Yearly Archives: 2012

Lleyton Hewitt “Tennis Tuesday”

May 22, 2012 – 7:03 am

Uploaded by on Sep 16, 2011

Lleyton Hewitt and Roger Federer speak to the media following Federer’s win in the second rubber.

_________________________

Wikipedia noted:

Lleyton Glynn Hewitt (play /ˈleɪtən ˈhjuːɨt/;[2] born 24 February 1981) is an Australian professional tennis player and former world no. 1.

In 2000, Hewitt had won ATP titles on all three major surfaces (hard, clay and grass) and reached one final on carpet. By 2001, he became the youngest male ever to be ranked no. 1 at the age of 20. His career achievements include winning the 2000 US Open men’s doubles, the 2001 US Open and 2002 Wimbledon men’s singles, and back-to-back Tennis Masters Cup titles (2001 and 2002). In 2005, TENNIS Magazine put Hewitt in 34th place on its list of the 40 greatest tennis players since 1965.[3]

[edit] 2001

Hewitt started off the 2001 season well by winning the Medibank International in Sydney, and went on to win tournaments in London (Queen’s Club) and ‘s-Hertogenbosch. He captured his first Grand Slam singles title at the US Open in 2001, when he beat former world no. 1 Yevgeny Kafelnikov in the semifinals and defeated then-four-time champion Pete Sampras the next day in straight sets. This win made Hewitt, Pat Rafter, and Kafelnikov the only active ATP players to win a Grand Slam singles and doubles title during their career. Hewitt is still the last player to achieve this feat. Lleyton went on to win the Tokyo Open and again qualify for the year-end Tennis Masters Cup held in Sydney. During the tournament, Hewitt won all matches in his group, before defeating Sébastien Grosjean, 6–3, 6–3, 6–4, in the finals to take the title and gain the world no. 1 ranking.

Hewitt won a total of six titles in 2001.

[edit] 2002

The year 2002 was once again a solid year for Hewitt, winning three titles in San Jose, Indian Wells and London (Queen’s Club). He followed his 2001 US Open win by capturing the Wimbledon singles title, dominating first-time finalist David Nalbandian in straight sets; Hewitt lost only two sets throughout the championship. His victory reinforced the idea that, although the tournament had tended to be dominated by serve-and-volleyers, a baseliner could still triumph on grass (Hewitt was the first ‘baseliner’ to win the tournament since Agassi in 1992). Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, who are also baseliners, won all titles between them from 2003 to 2010, with Novak Djokovic, also a baseliner, winning the tournament in 2011.

For his third straight year, He qualified for the year-end Tennis Masters Cup held in Shanghai and successfully defended his title by defeating Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final, 7–5, 7–5, 2–6, 2–6, 6–4. Hewitt’s win helped him finish the year as world no. 1 for a second straight year.

Lleyton Hewitt
Country  Australia
Residence Adelaide, South Australia
Sydney, New South Wales
Nassau, Bahamas[1]
Born 24 February 1981 (1981-02-24) (age 30)
Adelaide, South Australia
Height 1.78 m (5 ft 10 in)
Weight 77 kg (170 lb; 12.1 st)
Turned pro 1998
Plays Right-handed (two-handed backhand)
Career prize money US$19,001,021
Singles
Career record 546–197 (68.85%) (Grand Slam, ATP Tour level, and Davis Cup)
Career titles 29
Highest ranking No. 1 (19 November 2001)
Current ranking No. 131 (30 January 2012)
Grand Slam results
Australian Open F (2005)
French Open QF (2001, 2004)
Wimbledon W (2002)
US Open W (2001)
Other tournaments
Tour Finals W (2001, 2002)
Olympic Games 2R (2008)
Doubles
Career record 85–58 (Grand Slam, ATP Tour level, and Davis Cup)
Career titles 2
Highest ranking No. 18 (23 October 2000)
Grand Slam Doubles results
Australian Open 3R (1998, 2000)
French Open 2R (1999)
Wimbledon 3R (2000)
US Open W (2000)
Last updated on: 2 August 2010.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

An open letter to President Obama (Part 84, A response to your budget)

May 22, 2012 – 6:34 am

1,000 Days Without A Budget

Uploaded by on Jan 24, 2012

http://blog.heritage.org | Today marks the 1,000th day since the United States Senate has passed a budget. While the House has put forth (and passed) its own budget, the Senate has failed to do the same. To help illustrate how extraordinary this failure has been, our new video highlights a few of impressive feats in history that have been accomplished in less time.

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.

I wish our federal government would lower spending from 25% of GDP to less than 10% of GDP where it had been the first 150 years of our country’s life. Take a look at this article below from the Heritage Foundation.

Debt Limit Increases to Nearly $16.4 Trillion

Emily Goff

January 27, 2012 at 4:32 pm

At the close of business, the federal government’s debt limit will increase by another $1.2 trillion, the final installment in a series of hikes that started last summer.

This last increase, from $15.194 trillion to $16.394 trillion, was essentially granted in the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, passed August 2 at the culmination of the debt limit debate. Last week, the House rejected the debt limit increase in a resolution of disapproval, but the Senate blocked that legislation. The BCA states that unless both legislative bodies agree to reject the scheduled increase and no Presidential veto follows, then the increase will go into effect.

So this was expected. Yet now more than ever, Congress has work to do. It must make tough decisions to steer the nation in a new, fiscally responsible direction.

Though some question the value of debt ceiling votes, they are a useful exercise, as they force Congress to confront the consequences of reckless spending, which would be lost if the limit increased automatically. This check on the nation’s level of borrowing therefore serves an important, albeit painful, function. As The Heritage Foundation’s J. D. Foster describes the situation:

A change of course in federal spending is inevitable. The question is whether it will be orderly, beneficial change brought by design or disorderly, harmful change brought by disaster. Reaching the debt limit provides the critical moment to force the necessary action to reduce spending and borrowing.

This most recent increase of $1.2 trillion is practically automatic, taking the pressure off of Congress at a time when it should be taking steps to swiftly rein in runaway federal spending.

There is a lot to do to get the nation’s fiscal house in order. Before the ink on the BCA was dry last August, Heritage President Edwin Feulner spelled out Congress’s charge: come up with solutions that “drive spending down toward a balanced budget, reduce the share of the economy devoted to public debt, preserve America’s ability to protect the nation, and shift to a job-creating tax system without raising taxes.” This is Congress’s crucial job this year.

Other than insisting that the rich pay their “fair share,” which The Heritage Foundation has explained is “Fair to No One,” President Obama’s State of the Union address this week did not contain any ideas to get spending and deficits under control. Instead, he proposed even more spending, which of course has to be paid for through higher taxes or borrowing. Doing either will harm the economy further and do nothing to lower the level of debt. Publicly held debt represents about 70 percent of gross domestic product and, driven by expanding entitlement program spending, is on track to surpass 100 percent within a decade, as this chart illustrates.

The credit markets will not stand for this, because they know that a country cannot thrive economically with debt levels that high and rising.

Congress and the President should not let this happen. America needs bold solutions now that solve the spending and debt crisis. Now is the time to change course.

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

Sincerely,

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama | Comments (0)

Dr. Bergman: “Evolution teaches that the living world has no plan or purpose except survival”(Section B of Part 2 of series on Evolution)

May 22, 2012 – 1:39 am

Dr. Bergman: “Evolution teaches that the living world has no plan or purpose except survival”(Section B of Part 2 of series on Evolution)

The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 3 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

________________________________________

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.”

Is there any purpose in life? Evolution is clear on this point. I have included the last portion of the article by Dr. Jerry Bergman who I have corresponded with in the past.

Darwinism: Survival without Purpose

by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. *

Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life…life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA…life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.1 –Richard Dawkins

Purpose and Christianity

Christianity teaches that God made the universe as a home for humans. If the universe evolved purely by natural means, then it just exists and any “purpose” for its existence can only be that which humans themselves attribute to it. But our own experience and intellectual attainments argue against this. The similarity of human-constructed machines and the orderly functioning of the universe is the basis of the design argument. Just as a machine requires a designer and a builder, so too the universe that we see requires a designer and a builder.

Determining the purpose of something depends on the observer’s worldview. To a nontheist the question “What is thepurpose of a living organism’s structure?” means only “How does this structure aid survival?” Eyesight and legs would therefore have nothing to do with enjoyment of life; they are merely an unintended byproduct of evolution. Biologists consistently explain everything from coloration to sexual habits solely on the basis of survival. Orthodox neo-Darwinism views everything as either an unfortunate or a fortuitous event resulting from the outworking of natural law and random, naturally-selected mutations. Conversely, creationists interpret all reality according to beliefs about God’s purpose for humans. Evolutionists can usually explain even contradictory behavior, but creationists look beyond this and try to determine what role it plays in God’s plan.

Conclusions

Orthodox evolution teaches that the living world has no plan or purpose except survival, is random, undirected, and heartless. Humans live in a world that cares nothing for us, our minds are simply masses of meat, and no divine plan exists to guide us. These teachings are hardly neutral, but rather openly teach religion–the religion of atheism and nihilism. The courts have consistently approved teaching this anti-Christian religion in public schools and have blocked all attempts to neutralize these clearly religious ideas.

As the Word of God states, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

References

  1. Scheff, Liam. 2007. The Dawkins Delusion. Salvo, 2:94.
  2. Humes, Edward. 2007. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America’s Soul. New York: Ecco, 119.
  3. Ibid, 119.
  4. Turner, J. Scott. 2007. The Tinkerer’s Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 206.
  5. Humes, Monkey Girl, 119.
  6. Ibid, 172.
  7. Bloom, Paul and Deena Skolnick Weisberg. 2007. Childhood Origins to Adult Resistance to Science. Science, 316:996.
  8. Panek, Richard. 2007. Out There. New York Times Magazine, 56.
  9. Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph S. Levine. Biology. 1998. Fourth Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 658, emphasis in original.
  10. Levine, Joseph S. and Kenneth R. Miller 1994. Biology: Discovering Life. Second Edition, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 161, emphasis in original.
  11. Raven, Peter H. and George B. Johnson. 2002. Biology. Sixth Edition, Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 16, 443.
  12. Purves, William K., David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, and H. Craig Keller. 2001. Life: The Science of Biology. Sixth Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; W.H. Freeman, 3.
  13. Interview with Richard Dawkins in Campbell, Neil A., Jane B. Reece, and Lawrence G. Mitchell. 1999. Biology. Fifth Edition, Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley Longman, 412-413.
  14. Futuyma, Douglas J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 5.
  15. Ibid, 5.
  16. Curtis, Helena and N. Sue Barnes. 1981. Invitation to Biology. Third Edition, New York, NY: Worth, 475.
  17. Strickberger, Monroe. 2000. Evolution. Third Edition, Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett, 70-71.
  18. Darwin, Francis (editor). 1888. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. London: John Murray, 210.
  19. Alcock, John. 1998. Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 16, 609.
  20. Browne, Janet. 1995. Charles Darwin: Voyaging, A Biography. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 542.
  21. Ibid, 542.
  22. Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books, 133.
  23. Graffin, Gregory W. 2004. Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist World-View. Ithaca, NY: Polypterus Press, 42.
  24. Sommers, Tamler and Alex Rosenberg. 2003. Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaningless of Life.Biology and Philosophy, 18:653.

* Dr. Bergman is Professor of Biology at Northwest State College in Ohio.

Cite this article: Bergman, J. 2007. Darwinism: Survival without Purpose. Acts & Facts. 36 (11): 10.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, President Obama | Comments (0)

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 11)

May 22, 2012 – 12:35 am

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to quote the statement Senator Pryor gave on December 14, 2011. This information below is from the Arkansas Times Blog on 12-14-11 and Max Brantley:

THREE CHEERS FOR MARK PRYOR: Our senator voted not once, but twice, today against one of the hoariest (and whoriest) of Republican gimmicks, a balanced budget amendment. Let’s quote him:

As H.L. Mencken once said, “For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong.” This quote describes the balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment makes for an easy talking point, it is an empty solution. Moreover, it’s a reckless choice that handcuffs our ability to respond to an economic downturn or national emergencies without massive tax increases or throwing everyone off Medicare, Social Security, or veteran’s care.There is a more responsible alternative to balance the budget. President Clinton led the way in turning deficits into record surpluses. We have that same opportunity today, using the blueprint provided by the debt commission as a starting point. We need to responsibly cut spending, reform our tax code and create job growth. This course requires hard choices over a number of years. However, it offers a more balanced approach over jeopardizing safety net programs and opportunity for robust economic growth.

____________________

Mark Pryor will not be re-elected in 2014 in part because he voted for a 900 billion stimulus bill in 2009. SENATOR PRYOR DOES NOT WANT THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE FUTURE STIMULUS BILLS UNLIKELY. BASICALLY PRYOR BELIEVES THAT GOVERNMENT IS THE SOLUTION TO ALL OUR PROBLEMS. WHY ELSE DID HE VOTE FOR THE FAILED STIMULUS IN 2009?

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 Pryor for supporting the stimulus in the past.

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments (0)

Are conservatives generous or are liberals?

May 21, 2012 – 4:03 pm

Real Time with Bill Maher March 16 2012 – Alexandra Pelosi Interviews Welfare Recipients in NYC

Published on Mar 18, 2012 by

Real Time with Bill Maher March 16 2012 – Alexandra Pelosi Interviews Welfare Recipients

__________

Liberals like the idea of the welfare state while conservatives suggest charity through private organizations serve the poor better. I ran across this attitude on the Arkansas Times Blog. The person using the username “Elwood” noted:

Indeed the Bible teaches us a lot about where our concerns should be:

Proverbs 29:7) The righteous is concerned with the poor: but the wicked regardeth them not.

Seeking the Welfare of the City

By
May 1, 2012

 

Conservatives are often portrayed as selfish scrooges who only care about their own bottom lines. But when it comes to truly meeting people’s needs, they’re the leaders of the pack.

Star Parker knew poverty personally. As a young drug addict in southern California, she lacked money, employment and hope. At one point, she was arrested for helping to rob a liquor store, and over the span of a few years, she had four abortions—all paid for by the government. Parker survived on welfare checks and free medical-care stickers, which she would sell to purchase illegal drugs.

The scriptural call to care for people such as Parker is clear: Loving our neighbor entails helping those in dire straits and working for the common good of their community.

In the biblical sense, seeking welfare has to do with promoting circumstances that allow people to flourish. It means helping people thrive in their homes, workplaces, neighborhoods, economies and political communities. This goal characterizes a true conservative political framework.

Now the president of a social policy research center focused on poverty issues, Parker testifies that a biblical view of human flourishing is at home in a conservative agenda—one focused on basic human dignity, strong families, a vibrant civil society, prosperous free markets and limited government.

Who Cares?

Many conservatives—and especially those motivated by faith—are on the front lines of caring for the poor. They’re the “street saints” who work quietly but tirelessly in the trenches, providing critical services in education, health, drug rehabilitation, prisoner re-entry, job training and disaster relief.

In fact, research shows conservatives actually give more to the poor than liberals. Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks compiled this body of research in his 2006 book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism. Brooks found that conservative-headed households tend to give about 30 percent more money to charity than liberal-headed households, even though liberal families earn an average of 6 percent more each year than conservative families. Conservatives also tend to volunteer more time and give more blood than do liberals.

Despite such data, conventional wisdom portrays liberals as being the ones intent on fighting poverty and conservatives as selfish scrooges. Sadly, the promotion of free markets and limited government is often mistakenly equated with a disregard for people in need. Meanwhile, support for government redistribution programs functions as a kind of litmus test for genuine care and compassion. (Never mind the paradoxical fact that, according to Brooks, Americans who favor income-redistribution policies are significantly less likely to behave charitably than those who do not.)

True compassion, though, isn’t measured by how much money the federal government spends. The real question is which approach actually helps people escape poverty and flourish over the long-run. Conservatives tend to answer that question differently than liberals, although they both share the goal of “seeking the welfare of the city.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Julia is a scumbag

May 21, 2012 – 1:53 pm

Real Time with Bill Maher March 16 2012 – Alexandra Pelosi Interviews Welfare Recipients in NYC

Published on Mar 18, 2012 by

Real Time with Bill Maher March 16 2012 – Alexandra Pelosi Interviews Welfare Recipients

It is truly sad to me that we have got to such a low point in our country that our president has attempted to get votes by giving away things for votes.

________________

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette had an excellent aricle on this on May 20, 2012:

Government takes care of us

By Bradley R. Gitz

This article was published May 20, 2012 at 3:09 a.m

LITTLE ROCK — The Democratic Party campaign video “The Life of Julia” performs a public service by informing the public of the Obama administration’s vision of the ideal society.

It is not a pretty picture.

For those who haven’t seen it yet, the video traces the life of a fictional “Julia” from birth all the way into retirement, with government providing for her care and comfort (even her contraceptives) each step along the way.

As National Review’s Rich Lowry puts it, “Julia’s central relationship is to the state. It is her educator, banker, health-care provider, venture capitalist and retirement fund. And she is, fundamentally, a taker. Every benefit she gets is cut-rate or free. She apparently doesn’t worry about paying taxes.” The end result is a pathetic creature more closely resembling a whining infant in its cradle than a free, adult human being.

Implicit in this “cradle to grave” view of government is the goal of creating, in Lowry’s words, “a nation of Julias,” dependent, needy and forever being succored by the nanny state. The more people depend upon government for their sustenance, and the more extreme the level of typical dependence, the closer we will have moved toward the ideal political order.

Charles Krauthammer calls this “free-lunch egalitarianism.” Mitt Romney has referred to it as “the entitlement society.” By whatever term, it represents a radical shift in Americans’ understanding of the role of government in their lives.

Barack Obama may claim that these are “American values,” but they most certainly aren’t the values of our Founding Fathers; indeed, it might be difficult to identify any ideas further removed from those that influenced the delegates at Philadelphia back in1787.

Perhaps never before has an American political party more nakedly offered up a life on the dole as a morally desirable condition for able-bodied citizens.

Implicit in the “Julia Nation” is a number of sub-themes-that Americans have lost any sense of self reliance and can’t fend for themselves in even the most trivial ways; that government should always grow bigger because of this incapacity; and that there are no adverse social or fiscal consequences flowing from, or even logical limits to, the growth of government spending.

For those of us with an interest in political ideology, the cradle-to grave concept explicit in Julia’s life also represents the final extinguishing of any remaining differences between American “progressivism” and European social democracy.

Cradle-to-grave security has, of course, been the abiding promise of European social democratic parties since at least the end of World War II. A term first coined by British Labor Party leader Clement Attlee, “cradle to grave” would represent the fulfillment of the European socialist movement without all of the nasty “dictatorship of the proletariat” and violent revolutionary stuff. It was the logical ideological descendent of Eduard Bernstein and the Fabians, if not Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin.

By so openly embracing this concept, American Democrats have now removed any doubt that they have become and have actually long been such a party.

Those who take umbrage at such claims are free to identify for the rest of us any fundamental differences between the program and aspirations of American Democrats and those of the British Labor Party, the German Social Democratic Party, or Francois Hollande’s Socialist Party in France.

Irrefutable logic tells us that, if the American Democratic Party is a social democratic party, and social democracy has long been understood as a strain of socialism, then the American Democratic Party, and its titular leader, President Obama, are clearly socialists of at least some sort, too.

They just won’t, until now-until “Julia”-admit it.

What this also means is that what we call American liberalism has come to have scant relation to the classical liberalism of America’s founding. The central tenet of liberalism historically is restraints upon the size and power of the state for the sake of individual liberty; the central tenet of both American progressivism and European social democracy is the creation of a huge and powerful state for the purpose of providing cradle-to-grave security. Understood properly, liberalism and socialism are antithetical, not complementary, propositions.

So we should thank Democrats for the “Life of Julia.” They might not have intended to be, but they are now finally being honest with the American people about what ideology they subscribe to and where they wish to take the nation under the slogan “forward.”

Thus, the central question that Obama’s re-election bid poses is whether we want the transformation of America into a full-fledged European-style social democracy to continue. It is that issue, not the Romney family dog, women’s contraceptive tab, or Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage that matters most.

There was, once upon a time, not even all that long ago, something disgraceful about able-bodied citizens living off the labor of others (“going on the dole”). Obama and his party now unapologetically and enthusiastically invite all of us to do so.

———◊-

———

Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, President Obama, spending out of control | Comments (0)

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

May 21, 2012 – 1:33 pm

DEBT LIMIT – A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY.

Uploaded by 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, 1st AC Brian Andrews, Sound Mixer Gus Salazar, Written and Directed by Brian Stepanek. Help us spread the word by clicking ads or at www.debtlimitusa.org

_________________

I was so proud of the 66 brave Republicans who stood up to President Obama and voted against his deal that raised the debt limit. I hope we can find more brave souls this tme around.

One of the big stories from Washington is that there may be another fight over the debt limit, which could mean…gasp, hide the women and children…gridlock, downgrades, government shutdown, default, and tooth decay.

Okay, perhaps not tooth decay, but the DC establishment nonetheless is aghast.

Last year, there were actually two big confrontations between House Republicans and President Obama.

The first fight occurred early in the year and revolved around spending levels for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year. I explained in February of that year how advocates of smaller government could prevail in a government shutdown fight, especially since the “essential” parts of the government wouldn’t be affected.

But I wasn’t surprised when GOPers buckled under pressure and accepted a deal that – at best – could be categorized as a kiss-your-sister compromise (and, as I noted elsewhere, our sister wasn’t Claudia Schiffer).

Then we had the big debt limit fight later in the year, which led to absurd claims that failure to increase the debt limit would lead to default – even though the federal government was collecting ten times as much revenue as was needed to pay interest on the debt.

Once again, Republicans were unable to withstand the demagoguery and they basically gave Obama what he wanted after agreeing to a “supercommittee” that was designed to seduce them into a tax increase.

Now the game is about to start over. It’s deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra might say.

Here’s some of what the L.A. Times reported.

Republicans in Congress are heading into summer much the way they did last year — instigating a showdown with the White House by demanding massive federal budget cuts in exchange for what used to be the routine task of raising the nation’s debt limit to pay the government’s bills. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is doubling down on the strategy that ended in mixed results last year after the country came to the brink of a federal default before a deal was struck with President Obama. In that go-round, both sides saw their approval ratings with voters plummet and the nation’s credit was downgraded. …The risk for Republicans is not only in presenting another high-stakes showdown at a time when voters have grown weary of the gridlock in Washington.

The reporter’s assertion that the debt limit fight led to the downgrade is a bit silly, as I explain here, but that’s now part of the official narrative.

On a separate matter, I can’t help but shake my head with frustration that GOPers still haven’t learned that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending, and that deficits and debt are symptoms of that problem. Here’s another passage from the L.A. Times story.

“The issue is the debt,” Boehner said Sunday on ABC’s ”This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” “Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States and it would lift this cloud of uncertainty that’s causing employers to wonder what’s next.”

No, Mr. Speaker. The problem is spending, spending, spending.

Returning to the main issue, the debt limit isn’t the only big fiscal fight that may happen this year. There will also be the spending bills for the 2013 fiscal year, which starts on October 1 of this year. That will mean another fight, particularly since the left has no intention of abiding by the spending limit that was part of last year’s debt limit deal.

And if Republicans hold firm, that means another “government shutdown.” Though it really should be called a “government slowdown” since it’s only the non-essential bureaucrats who get sent home.

In any event, since I’m glum about the likelihood of anything good happening, let’s at least enjoy some good cartoons from Jeff MacNelly. He passed away a number of years ago, but these cartoons from the mid-1990s are just as applicable today as they were then.

These are amusing cartoons, so long as you don’t actually think about the fact that government is bloated in part because Washington is littered with programs, departments, and agencies that are filled with non-essential bureaucrats. And don’t forget that these bureaucrats are overpaid, getting, on average, twice the compensation of workers in the productive sector of the economy.

But I don’t want to end this post on a sour note, so here are some good jokes from the late-night comics about government shutdowns.

________

Related post:

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, […]

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, President Obama, spending out of control | Comments (0)

If Europe follows Obama’s plan it would go broke even faster

May 21, 2012 – 9:57 am
U.S. President Barack Obama waves as French President Francois Hollande looks on following their bilateral meeting at the White House in Washington
U.S. President Barack Obama (R) waves as French President Francois Hollande looks on following their bilateral meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington May 18, 2012. Hollande is in the United States to join other leaders of the major industrial economies and meet for a G8 Summit at Camp David this weekend to try to head off a full-blown financial crisis in Europe. REUTERS/Eric Feferberg/Pool(UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS BUSINESS)

President Obama does not want to cut spending and he only wants more stimulus even though it has resulted in failure in the last three years in the USA. Now he is bragging about the results and telling his socialist friends in Europe to do the same.

Obama’s Pro-Growth Illusion

Barack Obama claims to be pro-growth. So does Greece, Spain, and almost everyone else. Why? Because admitting preference for the alternative—crushing, heavy-handed government interference that kills initiative and destroys wealth—is not attractive to any citizen of any country.

The problem lies in the meaning of “pro-growth”. As an unabashed capitalist, and as a supporter of free markets, I believe “pro-growth” means less government interference and more individual accountability where private sector businesses create the jobs and government pretty much stays out of the equation. But it’s increasingly clear that our president has a much different idea and defines “pro-growth” far differently.

Of course, Barack Obama often says he is “pro-growth”—but the question to ask is: growth of what?

After three years in office, it seems rather clear that Obama believes in the growth of government. At the core of all of his policies is a belief that government can allocate resources more efficiently than can the private sector.

According to Obama, only the government can make wise “investments”. According to Obama’s view, private money and private investors are simply not as capable or as wise as is government in choosing the kinds of investments that will lead to growth and job expansion.

Not too surprisingly, Obama’s strange definition of “growth” is actually a call for a growth of government, growth of debt, growth of bureaucracy, growth of taxes and growth of government regulations. Barack Obama simply believes that taxpayers should be required (or compelled) to send more money to Washington where the political class can then decide how best to “invest” the money.

The “growth” that Barack Obama seeks, ultimately, is growth in government’s control over the lives of all Americans. As we have already learned from three years of watching our president try to apply this tragic economic theory, we have seen our economy stagnate as entrepreneurs and small businesses get squeezed. The only “growth” in Obama’s economy has been the growth of economically harmful and dangerous trends.

Obama has overseen a growth in the price of gas at the pump, growth in the nation’s dependency on foreign oil, growth in unemployment, growth in the number of people receiving and the amount of dollars allocated to entitlements, growth in the number of Czars designed to evade oversight from congress, even growth in the number of foreclosures.

In general, after three and a half years of the Obama administration’s “pro-growth” efforts, Americans are poorer and more dependent on the federal government.

Is this really what Americans are endorsing when they hear the term “pro-growth”? This is certainly not what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Under Obama federal spending has grown from $1 trillion dollars in 2008 to almost $4 trillion dollars in just three years, without any growth in the economy, without any reduction in unemployment and without any significant improvement in the quality of life or opportunities for the future of Americans.

Under Obama, the public debt has grown to the point where it exceeds our nation’s annual GDP. Nowhere and at no time has this kind of equation ever been a recipe for economic growth.

LUnder Obama, the number of regulations affecting all aspects of American lives has grown. In 2011, the Obama administration put into place over 2000 different rules, statues or regulations affecting everything from the environment to the kinds of paper used for filing federal reports.

Under Obama, the number of czars has increased, even as the number of senate-confirmed leaders has dwindled. Coinciding with the increase in czars comes an increase in the bureaucracy, and an increase in the staff to support the czars, all paid for with taxpayer dollars.

Under Obama there has been growth in the number of unemployed, with minorities and teens hit the hardest.

Under Obama, the regulations affecting small businesses has created an environment of uncertainty and increased cost which discourages, rather than encourages, job creation.

Under Obama, Americans have seen an increase in the frequency of fear-mongering and race-baiting as a Democrat political strategy, designed to intimidate anyone who questions or criticizes Democrats’ flawed policies.

There has been growth under Obama—it’s just the wrong kind of growth. Lots of fine sounding rhetoric that fosters the illusion of growth. One thing seems clear–while we all seem to be speaking the same language the meaning varies greatly between what Obama says and what Americans understand.

When Barack Obama talks about his “pro-growth” agenda, Americans should start to ask just exactly what Obama hopes to “grow”.

Related posts:

France today: government spending is at 55 percent of GDP

The liberals in France do not want austerity but more spending but who will pay for their party? Morning Bell: Socialism Rises Again Mike Brownfield May 8, 2012 at 8:55 am Last weekend, the people of France took a sharp turn to the left, and the rest of Europe may be on the brink of […]

Europe has a bleak future because they don’t want austerity

The medicine for the sickness of spending is real budget cuts but no one in liberal europe wants to hear that. Sadly we are on the same road in the USA. Liberals (like my blogger opponent “the Outlier” and others) love to say that austerity has been tried in Europe and it doesn’t work but the truth […]

Brantley and his liberal friends don’t want budget cuts but taxes raised on rich!!!!

Over and over in the past Max Brantley and his liberal friends have said that they don’t want budget cuts but they want taxes raised on the rich. In France their recipe for success is about to be tried and we will see how it works out. The Arkansas Times blogger going by the username […]

Stimulus programs never work

The stimulus did not work for the USA and it has never worked. Doubling Down on Failure: Former Obama Official Calls for U.S.-Financed Keynesian Spending Binge in Europe April 30, 2012 by Dan Mitchell There’s an old saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. This certainly is a […]

Balancing the budget possible with socialist solutions?

I got this cartoon below from Dan Mitchell’s blog. Where can our government turn to get out of this socialist mess they have got themselves in? They have to realize what really creates wealth. Over in France they are facing the same problems we are because of the welfare state and they are about to […]

Obama’s stimulus was a failure like Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute predicted

The stimulus was a huge failure and I hope everyone who voted for it will be defeated in their re-election attempts. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute predicted it would be a failure back in January of 2009!!!! Portuguese Finance Minister Admits Keynesian Stimulus Was a Flop, but Don’t Hold Your Breath Waiting for Obama […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama | Comments (0)

“My Life” is one of the best Beatle songs of all-time

May 21, 2012 – 8:37 am

Yesterday I attended the St. George’s Independent School commencement exercises in Collierville, Tennessee. School President William W. Taylor used the Beatles as an example of a group of people that brought different talents together to accomplish much.

He also quoted from the song “My Life” which happens to be one of my favorite songs. It goes like this:

There are places I’ll remember
All my life though some have changed
Some forever not for better
Some have gone and some remain
All these places have their moments
With lovers and friends I still can recall
Some are dead and some are living
In my life I’ve loved them all

But of all these friends and lovers
There is no one compares with you
And these memories lose their meaning
When I think of love as something new
Though I know I’ll never lose affection
For people and things that went before
I know I’ll often stop and think about them
In my life I love you more

Though I know I’ll never lose affection
For people and things that went before
I know I’ll often stop and think about them
In my life I love you more
In my life I love you more

_________

‘In My Life’

Hulton Archive/Getty Images
prev 5/100 next

Writers: Lennon-McCartney
Recorded: October 18 and 22, 1965
Released: December 6, 1965
Not released as a single

‘In My Life” represented a crucial breakthrough for John Lennon — as well as a creative struggle. The song began with a question: During a March 1964 interview with Lennon, journalist Kenneth Allsop asked why he hadn’t written more lyrics about his life and experiences. “I had a sort of professional songwriter’s attitude to writing pop songs,” Lennon said to Rolling Stone in 1970. “I would write [books like] In His Own Write, to express my personal emotions. I’d have a separate songwriting John Lennon who wrote songs for the meat market. I didn’t consider them to have any depth at all. They were just a joke.”

Taking Allsop’s critique to heart, Lennon wrote a long poem about people and places from his past, touching on Liverpool landmarks like Penny Lane, Strawberry Field and Menlove Avenue. “I had a complete set of lyrics after struggling with a journalistic version of a trip downtown on a bus, naming every sight,” he said. When he read the poem later, though, “it was the most boring ‘What I Did on My Holidays’ song, and it wasn’t working. But then I laid back, and these lyrics started coming to me about the places I remember.”

What happened next is a dispute that will never be resolved. “In My Life” is one of only a handful of Lennon-McCartney songs where the two strongly disagreed over who wrote what: According to Lennon, “The whole lyrics were already written before Paul even heard it. His contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle eight.” According to McCartney, Lennon basically had the first verse done. At one of their writing sessions at Lennon’s Weybridge estate, the two painstakingly rewrote the lyrics, making them less specific and more universal. (Some of Lennon’s lines, like his reference to the late Stu Sutcliffe, the Beatles’ former bassist, in “some are dead and some are living,” remained.) McCartney also says he wrote the melody on Lennon’s Mellotron, inspired by Smokey Robinson, as well as the gentle opening guitar figure.

Regardless of its true authorship, “In My Life” represented Lennon’s evolution as an artist. “I started being me about the songs, not writing them objectively, but subjectively,” Lennon said. “I think it was Dylan who helped me realize that — not by any discussion or anything, but by hearing his work.” The Beatles were huge Dylan fans by early 1964, playing The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan nonstop in between gigs. When Dylan visited the Beatles in New York that August, he famously introduced them to marijuana. (He thought the Beatles were already pot smokers, having misheard the lyrics “I can’t hide” in “I Want to Hold Your Hand” as “I get high.”) Dylan and pot would be the great twin influences that led the Beatles out of their moptop period and on to their first masterpiece, Rubber Soul.

Before that album, “We were just writing songs à la the Everly Brothers and Buddy Holly,” Lennon said, “pop songs with no more thought to them than that.” He rightly called “In My Life” “my first real, major piece of work. Up until then, it had all been glib and throwaway.”

Appears On: Rubber Soul

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 6)

May 21, 2012 – 6:43 am

THE FLEA KICKER – Nebraska vs. Missouri 1997

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

Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums  

By Alex Callos

(Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012 

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

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

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

_________________

Missouri is a SEC East team now. I got to see them play against Arkansas when the Razorbacks beat them in 2004 or so. I think they will be a good member of the SEC.

90. Malone Stadium: Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks
Images_display_image

The state of Louisiana actually has more college football teams than many people could imagine.

Louisiana-Monroe is another in that long list. This stadium was built in 1978, so it is actually relatively new when it comes to college football stadiums. It has a capacity of 30,427 and hardly ever fills up.

The overall atmosphere here is pretty good, and the stadium is extremely easy to get to.

 

89. Joe Aillet Stadium: Louisiana Tech Bulldogs

Louisianatechfootballpractice071509-1_display_image

For some surprisingly good tailgating and a WAC game that has a lot to offer, this is the place to go.

Built in 1968, Joe Aillet Stadium seats 30,600, and while it is not always full, there is a loyal fanbase here who comes out to support their Bulldogs.

This is not a bad place to watch a game.

 

88. FIU Stadium: Florida International Golden Panthers

Fqshobeudbhtggj

This tiny stadium is almost completely enclosed, which makes it that much better to watch a college football game.

Built in 1995, it is one of the newest stadiums around, and even though it only holds 23,500, it can get louder than a lot of other stadiums in the Sun Belt Conference.

The Golden Panthers may just have the biggest home-field advantage around.

 

87. Dix Stadium: Kent State Golden Flashes

Facility_foot_001_display_image

Kent State has one of the best stadiums the MAC has to offer.

With a seating capacity of only 20,500, Dix Stadium is not that big, but is updated.

While it was originally built in 1969, this stadium has been well-kept, and the Golden Flashes certainly have a home field advantage in here.

All of the amenities are average at best.

 

86. Bulldog Stadium: Fresno State Bulldogs

Bulldog-stadium-1_display_image

Bulldog Stadium looks much larger than the 41,031 it seats.

That is possibly because there is no upper bowl. Everything is from one basic level.

It was built in 1980, and with a relatively large population in Fresno, people often fill the stadium. The atmosphere here is excellent and one of the best of any stadium so far on the list.

 

85. Martin Stadium: Washington State Cougars

Stadium1978_display_image

Martin Stadium is extremely small in comparison to a lot of other Pac-12 schools.

It only seats 35,117 and was built in 1972. The atmosphere here, especially when one of the Pac-12 rivals comes to town, is excellent.

There is not much around the stadium, however, but once inside, there is no bad seat in the house.

 

84. Aloha Stadium: Hawaii Warriors

300px-aloha_stadium_hawaii_display_image

Aloha Stadium is home to a lot of different things, and one of them is the Hawaii Warriors.

This team loves to throw the ball around, and the fans enjoy that.

The 50,000-seat stadium was built in 1975. It can get a little loud when points are scored and is not a place that is easy for a road team to win.

The area around it is beautiful. It is Hawaii after all.

 

83. M.M. Roberts Stadium: Southern Mississippi Golden Eagles

Roberts-stadium-900w_display_image

Even though the stadium is very old and the seats may not be the most comfortable, this place does offer a little bit of luxury and a good place to watch a football game.

There are 33 luxury boxes located in the south end zone of this 36,000-seat stadium that was built 80 years ago in 1932 and is affectionately known as “The Rock.”

A newer version of this place would be ideal, but overall, a unique college football experience can be had here.

 

82. Ryan Field: Northwestern Wildcats

Ryan-field_display_image

Ryan Field is the first school from the Big Ten on the list, but that does not mean it is a bad place to enjoy a Big Ten battle.

It was built in 1926, which could have a little something to do with why it is so low on the list.

With a seating capacity of 47,130, it is the smallest stadium in the conference as well.

The views are great, but the atmosphere here is just not the same as some other schools in the conference.

 

81. Rentschler Field: Connecticut Huskies

Uconnfootball-731389_display_image

With a seating capacity of 40,000, Rentschler Field is a mid-size field and is the second Big East field on the list.

It is extremely new, having just opened in 2003, as the Huskies were making the jump to an FBS program shortly before that.

The fans here love the team, even though the area around the stadium has absolutely nothing to offer. A few more winning seasons, and this stadium, along with its fans, could be climbing up the list. 

 

80. Cajun Field: Louisiana-Lafayette Rajin’ Cajuns

Cajun-field-ragincajuns

Another of the tiny Louisiana schools is next on the list.

Cajun Field has been around since 1971 and houses 31,000. There are not many teams in the Sun Belt Conference who can brag more about their field than the Rajun’ Cajuns.

It is a college town, with most of the people around having graduated from the university. This can help make for quite a Saturday football experience.

 

79. Faurot Field: Missouri Tigers

Faurot_display_image

This is the first SEC stadium on the list, and they are a newcomer to the conference.

Faurot Field houses 68,349 people and has been around forever, originally opening up in 1926.

Everything here is just average when it comes to the food and atmosphere. It will likely be a relatively easy road trip for a lot of SEC teams compared to what some of the other stadiums in the conference have to offer.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)