10-year forecast was released this morning. I’m going to give you three guesses about what I discovered when I looked at the numbers, and the first two don’t count.

Yes, you guessed it. As the chart illustrates (click to enlarge), balancing the budget doesn’t require any tax increases. Nor does it require big spending cuts (though that would be a very good idea).

Even if we assume that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent, all that is needed is for politicians to put government on a modest diet so that overall spending grows by about two percent each year. In other words, make sure the budget doesn’t grow faster than inflation.

Tens of millions of households and businesses manage to meet this simple test every year. Surely it’s not asking too much to get the same minimum level of fiscal restraint from the crowd in Washington, right?

At this point, you may be asking yourself whether it’s really this simple. After all, you’ve probably heard politicians and journalists say that deficits are so big that we have no choice but to accept big tax increases and “draconian” spending cuts.

But that’s because politicians use dishonest Washington budget math. They begin each fiscal year by assuming that spending automatically will increase based on factors such as inflation, demographics, and previously legislated program changes.

This creates a “baseline,” and if they enact a budget that increases spending by less than the baseline, that increase magically becomes a cut. This is what allowed some politicians to say that last year’s Ryan budget cut spending by trillions of dollars even though spending actually would have increased by an average of 2.8 percent each year.

Needless to say, proponents of big government deliberately use dishonest budget math because it tilts the playing field in favor of bigger government and higher taxes.

There are two important caveats about these calculations.

1. We should be dramatically downsizing the federal government, not just restraining its growth. Even if he’s not your preferred presidential candidate, Ron Paul’s proposal for an immediate $1 trillion reduction in the burden of federal spending is a very good idea. Merely limiting the growth of spending is a tiny and timid step in the right direction.

2. We should be focusing on the underlying problem of excessive government, not the symptom of too much red ink. By pointing out the amount of spending restraint that would balance the budget, some people will incorrectly conclude that getting rid of deficits is the goal.

Last but not least, here is the video I narrated in 2010 showing how red ink would quickly disappear if politicians curtailed their profligacy and restrained spending growth.

___________________________

Other than updating the numbers, the video is just as accurate today as it was back in 2010. And the concluding message—that there is no good argument for tax increases—also is equally relevant today.

P.S. Some people will argue that it’s impossible to restrain spending because of entitlement programs, but this set of videos shows how to reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

P.P.S. Some people will say that the CBO baseline is unrealistic because it assumes the sequester will take place. They may be right if they’re predicting politicians are too irresponsible and profligate to accept about $100 billion of annual reductions from a $4,000 billion-plus budget, but that underscores the core message that there needs to be a cap on total spending so that the crowd in Washington isn’t allowed to turn America into Greece.

National Championship denied: Tennessee Vols miracle comeback in 1998 killed Razorbacks chance in November to pursue title

University of tennessee football Coach Phillip Fulmer signals for a time out during an October 9, 1993 game against Arkansas.

Photo by HEATHER STONE/KNOXVILLE NEWS SENTINEL

University of tennessee football Coach Phillip Fulmer signals for a time out during an October 9, 1993 game against Arkansas.

I will never forget this game as long as I live. What a sad way for a great game to end for my razorbacks.

Tennessee Volunteers’ 1998 National Championship: Part VII

By

(Senior Analyst) on July 10, 2008

904 reads

6

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse more storiesNext

Clint_stoerner_3_crop_340x234

 

(Note: Updated from an original piece on The 50 Best Vol Games 1989-2005 at SouthEastern Sports Blog, September 7, 2006)

“Oh my goodness, he stumbled and fumbled!”

On November 7, 1998, No. 2 Tennessee was finishing off UAB 37-13 in the fourth quarter when one of those special moments happened in Neyland Stadium.

Those on hand that day with radios or portable TVs were tuned in to the waning moments of No. 1 Ohio State and Michigan State.  As Tennessee’s game ended with around two minutes to play in the Big Ten showdown, no one left their seats as Neyland Stadium PA announcer Bobby Denton began to relay the events from up north.

And when Ohio State was intercepted on their final drive, the celebration began:

The Vols would be the new No. 1 team in the nation. 

Tennessee, after a season of memorable performances against Syracuse, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, had arrived.

Several hundred miles west in Fayetteville, a young head coach named Houston Nutt was in the midst of his first season.  Danny Ford had been to one bowl game in five years, and the Hogs were coming off consecutive 4-7 seasons when Nutt took over.  Expectations were moderate, but that all changed on September 26.

No. 22 Alabama came into Fayetteville and left on the business end of a 42-6 beatdown.  From that point, Arkansas kept grinding it out and slowly rising in the polls.

They beat Kentucky and Tim Couch 27-20.  On October 31 they went to Auburn and won 24-21.  And after beating Ole Miss the next week, Arkansas was 8-0.

They were disrespected: Only four undefeated teams remained on November 14, but Arkansas was still ranked only 10th.  But a chance for instant credibility was coming in a trip to Knoxville.

Tennessee was not worried—the Vols had seen their share of great teams already in 1998, and the thought was that Arkansas was simply untested.

On a rainy, misty fall afternoon from Neyland Stadium, the Vols ran through the T for the first time as the No. 1 team in the nation since the 1950s.  All was right on Rocky Top.

Arkansas brought their faithful en masse, as a crowd of 106,000-plus was on hand.  The Hogs were very much alive and well in the BCS hunt, and this was a rare SEC showdown—the latest two undefeated SEC teams had met in the season in almost 30 years. 

But we weren’t worried.

Legendary Vol Network radio man John Ward had it right in the pregame:

“Everything…everything…is riding on this football game.”

In the last fifteen years, there have been some incredible individual performances put up against the Tennessee defense.  There have been quarterbacks—most notably Danny Wuerffel—who have lit up the Vol secondary.

There have been running backs—most notably Georgia’s Robert Edwards in 1995 (15 carries for 155 yards when he broke his leg in the third quarter)—who have torched the Vol defense.

And Tennessee has played against some great wide receivers—David Palmer, Hines Ward, any Florida Gator you want to name from the mid-’90s, Terry Glenn, Eric Moulds, and yes, Peter Warrick.

But on this afternoon, Arkansas WR Anthony Lucas would stand alone.  And it’s not close.

It started with a long bomb to Lucas on the game’s opening drive, which Arkansas would convert into a touchdown.  But where it got real was on the first play of the second quarter, when Arkansas QB Clint Stoerner went down the sideline, and Lucas made Vol corner Dwayne Goodrich look bad.  Real bad.

62 yards later, the Hogs were up 14-0—and Lucas looked unstoppable.

Tennessee battled their way to a field goal to cut the lead to 14-3 midway through the second quarter.  But here came Arkansas again.  When Stoerner found Lucas in the end zone again, Arkansas led 21-3 with 3:15 left in the first half.

We all know about the end of this game, and we’ll get to that.  But let’s not forget everything else that happened before it.

The Vols were in deep, deep trouble at this point, because it looked like we had no answers.

You’ve got to understand—after the Vols gave up 33 points to Donovan McNabb and Syracuse, the defense was unrelenting.  Florida’s high-powered offense got 17.  Auburn got nine.  Georgia got three.  Alabama and Shaun Alexander got 18.

Arkansas had 21 before halftime, and they made it look insanely easy.  The fans who weren’t worried were now full of fear.

It’s interesting to note that those who were buying into the “team of destiny” deal at this point may not have been worried in the fourth quarter…but they were chewing fingernails and taking smoke breaks late in the second.  Everybody was.

So one of the biggest plays in the game and the season was when Tee Martin—who struggled all day and finished 10 of 27 for 155 yards—gave the Vols something to think about by rolling out, barely escaping pressure, and firing a teardrop to Peerless Price from 36 yards away for the score just before the half to make it 21-10 going into the locker room.

All the thoughts of “We’ll come out of the locker room and kill them” were answered by more Anthony Lucas and a 33-yard field goal on Arkansas’ first drive of the second half.  Anthony Lucas would finish the day with eight catches for 172 yards and two TDs.  Against the No. 1 team in the country.

Those stats, against the ’98 Vol defense on that stage, make it the most impressive performance by a wide receiver against the Vols that I’ve ever seen, no debate.

Down 24-10 with 11:43 still to play in the third quarter, the march began.

Travis Henry and the offensive line began to push the Arkansas defense back.  When Tee Martin rolled out and kept it himself for a four-yard touchdown, the game was back within reach at 24-17 with half of the third quarter left to play.

Jeff Hall would add to the score, and as the game went to the fourth quarter, Arkansas’ lead was down to 24-20.  We had ourselves a real ballgame now.

But then Arkansas came to life again.  After a series of punts, the Hogs drove to the Tennessee 16 with under six minutes to play.  If Arkansas found the end zone again, it would build a two-possession lead, and with more than half of the fourth quarter gone, it seemed unlikely the Vols would dig out of such a hole. 

But the defense held, setting up a field goal attempt.  Then a rare moment unfolded, where the orange representatives of the 106,000-plus were all screaming, “BLOCK THAT KICK! BLOCK THAT KICK!”…and it actually happened.

The Vols got all of it, rejecting the ball back and allowing Al Wilson to return it 50 yards to the Arkansas 28. 

From this point on, sitting there dry under the overhang in section Z11, I felt like we would win.  Even with what happened later, after seeing all I’d seen so far in ’98, and seeing us keep them out of the end zone on that drive and then block that kick on command from the crowd, I wasn’t worried—even when I should have been.  I think lots of Vol fans reacted that way.

But the realists among us would’ve been uncomfortable to see the Vols unable to score any points off the blocked kick, getting pushed back and choosing to punt.

David Leaverton, however, pinned the Hogs at the one-yard line.  Arkansas avoided a safety for three plays, then lined up to punt.  The snap went sailing over the punter’s head, who kicked the ball (which is illegal) out of the end zone for a safety.

24-22, 2:56 to play, and Tennessee had the ball.  A field goal would win.

Tennessee got one first down to move into Arkansas territory following the free kick, and after Travis Henry ran for one yard on first down, Tee Martin threw an incomplete pass.

Then he threw another incomplete pass.  And suddenly it was 4th-and-9.

Ward: “Last chance, probably.”

And you knew—with under 2:00 to play—that this was crucial.

So when Martin’s pass to Peerless Price was broken up over the middle, the Arkansas faithful went berserk, and the Vols were left with a horribly empty feeling.

Because it wasn’t supposed to be like this.

Maybe the reason I wasn’t worried is because I didn’t have enough time to process it.

The Vols had two timeouts, and thus Arkansas needed one first down to seal it.

Even if Tennessee stopped Arkansas three-and-out, they’d get the ball with just under a minute to play, with no timeouts, in terrible field position.

But we were still in it.  Remember, Arkansas wasn’t trying to take a knee—they needed the first down.

Tennessee called a timeout after a first down run for a short gain, and on second down Arkansas lined up under center.

Ward: “This will be a major upset victory for Arkansas.”

Now, I love me some John Ward.  But if you really want to appreciate what comes next, you need to find the CBS feed and get Sean McDonough’s call:

“Stoerner LOST THE FOOTBALL!!!  Oh my goodness, he stumbled and fumbled!!  And Billy Ratliff recovers!”

Some call it luck.  Some like destiny.  Some say Stoerner was careless.  Others say Ratliff and Darwin Walker got such a push that they drove the center’s leg into Stoerner and created disaster.

Either way, Stoerner lost his balance off the snap and reached down to try and brace himself.  And he left the ball behind.

No matter how you slice it, Tennessee came up with it—and the 1998 season had its lasting image.

Stoerner would later say, “I just lost it.  I don’t know what happened.”

Houston Nutt: “I hate to lose one like that.  I’ve never lost one like that.”

The opening line on the AP story from the game reads, “The name Clint Stoerner will live forever in Tennessee lore and Arkansas infamy.”

And though Stoerner would clear his name the following season by beating the then-No. 2 Vols 365 days later, on this night, he played a definitive role in the National Championship.

Still…the deed wasn’t done.

I’ve heard all kinds of stories from my friends and other Vol fans about fights breaking out in the Neyland Stadium concourse because so many people tried to leave after Martin’s incompletion, but they didn’t get out of the stadium before Stoerner’s fumble, and everyone was trying to get back to their seats in violent fashion.  This is why you never leave early.

While anger and emotion swelled on the concourse, the look on the faces of the Arkansas faithful in the stands was more subdued.  Our season tickets are just above the visiting team allotment, and you could see it in their eyes: “Uh-oh.”

And the Arkansas defense was wearing the same expression when they came back on the field.  And that, combined with the Vol offensive line and Travis Henry, was trouble.

From the 43-yard line—still looking at a 60-yard field goal—Tennessee decided they’d had enough of passing.  They were coming right at you.  And so first it was Henry, breaking four tackles and getting 15 yards on first down.  Ball at the 28.

Then it was Henry again, 15 more yards on the very next play through one of the biggest holes I’ve ever seen.  In three plays, Arkansas had gone from sure victory on offense to having to play red zone defense.

And suddenly, we weren’t thinking about kicking field goals.

Third time’s the charm, right?  Well, this time Henry went for only 11 yards, down to the two.  

43 yards away with only a minute and a half on the clock, down four with only one timeout remaining—and who runs the ball up the middle three straight times?  Travis Henry, to the tune of three carries for 41 yards.  Unbelievable.

They did stop him on the next play at the one, but with the clock at :31 and only on second down, you knew what was coming.  Now you can switch the audio back to John Ward:

“They need to go to Henry…this will be Henry, he dives…GIVE…HIM…SIX!!!!”

Tennessee 28 – Arkansas 24.

That look on the Arkansas fans’ faces after the game?  I’ve seen it before.  Not at that time, but I’ve worn it myself since. 

It has many names in the SEC.  Tennessee fans call it The Jabar Gaffney Face, from his catch/no catch in the final seconds against Florida in 2000.  Or The David Greene Face from his final drive in Knoxville the following year.

Florida fans had broken in The Collins Cooper Face earlier in the 1998 season, but we were all too busy to notice because we hated them so much.

And on this night, Arkansas was introducing themselves to The Clint Stoerner Face.

It’s that look of nothingness.  When you were so sure you had the game won, beyond any shadow of a doubt, and you were in massive celebration mode…and then somehow, inexplicably, it was all taken away from you in rapid, heartbreaking fashion.

If you ever see an aerial shot of a stadium when a team is kicking a game-winning field goal, watch both sets of fans.  If the kick is good, those thousands of people on the winning side look like ants marching, an ocean of movement and sound and joy.

But it’s always the exact opposite from the other side—no movement, no sound, no anger…they just stand there and stare off into the distance, in search of answers, because what they just saw couldn’t really be true.

I’m always a fan of that face when I’m not wearing it.

Arkansas wore that face for a full 90 seconds of game action, between Stoerner’s fumble and Henry’s eventual touchdown to win it, and then for several more minutes before they could walk away. 

The one thing that made you not feel sorry for them was that we thought we’d see these guys again in the SEC Championship Game in three weeks.

When you win a game in such once-in-a-lifetime fashion, you really don’t want to see the same team again on a neutral field with even more on the line only three weeks after you got away with one. 

But then Arkansas was still feeling this one the very next week, and Mississippi State got the best of them.  Suddenly Arkansas had gone from BCS contender to second in the SEC West—and the Pigs would have to wait ’til next year. 

So this game, this night, lives on…. I didn’t appreciate this game in the moment or walking out of the stadium—it felt like it was our year, and as such sometimes you take things for granted.

It wasn’t until the next day or so.  You had to really step away from it, to see that this wasn’t just another “we pulled it out late” game.  This was a classic in its own right that became the resonating moment from the 1998 season.

And for me, considering what was on the line?  I like destiny.