Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
On May 11, 2011, I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
GUIDELINE #4: Terminate failed, outdated, and irrelevant programs.
President Ronald Reagan once pointed out that “a government bureau is the closest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on earth.” A large portion of the current federal bureaucracy was created during the 1900s, 1930s, and 1960s in attempts to solve the unique problems of those eras.
Instead of replacing the outdated programs of the past, however, each period of government activism has built new programs on top of them. Ford Motor Company would not waste money today by building outdated Model T’s alongside their current Mustangs and Explorers. However, in 2004, the federal government still refuses to close down old agencies such as the Rural Utilities Service (designed to bring phones to rural America) and the U.S. Geological Survey (created to explore and detail the nation’s geography).
Government must be made light and flexible, adaptable to the new challenges the country will face in the 21st century. Weeding out the failed and outdated bureaucracies of the past will free resources to modernize the government.
Status Quo Bias. Lawmakers often acknowledge that certain programs show no positive effects. Regrettably, they also refuse to terminate even the most irrelevant programs. The most obvious reason for this timidity is an aversion to fighting the special interests that refuse to let their pet programs end without a bloody fight.
A less obvious reason is that eliminating government programs seems reckless and bold to legislators who have never known a federal government without them. Although thousands of programs have come and gone in the nation’s 228-year history, virtually all current programs were created before most lawmakers came to Washington. For legislators who are charged with budgeting and implementing the same familiar programs year after year, a sense of permanency sets in, and termination seems unfathomable.7 No one even remembers when a non-government entity addressed the problems.
The Department of Energy, for example, has existed for just one-tenth of the country’s history, yet closing it down seems ridiculous to those who cannot remember the federal government before 1977 and for whom appropriating and overseeing the department has been an annual ritual for years. Lawmakers need a long-term perspective to assure them the sky does not fall when a program is terminated. For example, the Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, both closed in 1996, are barely remembered today.8
Instead of just assuming that whoever created the programs decades ago must have been filling some important need that probably exists today, lawmakers should focus on the future by asking themselves the following question: If this program did not exist, would I vote to create it? Because the answer for scores of programs would likely be “no,” Congress should:
Close down failed or outdated agencies, programs, and facilities, including:
The U.S. Geological Survey9 (2004 spending: $841 million, discretionary);10
The Maritime Administration ($633 million, discretionary);
The International Trade Commission ($61 million, discretionary);
The Economic Development Administration ($417 million, discretionary);
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program ($1,892 million, discretionary);
The Technology Opportunities Program ($12 million, discretionary);
Obsolete military bases;
The Appalachian Regional Commission ($94 million, discretionary);
Obsolete Veterans Affairs facilities;
The Rural Utilities Service (-$1,493 million,11 mandatory); and
Repeal Public Law 480’s non-emergency international food programs ($127 million, discretionary)
Discretionary spending is the portion of the annual budget that Congress actually determines.
Since 2000, discretionary outlays surged 79 percent faster than inflation, to $1,408 billion. The “stimulus” is responsible for $111 billion of 2010 discretionary spending.
Between 1990 and 2000, $80 billion annually in new domestic spending was more than fully offset by a $100 billion cut in annual defense and homeland security spending, leaving (inflation-adjusted) discretionary spending slightly lower.
Since 2000, all types of discretionary spending have grown rapidly.
Overall, since 1990, domestic discretionary spending has risen 104 percent faster than inflation and defense/security discretionary spending has risen 51 percent.
Nadal did very good the whole match by taking Novak to the 5th set. He had him beat when he was up 5-4 in the final set but then Novak began to play like he did at last years US OPEN. It got down to who had more left in them and it turned out being Djokovic.-Wilson Hatcher
MELBOURNE, Australia — Novak Djokovicripped off his shirt and let out a primal scream, flexing his torso the way a prize fighter would after a desperate, last-round knockout.
This was the final act in Djokovic’s 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7 (5), 7-5 victory over Rafael Nadal in the Australian Open final — a sweat-drenched, sneaker-squeaking 5 hour, 53-minute endurance contest that ended at 1:37 a.m. Monday morning in Melbourne.
Djokovic overcame a break in the fifth set to win his fifth Grand Slam tournament and third in a row. None, though, quite like this.
This one involved tears, sweat and, yes, even a little blood. It was the longest Grand Slam singles final in the history of pro tennis and it came against Nadal, the player who built a career on his tenacity — on outlasting opponents in matches like these.
Garber: Djokovic On Brink Of History
For those thinking Novak Djokovic’s 2011 was an overheated mirage, the first Grand Slam of 2012 proves otherwise, ESPN.com’s Greg Garber writes. Story
Ubha: A Stunning Performance
After nearly six grueling hours, Novak Djokovic finally beat Rafael Nadal to win the Australian Open. You had to see it to believe it, ESPN.com’s Ravi Ubha writes. Story
“It was obvious on the court for everybody who has watched the match that both of us, physically, we took the last drop of energy that we had from our bodies,” Djokovic said. “We made history tonight and unfortunately there couldn’t be two winners.”
When the drama was finally over at Rod Laver Arena, the 24-year-old Djokovic joined Laver, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and Nadal as the only men who have won three consecutive majors since the Open Era began in 1968. Nadal was his vanquished opponent in all three.
Djokovic will go for the “Nole Slam” at Roland Garros in May.
As the players waited for the trophy presentation, Nadal leaned on the net, while Djokovic sat on his haunches. Eventually, a nearby official took pity and they were given chairs and bottles of water.
Nadal held his composure during the formalities, and even opened his speech with a lighthearted one-liner.
“Good morning, everybody,” he said.
A few minutes earlier, after hugging Nadal at the net, Djokovic tore off his sweat-soaked black shirt and headed toward his players’ box, pumping his arms repeatedly as he roared. He walked over to his girlfriend, his coach and the rest of his support team and banged on the advertising signs at the side of the court.
“I think it was just the matter of maybe luck in some moments and matter of wanting this more than maybe other player in the certain point,” Djokovic said. “It’s just incredible effort. You’re in pain, you’re suffer(ing). You’re trying to activate your legs. You’re going through so much suffering your toes are bleeding. Everything is just outrageous, but you’re still enjoying that pain.”
The match was full of long rallies and amazing gets. Djokovic finished with 57 winners, along with 69 unforced errors. Nadal had 44 winners against 71 unforced errors.
Laver was part of the 15,000-strong crowd when the players walked on at 7:30 p.m. Sunday to flip the coin and start the warmup. He was still there, along with most of the crowd, after 2 a.m. for the trophy presentations.
Djokovic called it the most special of his five Grand Slam wins.
“This one I think comes out on the top because just the fact that we played almost six hours is incredible, incredible,” he said. “I think it’s probably the longest finals in the history of all Grand Slams, and just to hear that fact is making me cry, really.
Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty ImagesNovak Djokovic proved his 2011 season was anything but a mirage with his third Australian Open championship.
“I’m very proud just to be part of this history.”
It went so long because Nadal refused to yield. He was trying to avoid becoming the first man to lose three consecutive Grand Slam finals — and seeing his losing streak in finals stretch to seven against Djokovic, who beat him for the Wimbledon and U.S. Open titles and took his No. 1 ranking last year.
After a grueling four-set loss to Djokovic at Flushing Meadows last year, Nadal said that, indeed, he may have found a slight opening — a glimmer of hope for next time against the player who dominated the 2011 season and had dismantled him time and again over the year.
This one was, in fact, closer, though not necessarily because of any strategic changes, but rather, because Rafa summoned up the heart to take this one the distance.
Nadal stayed in the contest for almost every point, sprinting from one side of the court to the other, chasing down balls and making Djokovic work extra time for the victory. But in the end, the same man was holding the trophy.
Nadal thought his win in the 2008 final against Federer was the best match he’s played, but gave Sunday’s match a top place in his personal rankings nonetheless.
“This one was very special,” he said. “But I really understand that was a really special match, and probably a match that’s going to be in my mind not because I lost, no, because the way that we played.”
Djokovic had his off moments during this two-week tournament Down Under. He appeared to struggle for breath in his quarterfinal win over No. 5 David Ferrer and again during his five-set semifinal win over No. 4 Andy Murray. He blamed it on allergies, and he managed to control it better against Nadal.
Yet, at times in the final, he looked as if he couldn’t go on.
When Nadal fended off three break points at 4-4 in the fourth set to win the game, spectators jumped to their feet and chanted “Rafa, Rafa, Rafa, Rafa!” Djokovic had lost the momentum. Play was stopped moments later when rain started to fall and a suddenly animated Nadal threw his arms up in disbelief and walked slowly back to his chair. The stadium roof was then closed.
Djokovic picked up his game after a 10-minute break and his pockets of supporters waved their Serbian flags again and started their own competing chant of “Nole, Nole, Nole” — inserting Djokovic’s nickname where “Ole” belongs in the tune and rhythm of the Spanish soccer chant.
Complete results
Need the scores from any match played in today’s Aussie Open? Courtcast
It wasn’t enough to get him through the tiebreaker in the fourth set, though, when Nadal won the last four points to finish it in 88 minutes. Nadal dropped to his knees on the baseline and pumped his arms at that point, celebrating as if he’d won the final. All he’d done was prolong it. This pair had never gone to five sets.
Just as he did during the first set, Djokovic took off a white shirt and replaced it with a black one.
It didn’t seem to help immediately as he went down a break and a defeat loomed.
The match clock hit 5 hours with the score 2-2 in the fifth. Nadal won the next point and Djokovic started to stumble slightly, unsteady on his feet.
Nadal held that game without losing a point and then broke Djokovic for a 4-2 lead.
The turning point came in the next game, when Nadal had an open court but knocked a backhand volley wide down the line. He challenged the call, but the ball was clearly out. Instead of being up 40-15 and one point from a 5-2 lead, the game score became 30-30.
Djokovic found energy again and got a break point with a backhand that forced an error from Nadal. He pounced on a Nadal second serve to convert the break as the match clock ticked to 5:15, confirming it as the longest match in the history of the Australian Open. Nadal had that record, at 5:14, in his five-set semifinal win over fellow Spaniard Fernando Verdasco in 2009.
This match had already long surpassed Mats Wilander’s win over Ivan Lendl at the 1988 U.S. Open, in 4:54, as the longest final in the terms of duration.
Djokovic started to look better physically and Nadal started to make some unforced errors, giving the Serbian some extra seconds between points to get his heavy breathing under control. After getting back on serve at 4-4, Djokovic kissed the crucifix around his neck twice.
With Nadal serving, the pair engaged in a 31-shot rally that Nadal finally won when Djokovic committed a backhand error. The Serb fell flat on his back on the court, fully stretched out, arms over his head, while Nadal doubled over on his side of the court, hands perched on his knees.
It appeared Djokovic was ready to throw in the towel, but he said he never thought about staying down.
“At that point I was just thinking of getting some air and trying to recover for next point,” he said. “Thousand thoughts going through the mind. Trying to separate the right from wrong. Trying to prioritize the next point. I’m playing against one of the best players ever — the player that is so mentally strong. He was going for everything or nothing.”
When Djokovic got the break to go up 5-4, the Serbian fans jumped up with their flags and screamed while the rest of the crowd sat in stony silence.
After kissing the crucifix around his neck repeatedly in the later games, Djokovic openly prayed out loud and looked upward as he got within points of sealing his victory.
“I was trying find every possible help and energy that I possibly can,” he said. “It paid off I guess.”
I am a firm believer in economic freedom and I have got most of my philosophy from Milton Friedman. In this article you will see that Friedman influenced Ronald Reagan more than any other president and his policies were good the long term.
Individuals should be free to decide what to produce and consume, and their decisions should be made within a predictable policy framework based on the rule of law.
As this election year begins, a lot of people are wondering what we can do to restore America’s prosperity and create more jobs. Republican presidential candidates are offering their ideas, and at his State of the Union message on Tuesday President Obama presented his. I believe the fundamental answer is simple: Government policies must adhere more closely to the principles of economic freedom upon which the country was founded.
At their most basic level, these principles are that families, individuals and entrepreneurs must be free to decide what to produce, what to consume, what to buy and sell, and how to help others. Their decisions are to be made within a predictable government policy framework based on the rule of law, with strong incentives derived from the market system, and with a clearly limited role for government.
Getty ImagesRonald Reagan: He and advisers such as George Shultz shunned the idea of stimulus and agreed on the need for a long-term point of view.
The history of American economic policy displays major movements between more and less economic freedom, more and less emphasis on rules-based policy in fiscal and monetary affairs, more and less expansive roles for government, more and less reliance on markets and incentives. Each of these swings has had enormous consequences. Taken together, they make for a historical proving ground to determine which policy direction is better for restoring prosperity.
A big move toward more interventionist policies started in the mid-1960s, after more activist Keynesian economists came to town in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and it lasted through the 1970s in the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations. We saw short-term stimulus packages, temporary tax rebates or surcharges, go-stop monetary policy with inflationary overexpansion followed by severe contraction, wage-and-price guidelines and controls. The eventual result was high unemployment, high inflation and slow economic growth.
This was followed by a shift toward more predictable policies and a more limited role for government starting in the Reagan administration and largely continuing into the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations. The result was lower unemployment and higher economic growth with long expansions and few recessions.
More recently—beginning during the George W. Bush administration but really taking wings in the current Obama administration—policy has returned toward more and more government intervention, with results we are all experiencing.
How to move the country back toward the policies that sustain economic freedom and prosperity? To start, much can be learned from the stories of the politicians and economic officials who got us in and out of these messes, and remembering that the cast is bipartisan. Most pertinent to our current predicament is the story of how we got out of the economic mess of the late 1970s.
It’s difficult to recall now the seriousness of the U.S. economic slump at that time. Unemployment was high and persistent. Inflation had increased past the creeping stage to a trot. Confidence in U.S. economic leadership was plunging at home and abroad.
That changed when Ronald Reagan became president in 1981. Temporary, short-term Keynesian actions and interventions were out. Stable, permanent policy was in. Reagan proposed and Congress passed critical long-term reforms, especially across-the-board tax rate reductions.
The president was a firm believer in economic freedom, an avid reader and follower of economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Between the time he failed to unseat President Gerald Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries and his announcement to run again in 1980, Reagan gave innumerable radio addresses putting forth his principles. He used down-home stories of economic freedom that he could tell in three minutes or less. There were no ghost writers—he wrote his stories in long hand on lined yellow paper as he traveled around the country. The failed policies of the 1970s made Reagan’s case appealing across the political spectrum. He based his winning election campaign on these principles.
Reagan appointed a large number of economic officials who also were firmly committed to moving away from interventionist policies. No members of the original Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan had come from the Keynesian school of thought, and most of them during the Reagan administrations were influenced by Milton Friedman.
In addition, the president appointed a group of outside economic advisers—originally including George Shultz, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, Arthur Laffer, William Simon and Thomas Sowell—who helped him and others in the administration implement policies to move the country toward economic freedom and then stay the course.
As an example of Reagan’s firm commitment to principle, consider monetary policy. When he became president, Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, a Democrat appointed by President Carter, was determined to reduce inflation and end the go-stop interventions of the 1970s. That meant temporarily high interest rates, which contract the economy. One might have expected Reagan to pressure the Fed to lower interest rates to give a short-term boost to the economy. He did not, despite the political costs. In comparison with the political pressure put on Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin by the Johnson administration and on Arthur Burns by the Nixon administration to follow easy money policies, Reagan’s decision to support Mr. Volcker was remarkable.
The president’s economic strategy was ready to go as soon as the votes were counted in November 1980. That same month, George Shultz, along with many of the economists who had worked in the campaign, wrote an extraordinary memo to Reagan entitled “Economic Strategy for the Reagan Administration.” It began with a call for action: “Sharp change in present economic policy is an absolute necessity. The problems . . . an almost endless litany of economic ills, large and small, are severe. But they are not intractable. Having been produced by government policy, they can be redressed by a change in policy. . . . The need for a long-term point of view is essential to allow for the time, the coherence and the predictability so necessary for success.”
That predictable, long-term view continued well beyond the Reagan presidency, but it is no longer with us. The clear lesson is to find and select those leaders, regardless of political party, who along with their advisers are most firmly committed to the principles of economic freedom and who know how to implement and maintain them.
Mr. Taylor is a professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. This op-ed is adapted from “First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring American Prosperity,” published this week by W.W. Norton.
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
A fun video of the day in the life at L’Abri Fellowship in Switzerland. I made this video in 2003 while there and I was trying to capture the sounds and everyday life of it. Was on the Labri.org site for quite sometime. Not meant to be the end all video of what L’Abri is like today, but trying to make an entertaining video for the students and people who are curious about what L’Abri is.
______________________
L’Abri crew in the Vaud Alps
Uploaded on Jun 10, 2006
hiking up high – the sound is a little behind the picture for some reason
SOUNDWORD LABRI CONFERENCE VIDEO – Five Ideas – An Introduction to L’Abri – DICK KEYES – 1984
Published on Jan 27, 2014
This video is part of the Sound Word L’Abri Conference videos from the last two years of Dr. Schaeffer’s life. Here Dick Keyes gives five points of emphasis that describe the work of L’Abri Fellowship.
This is part one of a series of videos I made during one day at Swiss L’Abri in Huemoz, Switzerland. If you want to know more about L’Abri you can go to http://www.labri.org or my blog at iamchrismartin.blogspot.com
A Day at Swiss L’Abri – pt 2
A Day at Swiss L’Abri – pt 3
A Day at Swiss L’Abri – pt 4
A Day at Swiss L’Abri – pt 5
A Day at Swiss L’Abri – pt 6
L’abri
Swiss L’abri
Uploaded on Jul 22, 2006
L’abri is many things–a shelter, a community, a thinktank, study center, and a home. I lived here for two months in the summer of 2006, and this video is an attempt to capture some of the memories.
_____________________________
L’Abri: 6 Months
Uploaded on Jan 27, 2007
Video I made for the L’Abri website with music by Jozef Luptak. It’s a montage of the people and the day in the life of at L’Abri Fellowship in Switzerland. Music performed live by Jozef Luptak in the Chapel in Huemoz.
__________________________
I love Francis Schaeffer’s works. I remember like yesterday when I was in Switzerland in 1981 looking for directions to get to L’Abri. I never found the directions and I regret that even till today. Below is a fine paper on Schaeffer and L’Abri:
Francis Schaeffer
Celebrating Fifty Years Of L’abri
By Gene Edward Veith
“The Legacy of FRANCIS SCHAEFFER – Celebrating 50 years of L’Abri” by Gene Edward Veith was the cover story of the March 26 World. Dr. Veith the cultural editor of World, wrote:”Half a century ago, an American pastor named Francis Schaeffer opened his home in Switzerland to anyone who was struggling with the basic questions of life. It was the beginning of L’Abri, a word meaning ‘shelter.’ Over the years, student backpackers, troubled atheists, and thoughtful Christians found their way to this chalet in the Alps. Here they met biblical truth, explained not only with a sophistication that was then rare in evangelicalism- but lived out.”Many who trekked the Alpine hillsides to L’Abri became Christians and learned how to engage their cultures and to apply their faith to all of life. Two generations on, the influence of Francis and Edith Schaeffer and the ministry of L’Abri is evident among evangelical Christians everywhere in their approach not only to evangelism and the church but also to the sciences, arts, business, and politics.”Schaeffer died of cancer in 1984. But L’Abri continues with branches all over the world: in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, England, Korea, Canada, and two in the United States (in Southborough, Mass., and Rochester, Minn.). These centers for training in Christian philosophy are the legacy of a man who – according to long-time associate and founder of the Francis Schaeffer Institute Jerram Barrs – never considered himself a theologian or philosopher, but simply a pastor and an evangelist.
“Schaeffer became a Christian when he was 17, after reading the Bible from beginning to end and finding that it gave answers to questions he struggled with. He studied at Faith Seminary and pastured churches in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and St. Louis. In St. Louis, Schaeffer and his wife Edith started a ministry, Children for Christ. At the same time, conflicts and schisms in the Presbyterian Church forced him to defend a high view of Scripture against liberal theology. He started the International Council of Christian Churches to counter the World Council of Churches. This took him to Europe, where he settled in Switzerland in 1948. But L’Abri had its genesis in a spiritual crisis that engulfed Schaeffer in 1950-1951. Depressed by church politics and power struggles, Schaeffer wrestled with the question: ‘How could people stand for truth and purity and God’s holiness without ugliness and harshness?’ He became dissatisfied, too, with his own failures to live out the faith as the Bible describes it, according to Mr. Barrs.
“Schaeffer felt these problems so deeply that he began to question whether Christianity, if it has so little effect, could be true. Once again, as he did when he was 17, he plunged into Bible reading in search of answers. He found them, becoming convinced that not only salvation but sanctification and the whole of the Christian’s life are by faith. ‘The sun came out again,’ he said, and he found ‘a new song in my heart.’ Now, in addition to holding Bible studies in the Schaeffer home and working with children, the Schaeffers began discussion groups for their teenage daughters and friends to hear their questions and to tell about the Bible’s answers.
“On June 5, 1955, the Schaeffers drew up a plan to turn their home into a place where people could come to work out their problems and to practice ‘true spirituality.’ Without finances and with no assurance that they would be allowed to stay in Switzerland, the Schaeffers purchased property in Huemoz, a rural village high in the mountains with a spectacular view of the Alps. Ranald Macaulay, a student at Cambridge who became involved with the Schaeffers in the early days (and later married their daughter Susan), said the founding of L’Abri was consistent with its organizing principle: to live in constant dependence on the grace of God.
“At a March 11-13 2005 Jubilee for L’Abri Fellowship at the America’s Center in St. Louis, Mr. Macaulay said the Schaeffers resolved to do no advertising for workers, no marketing to attract newcomers, no fundraising, and no planning – principles in stark contrast to most other ministries. The Schaeffers saw L’Abri as a unique experiment. They did not necessarily recommend this radical dependence on God’s providence as a pattern for other ministries, but the needs always were met. Concerned with reaching individuals, the Schaeffers were content with small numbers. Over time, however, the effect of their work multiplied. Over 1,000 L’Abri alumni attended the jubilee celebration, an event that was equal parts conference and family reunion.
“Os Guinness, Harold O.J. Brown, and Chuck Colson – all major evangelical thinkers who were shaped by L’Abri-gave addresses. Screenwriter Brian Godawa, who wrote To End All Wars, gave a workshop on transforming Hollywood. Theologian and cultural critic Vishal Mangaiwadi, from India, talked about his upcoming television documentary series on the impact of the Bible, The Book of the Millennium. Book tables overflowed with titles by L’Abri alumni. Workshops focused on the various facets of the Central Themes of L’Abri, ‘Transforming All of Life,’ and ‘True Spirituality.’ The evenings closed with classical music concerts.”
“Schaeffer persuaded nonbelievers to face up to the contradictions in their own worldviews by revealing their inability to account for what is most important in life (love, beauty, meaning). He would, as he described it, ‘take the roof off,’ bringing the nonbeliever almost to the point of despair, to acknowledge his lost condition. Then he applied the gospel of Christ. While conversant with the theology of Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, and Van Til, Schaeffer was captive only to the worldview set forth in the Bible-God’s good creation, man’s fall into sin and its consequences, the redemption through Christ-which he said accords with reality in all of its dimensions. Nonbelievers cannot bring themselves to be completely consistent with their own presuppositions, an inconsistency that is a result of common grace. Thus, illogically, he wrote in 1948, ‘men have in their accepted worldviews various amounts of that which is ours. But, illogical though it may be, it is there and we can appeal to it.’
“‘Even with hostile visitors,’ Mr. Barrs said, Schaeffer ‘had an acute sense of people’s brokenness and fallenness,’ and ‘thus would treat them with compassion.’ Mr. Guinness said that the genius of Schaeffer’s apologetics has yet to be fully unwrapped.’ When asked about reaching the culture, Mr. Guinness said that one of Schaeffer’s great insights is that we have to reach not cultures but individuals. Each individual has his or her own questions, personal struggles, and moral brokenness. Schaeffer took them all seriously, addressing people one by one, while giving them-sometimes for the first time-a sense of belonging to a community.
“Many approaches to evangelism and church growth today are impersonal, relying on manipulative formulas and the techniques of mass marketing and consumerism. L’Abri honors the dignity and the distinct spiritual needs of each individual. Many evangelicals think Christianity needs to be dumbed down and made easier to make it attractive to people today. L’Abri teaches that Christianity has substance and depth, that it has something to offer to thoughtful, educated people, and that – undiluted – biblical Christianity can change their lives.
“Fifty years later, evangelicalism once again faces the problem of being negative or ineffectual, worldly, or out of touch. L’Abri remains.”
Pele as can be expected came back to play with Brazil in the 1962 World Cup which was played in Chile. This time however Pele was much more known to the fans as well as opposing players; who were not really all that eager to see him score another six goals or perhaps more in this world cup. Brazil were defending champions with basically the same players which won the world cup in 58 and who despite the passage of four years were still relatively young. All of which making it easy to see why a second world cup for Brazil in as many tournaments was not out of the realms of realistic possibilities. Specially since there were no other teams which were really strong enough to challenge them. Germany going through a rebuilding period while Italy still did not have the sort of team which could aspire to recapture their glory days of the 30s. Uruguay pretty much being but a shadow of their former selves.
The world cup known as Chile 62 however become a very defensive affair as teams were no longer willing to score as many as three goals or more in loosing efforts as had been the case in Switzerland 54 and Sweden 58. Teams became more eager to hold on to their leads once they had them and not risk them by going forward for more goals. This making most teams play with four defenders and only three forwards where before it had been with two defenders and five forwards.
Brazil for its part got off to what looking back might have been considered a good start in beating Mexico by 2-0 with Pele scoring Brazil’s first goal yet despite this victory; Brazil was severely criticized with much of the blame falling not only on their performance but on Pele. This despite Pele’s having scored one of Brazil’s two goals. This perhaps allowing Pele to see for himself what Mazola had experienced four years earlier when despite having scored two goals in Brazil’s first match; still had people saying he should not be on Brazil’s team. It being a case that Brazilian fans in those days were used to seeing Brazil beat Mexico by much more goals than only two. Brazil, after all had beaten Mexico by 5-0 in Brazil 50 and by 4-0 in Switzerland 54. All of which standing to their reason that a defending world champion should be able to beat Mexico, once again by at least as wide a margin as their teams in the past had done if not by a wider one.
Brazil’s next game came against Czechoslovakia. This a match which ended in a 0-0 draw and with even more criticism aimed at Brazil by their fans and media back home. It was also in this match that Pele left the field injured not to return for the rest of the tournament. Pele had not even been touched by any of Czechoslovakia’s players yet despite this managed to do damage on himself which would take him out of the remainder of the world cup.
For my part, I being skeptical about almost everything, wonder if Pele’s injury was such that he could not have played Brazil’s next game against Spain. Pele after all had not broken anything and had not even been fouled. Was it perhaps an attempt to try another player? Pele had not really played all that well in Brazil’s first two matches or such it was perceived by the fans and the media back home. So I often wonder if perhaps Brazil’s trainer did not exaggerate the gravity of Pele’s injury in order to try another player in his place like he had done with Pele in Mazola’s place four years earlier. It being Amarildo who took Pele’s place against Spain in a game which though not an absolute must win game for Brazil; was one in which they would have to do better than they had in their first two matches. This if perhaps not to qualify, at least to demonstrate to their fans that they were still a team capable of producing great football.
The game started with Spain taking a 1-0 lead when Adelardo scored 35 minutes in to the game. Spain would even take a 1-0 lead in to the second half. This something which had not happened in a very long that that Brazil ended the first half behind on the scoreboard. Brazil at this point even finding themselves in danger of being eliminated in the first round. This being the case that Spain with a win would have had four points which would have put them first in the group. Brazil with a loss would have had three points which would leave them depending on what Mexico (who was already out of the competition) could do against Czechoslovakia. Naturally a Czech victory or even a tie would have left Brazil out had they lost.
All however proved to be academic, as Brazil came back in the second half to win the game by two goals to one with both goals being scored by Amarildo; who just happened to be the man playing in Pele’s place. Obviously Pele’s replacement was doing his duty so I wonder if Pele would have been able to return to the starting team even if he had been healthy or if his injury was such that it was the real reason he was kept out of the starting lineup.
Amarildo had played well against Spain, this there was no doubts about and specially in a world cup in which defensive play was the order of the day unlike it had been in the last two previous world cups. Spain, in fact having a strong team back then which two years later went on to win the European nations cup.
Brazil went on to win their next two matches with relative ease. First against England by 3-1. This in a game which Garrincha scored two truly amazing goals. First one off a header and the next one of a free kick which could not have been better placed. Brazil’s other goal being scored by Vava, who continued where he left off in Sweden 58. Brazil’s next win came in the semifinals against the home team, Chile whom they defeated by a score of 4-2 with once again; Garrincha and Vava doing the scoring for Brazil. It being Garrincha who scored Brazil’s first two while Vava scored Brazil’s third and fourth.
Brazil was clearly playing well and was in top form and all without Pele. It was a case of this team being of such a high quality that even the absence of Pele did not disturb anything. Apparently Amarildo had been more than capable of filling the void left by Pele while the rest by just keeping up their level allowed Brazil to easily get in to the final. Of course, one could always say that this world cup did not really have very strong teams and those which were in fact solid such as the Soviet Union (winner of the 1960 European Championship) and Hungary did not really live up to expectations; apart the fact that Brazil did not have to face them anyway. Brazil was in the finals however and to their credit deservedly so and all without the man who many would later call the best player of all time.
In the finals Brazil met Czechoslovakia for the second time in the tournament yet unlike in their first match; this one could not end in a draw. Czechoslovakia, for its part like Sweden four years earlier also scored the first goal though not as early in the match as Sweden. Czechoslovakia in fact having to wait till the 15th minute of the game when Masopust slipped past Brazil’s defense to give his team a 1-0 lead. Brazil however being the solid team they were did not take long to reply. Brazil in fact having to wait but two minutes till Amarildo (Pele’s replacement) scored to level matters at one a piece. Amarildo, scoring a brilliant goal from a very tight angle which perhaps Czechoslovakia’s goalkeeper; Schroijf should have saved yet the score none the less was tied at one all.
Czechoslovakia for what concerned them, were playing well and went in to the half time break tied at one though it is my opinion that they perhaps celebrated too much after scoring. This allowing Brazil to get back in to the game after only two minutes of having gone down by a goal to nil. Czechoslovakia had its chances in the first period and had it not been for their lack of concentration after scoring and Schroijf’s error perhaps would have gone in to the half time break with a one goal lead or perhaps a two goal lead. This if they had continued with the solid play which had gotten them to the final in the first place.
Brazil however regrouped at the half and came out strong with Zito scoring his first world cup goal and Brazil’s second in the final to put them up by 2-1. Brazil perhaps was not dominating as strongly as they had in 58 yet were definitely in the drivers seat. It being in the 78th minute of the game that Garrincha sent up a high ball which in all honesty should not have given Czech goalkeeper, Schroijf any problems what so ever yet he somehow managed to drop it. The ball falling straight in to the path of the ever opportunistic Vava, who scored his first goal of the match and Brazil’s third to make the score 3-1; which is how it would end.
This last goal making Vava the first player to score in two finals. Brazil had won the world cup and became just the second team, after Italy to win two in a row and to a certain extent Pele had picked up his second world cup win though in all truth, as I have clearly pointed out; he hardly played. Naturally, to many at the time this did not really matter as Pele was a man who at the age of 21 had already won two world cups even if the second one was just for being on the team and little else. This perhaps making it possible for Argentina to say that Pasarella won two world cups with Argentina, who as a matter of fact only played in their first game against South Korea but I ask is this enough to say he is a double world champion? I would go one step further and ask if Brazil had beaten France in 98 then could Ronaldo claim to have won three world cups as well since he was on their world cup winning team in 94 though did not play at all? This being a matter of interpretation of course.
As an added comment, I would like to say that I feel it is sad that Amarildo did not really get the credit he earned for his performance in Chile 62. It being Amarildo, who to a certain extent with his two goals against Spain saved Brazil from the humiliation of being eliminated in the first round. Amarildo even scoring in the final when Brazil was loosing by 1-0 yet despite his efforts which were important in Brazil’s second world cup win, is rarely if ever mentioned amongst the great players of all time though he undoubtedly was.
My name is Gianni Truvianni, author of many an article to be found on the internet along with the book “New York’s Opera Society”. My works also include the books “What Should Not Matter”, “Love Your Sister” and several others which still remain unpublished though I am presently looking to change this.
It seems to me that there are a few surprises in the recruiting game this year. Below is a rivals article and the one below it is an article from 3 months ago.
1. Stanford Cardinal Current class rank: No. 12 Reason for the move: Stanford made a move this week when it landed the best prospect of its class so far in Puyallup (Wash.) four-star offensive guard Joshua Garnett. Garnett selected the Cardinal on Thursday afternoon. He is considered the No. 2 overall guard in the nation and No. 33 overall in the Rivals100. Stanford also added the services of Kansas City (Mo.) Staley strongside defensive end Nathanael Lohn. Between now and NSD: David Shaw and Co., could end with a real bang. Five-star offensive tackles Kyle Murphy of San Clemente (Calif.) and Andrus Peat of Tempe (Ariz.) Corona Del Sol remain in play. Also, Stanford remains a top candidate for Atwater (Calif.) Buhach five-star defensive end Aziz Shittu. The Cardinal also must do some work to retain the commitments of Los Angeles (Calif.) Loyola four-star wide receiver Kodi Whitfield and Pleasant Grove (Utah) four-star offensive guard Brandon Fanaika, who continue to leave the door ajar for some other programs. More Stanford: CardinalReport.com
2. Rutgers Scarlet Knights Current class rank: No. 32 Reason for the move: A pair of new commitments helped the Scarlet Knights make a move over the past week – but the good vibes may not last long because coach Greg Schiano has since departed for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Schiano helped to lure Fairless Hills (Pa.) Pennsbury four-star offensive tackle J.J. Denman away from Wisconsin. Also, one of the better in-state players decided he wanted to be a Scarlet Knight when Long Branch (N.J.) three-star offensive tackle Ryan Brodie pledged his services. Between now and NSD: With a coaching change this late in the cycle, it will be interesting to see how Rutgers does with regards to retaining the 17 commitments and closing out the class. A pair of in-state prospects remain atop the wish list – Ramsey (N.J.) Don Bosco Prep five-star defensive end Darius Hamilton and Old Tappan (N.J.) four-star athlete Devin Fuller. More Rutgers: ScarletNation.com
3. UCLA Bruins Current class rank: No. 18 Reason for the move: Jim Mora and his new staff have had success down the stretch getting prospects to flip their commitments. The Bruins have added nine new commitments over the past month with two new additions this past week. Murrieta (Calif.) Vista Murrieta four-star defensive end Jeremy Castro decided to switch his commitment from Oregon to the Bruins. Also, Elk Grove (Calif.) Sheldon defensive end Nate Iese hopped on board. Between now and NSD: UCLA remains a serious contender for Sacramento (Calif.) Grant five-star safety Shaq Thompson, who is currently committed to California, and Atwater (Calif.) Buhach five-star defensive end Aziz Shittu. Shittu is expected on campus this weekend. A number of other prospects remain in play as Mora tries to cram a year’s worth of recruiting into a one-month time span. More UCLA: BruinBlitz.com
4. North Carolina Tar Heels Current class rank: No. 50 Reason for the move: North Carolina made its way into the top 50 with four additions over the past week. The top commitment that Larry Fedora and staff landed in the past week was Greensboro (N.C.) Page dual-threat quarterback James Summers. Summers was a four-star commitment to in-state rival North Carolina State. North Carolina also added a trio of three-star prospects in Auburn (Ala.) offensive lineman Caleb Peterson, Brandenton (Fla.) Manatee safety Clinton Heaven and McDonough (Ga.) Eagle’s Landing Christian defensive end Justin Thomason. Between now and NSD: North Carolina will host a number of prospects during this weekend, the final weekend prior to National Signing Day. Leading the list is Dallas (Texas) Wilmer-Hutchins four-star safety LaDarrell McNeil, who is committed to Tennessee. McNeil is part of the Rivals100. Rivals250 wide receiver Davonte Neal from Scottsdale (Ariz.) Chaparral is also expected in Chapel Hill. Other visitors include highly ranked three-star wide receiver Ian Thomas from Reistertown (Md.) Franklin and defensive end Junior Gnonkonde from Lakeland (Ga.) Lanier County. More UNC: TarHeelIllustrated.com
5. Tennessee Volunteers Current class rank: 11 Reason for the move: The Volunteers moved up four spots on the shoulders of the addition of Columbus (Ga.) Carver four-star cornerback Deion Bonner. Bonner, a Rivals250 prospect, chose Tennessee after a recent official visit to Rocky Top. Between now and NSD: Tennessee isn’t only battling to win over uncommitted recruits, but the Vols are also battling to retain the ones they already have. Crowley (La.) four-star athlete Davante Bourque and Van (Texas) three-star linebacker Dalton Santos, both Tennessee commitments, continue to draw a great deal of attention from other suitors. Tennessee hopes to add the services of some other prospects such as Lynchburg (Va.) Brookville four-star defensive tackle Korren Kirven, Hutchinson (Kansas) Hutchinson C.C. four-star wide receiver Cordarrelle Patterson, Gaffney (S.C.) four-star wide receiver Quinshad Davis and others. More Tennessee: VolQuest.com
Five Down
1. N.C. State Wolfpack Current class rank: NR Reason for the move: N.C. State suffered a big blow when the Pack’s top commitment, Greensboro (N.C.) Page four-star dual-threat quarterback James Summers switched his commitment to their in-state rivals, North Carolina, this week. Summers was the lone four-star in the Wolfpack’s class prior to his switch. Between now and NSD: N.C. State, for the most part, is done with the 2012 class, even with the departure of Summers. Palm Desert (Calif.) College of the Desert three-star linebacker Robert Caldwell is marked down for a visit this weekend. N.C. State also must work to retain all of its commitments as schools such as Georgia and Illinois look to steal some targets between now and Wednesday. More N.C. State: TheWolfpacker.com
2. Georgia Bulldogs Current class rank: No. 21 Reason for the move: Georgia slipped some this week after Hinesville (Ga.) Bradwell Institute three-star offensive guard Chester Brown parted ways with the university, due in large part to an immigration issue involving the school’s bylaws. Brown’s departure wasn’t offset in any way, as Georgia added no new commitments over the past week. Between now and NSD: Georgia will be one of the main teams to keep a close eye on down the stretch. The Dawgs could add a half-dozen or more prospects down the stretch. Valdosta (Ga.) Lowndes five-star athlete Josh Harvey-Clemons is near the top of the list of those desired by Mark Richt and staff. Others include Palm Beach Gardens (Fla.) four-star offensive lineman Avery Young and Hutchinson (Kansas) Hutchinson C.C. four-star wide receiver Cordarrelle Patterson. More Georgia: UGASports.com
3. Auburn Tigers Current class rank: No. 20 Reason for the move: Miami Beach (Fla.) four-star wide receiver Ricardo Louis switched his commitment from Auburn to Florida State, before finally deciding to no one until he reaches his final decision – likely on National Signing Day. Louis is a Rivals250 prospect, so his departure hurt the ranking, but when the dust settles it is very likely he ends up back in the class for Gene Chizik. Between now and NSD: In addition to Louis, Auburn is looking at a number of other Rivals250 prospects to close out the class. Auburn remains heavily involved with Rivals100 prospects such as five-star defensive tackle Eddie Goldman from Washington (D.C.) Friendship Collegiate Academy, five-star wide receiver Stefon Diggs from Olney (Md.) Our Lady of Good Counsel, four-star defensive end Leonard Williams from Daytona Beach (Fla.) Mainland, four-star cornerback Ronald Darby from Oxon Hill (Md.) Potomac, and four-star offensive tackle Avery Young from Palm Beach Gardens (Fla.). Auburn could be one of the biggest movers, in the right direction, over the final week. More Auburn: AuburnSports.com
4. Wisconsin Badgers Current class rank: No. 46 Reason for the move: The Badgers dropped with Fairless Hills (Pa.) Pennsbury four-star offensive tackle J.J. Denman‘s decision to switch his commitment to Rutgers. It dropped the Badgers’ class to just 11 prospects and dropped them to just four four-star prospects total. Between now and NSD: The bad news may not be over. Cleveland (Ohio) Cleveland Heights four-star offensive tackle Kyle Dodson is thought to be a likely candidate to switch his commitment, departing Wisconsin for most likely Ohio State. The Badgers will look to rally as they pursue the likes of Jeannette (Pa.) four-star safety Demetrious Cox, Chicago Simeon four-star offensive tackle Jordan Diamond and Whiteland (Ind.) three-star offensive tackle Jake Meador. More Wisconsin: BadgerBlitz.com
5. Texas A&M Aggies Current class rank: No. 10 Reason for the move: Texas A&M slipped a few spots, settling in at No. 10 overall. Their slight drop can be credited to Aledo (Texas) three-star offensive tackle Michael Wilson‘s decision to switch his commitment from the Aggies to Oklahoma State. Between now and NSD: Texas A&M may very likely replace Wilson with Friendswood (Texas) three-star offensive tackle Seaver Myers. The biggest name that the Aggies remain involved with is Dallas (Texas) Skyline four-star wide receiver Thomas Johnson. Johnson is also looking heavily at Cal and Oregon. A linebacker is also another possible addition for Texas A&M before it reaches the finish line. More Texas A&M:AggieYell.com
In the latest update of 247Sports team football recruiting rankings, nothing has changed at the top as Texas still has the nation’s top class. According to our formula, the Longhorns have a slight edge on Alabama at this time for No. 1 overall. Five-star running back Johnathan Gray (Aledo, Texas) and five-star defensive tackle Malcom Brown (Brenham, Texas) headline a stellar class for Mack Brown and the Longhorns.
Michigan (No. 4) and Texas A&M (No. 6) are two of the big surprises of the recruiting cycle. The Wolverines could get closer to No. 3 Florida State (there is a bigger statistical difference between the Wolverines class and the Seminoles’ class than there is among the top three) should they land four-star wide receiver Jordan Payton (Westlake Village, Calif./Oaks Christian), who could make a decision as early as Tuesday.
A quick note about Ohio State (No. 36), USC (No. 50) and Wisconsin- All three of those programs are projected to sign classes in at least the top 30-40 (most likely higher) but at the moment, the number of prospects on the commit list causes the scores for both programs to be lower than they normally would be. The Buckeyes, of course, are going through a transition with their program, but there is quality there. Even with the limited numbers the Trojans have (and don’t forget that the nation’s top prospect- lineman Arik Armstead- recently de-committed), we expect them to have a higher-ranked class than they do now. Remember- in recruiting it’s all about where you finish the first Wednesday in February (or in some cases after that). Five of the Badgers’ 11 current commits are rated four stars are higher by 247Sports, so in the end, this will be a very highly-regarded class headed to Madison.
Here’s a look at the current top 50. Look for another update on Thursday of this week.
1- Texas (761.239)
2- Alabama (760.541)
3- Florida State (759.663)
4- Michigan (755.673)
5- Florida (747.452)
6- Texas A&M (746.045)
7- LSU (742.963)
8- Notre Dame (741.808)
9- Auburn (736.727)
10- Clemson (736.362)
11- Miami (Fla.) (735.946)
12- South Carolina (734.203)
13- Virginia (732.729)
14- Tennessee (724.514)
15- Penn State (721.689)
16- Oklahoma (719.503)
17- Texas Tech (717.238)
18- Georgia (713.995)
19- Virginia Tech (713.407)
20- Baylor (711.590)
21- Arizona State (707.513)
22- TCU (705.842)
23- Stanford (705.145)
24- Rutgers (702.641)
25- Arkansas (701.550)
26- Arizona (700.876)
27- Missouri (699.755)
28- Oklahoma State (699.452)
29- West Virginia (695.650)
30- Michigan State (694.880)
31- Vanderbilt (694.402)
32- Cincinnati (692.411)
33- Kentucky (691.526)
34- Mississippi State (691.334)
35- Pittsburgh (687.794)
36- Ohio State (686.653)
37- Purdue (685.285)
38- Louisville (682.244)
39- Minnesota (678.587)
40- Indiana (678.536)
41- North Carolina (677.575)
42- Maryland (675.061)
43- Boise State (674.288)
44- N.C. State (672.494)
45- SMU (671.614)
46- Colorado (663.457)
47- BYU (663.082)
48- Washington (662.957)
49- UCLA (661.360)
50- USC (660.044)
I am perplexed by some of your statements concerning our corporate tax rate here in the USA. It is my view that tax is basically double taxation and should be removed. Take a look at this short article from the Cato Institute that checks your State of the Union Speech assertions:
Let’s do some fact checking on President Obama’s corporate tax comments in last night’s State of the Union.
Claim: “Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas.”
False: There are no such breaks. Instead, we punish U.S. and foreign businesses for investing and creating jobs here.
Claim: “If you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it.”
False: There is no such tax deduction.
Claim: “No American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas.”
False: America is not a prison camp. Besides, imposing a 40-percent tax rate on corporations that invest here is not a “fair share.”
Claim: “From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax.”
False: We’ve already got a corporate “alternative minimum tax,” and it’s an idiotic waste of accounting resources that ought to be repealed.
Claim: “It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas.”
False: We penalize them for locating jobs here. Besides, the overseas operations of U.S. companies generally complement domestic jobs by boosting U.S. exports.
Claim: “Companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world.”
Claim: “If you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.”
False: It’s a horrible idea to create special breaks for certain types of government-favored businesses. It would simply encourage the exact type of tax game-playing and lobbying that the president decries. What’s a “high-tech” manufacturer? What’s an “American” manufacturer? What’s a “manufacturer”? How “hard hit” do towns need to be?
Upshot: From the president’s one “true” comment we can derive the simple and logical solution to our corporate tax problem. We should stop “hitting” companies with a 40-percent sledgehammer, and cut our corporate statutory rate to boost investment and reduce corporate tax avoidance.
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
Romney not only stanched the bleeding in this debate, he went on the offensive — unloading his clip at Gingrich early on and then firing off another round further in.
He was not animated in his delivery, but he kept at it until he made contact. He hit his rival repeatedly as a lobbyist, questioned his consistency and used the new line he’s been message-testing on the Florida campaign trail about the former House speaker having to resign in “disgrace.”
His goal was clear — to prevent Gingrich from having one of his signature “moments.”
Romney seemed a bit overprogrammed in some of his answers, but he kept Gingrich from getting under his skin — that had been a problem for the former Massachusetts governor in past debates.
He still managed to provide fodder for YouTube clips. His answer on his tax returns remains, even on his third debate try, too halting, a signal of just how difficult the issue is for him to address. He also recycled a line that he seems to like — but that may not be well-received in foreclosure-heavy Florida — about forcing Ted Kennedy to take out a second mortgage on his home to try to keep his seat when Romney ran against him in 1994.
He pandered a bit — saying he would sign a version of the DREAM Act if it were focused on a provision involving military service, a nice idea if that version of the bill existed — and introduced the phrase “self-deportation” into the 2012 lexicon.
However, he had a few genuinely good moments and found his footing toward the end of the taxes answer when he talked about not apologizing for his success. And he gave one of his more coherent answers yet about Bain Capital, speaking in anecdotes about people who’d been helped rather than about numbers.
The good news for Romney? Gingrich didn’t have a truly standout line. The bad news? There’s no headline from this debate that will obscure the news out of the release of his tax returns Tuesday.
I used to like Newt back in the 1990′s but a lot has changed since then. Take a look at this fine article from the Cato Institute: Gingrich Rise Is Triumph of Style over Substance by Gene Healy Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult […]
It pays to remember history. Today I am going to go through some of it and give an outline and quotes from the great Southern Baptist leader Adrian Rogers (1931-2005). Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times started this morning off with some comedy: From pro golfer John Daly’s Twitter account following last night’s Republican debate, […]
EXCLUSIVE: Ron Paul Has A Secret Plan To Win America I used to go to the Immanuel Baptist Church (Clinton was member there) Luncheon every week in Little Rock and in 1995 I visited the large Southern Baptist Church in the Atlanta where Newt was a member. Both men evidently shared some hypocritical habits […]
There is no other way around this problem for Romney. If he wins the Republican Nomination for President then the must embrace some of Paul’s ideas (as suggested below by Senator Demint) or get Rand Paul to be the VP candidate. GOP Should Heed Ron Paul by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner is a senior […]
The Arkansas Times jumped on this story as many other liberals outlets. Change in the marketplace is driven by the wants and needs of consumers. Are we to protect the jobs of those who work for companies that want to cling to the past? I posted about this before but I have decided to revisit […]
Great website below tracks the delegates for the Republican nomination: The delegate race There are 2,286 delegates up for grabs. A candidate needs 1,144 to win the GOP presidential nomination. Total delegates won, by candidate Delegates needed: 1,144 Romney 20 Santorum 12 Paul 3 Huntsman 2 Perry […]
Here is an excellent article: You can blame Mitt, but not for Bain By: Steven Rattner January 12, 2012 12:02 AM EST I’m all in favor of piling on Mitt Romney for any number of reasons: his come lately embrace of hard right conservatism, his periodic malapropisms (“I like being able to fire people”) and […]
Dr. Robert Jeffress a Featured Guest on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” (10/14/11) Uploaded by robertjeffress on Oct 15, 2011 Dr. Robert Jeffress was a featured guest on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday night, October 14. The pastor talked with the controversial political satirist about the Protestant Reformation; being saved by faith, […]
What Ever Happened to the Human Race? Bachmann was a student of the works of Francis Schaeffer like I am and I know she was pro-life because of it. (Observe video clip above and picture of Schaeffer.) I hated to see her go. DES MOINES, Iowa — Last night, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann vowed to […]
TEMIN: We don’t think the big capital arose before the government did?
VON HOFFMAN: Listen, what are we doing here? I mean __ defending big government is like defending death and taxes. When was the last time you met anybody that was in favor of big government?
FRIEDMAN: Today, today I met Bob Lekachman, I met __
LEKACHMAN: But that’s not to say __ with discrimination __not per se.
VON HOFFMAN: You’re in favor of certain functions __
FRIEDMAN: I make a living by making distinctions, after all. Certainly not without qualification.
MCKENZIE: Von Hoffman, you have the floor.
VON HOFFMAN: What I was going to say is, I think most of us are not in favor of big government as a theory. The question that keeps haunting me here is, how do you, going back to your question of just the monetary regulation, how do you make __ and let’s assume that you can really, we’ll go a step further and we’ll say __ we’ll go all the way with you. We will install that mechanism. What makes you think that when the storms arise that, that the people running that mechanism are not going to misread, just as they did in the past?
FRIEDMAN: Because I’m gonna have __ if I had my way I would have a mechanism which didn’t require them to read anything.
VON HOFFMAN: In other words, simply a money formula.
FRIEDMAN: Absolutely.
VON HOFFMAN: Is cranked out in relation to the GNP regardless.
FRIEDMAN: Right.
TEMIN: The question is: How are you going to keep from tampering with this black box? Would you have a thing __
FRIEDMAN: I’m not gonna have a black box; I’m gonna have a very visible system. I have written out, as you know __
TEMIN: No, I know. Yeah, but the question is, no, you have the rule __
FRIEDMAN: __ at relative great length and precise details on what I would do.
TEMIN: __ it will calculate this, but then there’s going to be someone who’ll come in, the people that you dislike, they’ll say, “But we could do it a little bit better by doing it this way or that way.”
FRIEDMAN: Of course. Of course.
TEMIN: How will you keep them from doing it?
FRIEDMAN: Well, in the only way in which you can do it in a democratic society, by establishing both a written and an unwritten __ and the unwritten is just as important as the written __ an unwritten constitution on the part of the public at large, an acceptance of the view, that this is not what people in government ought to be doing. That it’s their problem
VON HOFFMAN: A highly sacred measure of __
FRIEDMAN: Well, if you want, but not necessarily sacred in the theological sense.
JAY: It’s unfair of people to say, Professor Friedman, he’s a bad doctor because people won’t actually take his medicine. I mean that is, that is not fair. But it does seem to me, and I say it again, that to reduce the whole debate to one, are you in favor of big government or small government, as though that is the only interesting or important political-economic choice we had to make, is very foolish.
FRIEDMAN: That is very foolish. I agree.
JAY: But __ and if you put it in that form, in practice in democratic societies, people will go on backing, supporting, and paying for big government. Because unless you __ in addition to pointing out the errors, defects, weaknesses, fallibilities, failures or government, you also describe in some detail, and to some attraction, the other changes that you’re going to make in the nongovernmental sector of the economy, which are going to give people the kind of protection, the kind of opportunities, the kind of fulfillment, the kind of stability, the kind of prosperity that they want. They are not going to buy it because you’re offering them a pig in the poke, and they will see it, whether or not you approve of the phrase, or whether or not I approve of the phrase, there’s going back to something which they’re glad to have got away from.
TEMIN: The question of how you draw the lines, and where you draw the lines is a difficult one, and I can’t see any possible way of somehow making a decision on that will stand like __ like the Rock of Gibraltar against all comers.
LEKACHMAN: I don’t think that the public is going to, nor should it, choose ideologically. I think it’s going to favor and disfavor certain activities of government out of its experience, by its perception of what’s good in its own interests and so on. And my __ I don’t preclude the possibility that there will be a different mixture of perceptions by the public which will lead to a shift in the functions of government. But I think it’s at least as possible that after the shift occurs, government will be perceived to have more functions as that it will have fewer functions.
VON HOFFMAN: It seems to me also that you could have the monetary policy that you are talking about, and have the very big HEW etcetera.
OFF SCREEN: Absolutely. Oh, yes.
VON HOFFMAN: And more easily.
FRIEDMAN: Unfortunately, you’re right.
VON HOFFMAN: Now could you dilate on that?
FRIEDMAN: No, no I __
VON HOFFMAN: No, I mean it, seriously.
FRIEDMAN: I agree with you. I agree with Nick. These are separable issues. And Peter Jay will agree with that, too. In fact he and I are in almost complete agreement on the desirable monetary policy. Where we differ is on these other policies, and there is certainly no doubt that you could have an essentially automatic stabilizing monetary policy of the kind which I’ve suggested, of a fixed rate of monetary growth, no discretionary intervention for cyclical purposes, and at the same time have a very big government on HEW, have all sorts of regulation, have tariffs and all other things. With respect to Peter Jay’s more general statement, it’s impossible not to agree with his statement, because it’s __ it concentrates on objectives and not on means. And the real issue has to do with means. What are the most appropriate and effective means which will give people the greatest assurance __ you can’t give them certainty __ but the greatest assurance that they will have a reasonably stable society with opportunity for themselves and their children, for their needs, for their wants. Of course.
MCKENZIE: We must end the discussion for this week and hope you’ll join us again for the next edition of Free to Choose.
When I first heard Keith Green in 1978 it had a major impact on my life. Below is his story:
LEGEND
Keith Green
CBN.com – When musician Keith Green died in a plane crash on July 28, 1982, the world lost a special man whose heart was aflame with the gospel message. Before his untimely end, Green took the world on his seven-year spiritual journey. He held back nothing and was consumed with loving Christ and the church.
On October 21, 1953, Keith Green was born into musical talent. His maternal grandfather was a songwriter and his mother studied voice at Carnegie Hall. By five years old, Green played the ukulele and began formal music lessons. He was writing his own music by age 9. Two years later, Green signed with Decca Records. Time magazine called Green a “pre-pubescent dreamboat” who “croons in a voice trembling with conviction.” He was the youngest member of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, and played on The Jack Benny Show and The Joey Bishop Show. Green was on the cusp of pop music success until he was displaced by another budding teen idol, Donny Osmond.
After a troubled youth, he married singer/songwriter Melody Steiner in 1973. They struggled to financially and spiritually sought after the meaning of life. Growing up in the drug-induced, anti-establishment ‘60s era led them both to reject organized religion and dabble in eastern mysticism.
Green discovered Christ in the mid-70s. As he attended church and delved deeper into the Bible, Green was increasingly troubled by the hypocrisy of Christians. He longed to reach people through his music and drive them back to holiness. With vocals like Cat Stevens and the piano talent of Elton John, Green recorded his first album in 1977, For Him Who Has Ears to Hear on Sparrow Records. The album, produced by Bill Maxwell, was a commercial success. It later earned the No. 5 spot in CCM’s Greatest Albums in Christian Music. Hits like “Your Love Broke Through” (co-written by friend Randy Stonehill) and “You Put This Love in My Heart” encapsulated Green’s relationship with Jesus. It also had 2nd Chapter of Acts’ “Easter Song.” That same year the Greens started Last Days Ministries with a newsletter that reached 22,000 people.
No Compromise came in November of 1978. “Asleep in the Light,” a radio hit, drove home Green’s conviction for the hypocrites in the church. Penning his most confrontational lyrics, he sang: “Jesus rose from the dead / And you can’t even get out of bed.” Green also mourned the lost souls he encountered in Los Angeles in “How Can They Live Without Jesus.”
Green released So You Wanna Go Back to Egypt in 1980. The title track is a light-hearted view of the little things that become obstacles in the Christian walk. He also sang the worshipful “Oh Lord You’re Beautiful” and an ode to laying down his possessions in “Pledge My Head to Heaven.” Green refused to let money be an obstacle in spreading the gospel. His third album sold 200,000 copies, and most of his albums were given away at concerts.
The last album Green ever co-produced was 1982’s Songs for the Shepherd. Stepping away from convicting the wayward Christian, Songs for the Shepherd was 12 tracks of praise and worship to God including “How Majestic Is Thy Name” and “You Are the One.” The eerily titled “Until the Final Day” showed a weary but faithful Green crying out for God’s strength. The “final day” came all too soon when he and two of his young children lost their lives just three months after its release.
Maxwell produced and released two posthumous albums, The Prodigal Son and Jesus Commands Us to Go. In 2001, Green was inducted into the Gospel Music Association Hall of Fame along with Jesus rocker Larry Norman. His wife actively maintains Last Day Ministries. Melody wrote her husband’s biography in 1989 from his journal entries. It was appropriately titled “No Compromise.” It revealed the meaning Green found in his life, which he summed up as: “I repent of ever having recorded one single song, and ever having performed one concert, if my music, and more importantly, my life has not provoked you into Godly jealousy or to sell out more completely to Jesus!”
For those thinking Novak Djokovic’s 2011 was an overheated mirage, the first Grand Slam of 2012 proves otherwise, ESPN.com’s Greg Garber writes. 
Need the scores from any match played in today’s Aussie Open? 
The Daily Hatch 