Yearly Archives: 2012

New movie about Abraham Lincoln (Part 5)

Still of Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln

13 September 2012
Photo by David James, SMPSP – © 2012 – DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC. All Rights Reserved.

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

I don’t agree with everything in this review below but I did enjoy reading it.

(BBB, C, PCPC, RHRH, LLL, VV, S, A, D, MM) Very strong moral worldview against slavery but with only some light, infrequently uplifting references to God, strong anachronistic foul language, and some strong politically correct revisionist history that obliterates many of the nuances about the history of President Lincoln and the War for Southern Independence, aka the Civil War, aka The War of Northern Agression; 24 obscenities (including four “f” words), 13 or 14 strong profanities (all but two are GDs), and three light profanities; strong war violence in one scene with soldiers fighting and dying in the rain almost completely hand to hand with swords and some guns, scene showing amputated limbs being dumped outside of a military hospital and buried, and man runs from a gun-toting human varmint; no sex scenes but unmarried interracial couple lies in bed, thus implying that they are living together without being married; no nudity; alcohol use; some smoking; and, bribery, an attitude of the ends (outlawing slavery) justifying the means, political obfuscation to win political battles, and racism but rebuked.

Summary:

Steven Spielberg’s LINCOLN focuses on President Lincoln’s efforts in January 1865 to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery in the United States and its territories. LINCOLN is a meticulous, captivating, somewhat nuanced, and brilliantly performed moral plea against slavery, racism, and prejudice, but it sometimes suggests that the ends justifies the means and contains too much strong foul language that seems anachronistic.

Review:

The issue of slavery has always clouded the objective historical analysis of Abraham Lincoln, his life, and his political career. Lincoln’s opposition to slavery at the end of the Civil War seems to excuse all of his earlier actions that may be called into question. It’s also often said that history is written by the victors. Such is the case with Lincoln and the Civil War. However, there are many very smart historians taking the other side who have shown the dark side of Lincoln, the North (including its own rampant racism), the abolitionists, and the negative consequences of Lincoln’s expansion of the federal government.Steven Spielberg’s film LINCOLN clearly takes the politically correct, Northern view of Lincoln and wraps it up in the shroud of the moral fight against slavery. Thus, it decides mostly to focus on Lincoln’s fight in January 1865 to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery in the United States and its territories. Though the portrayal of this fight has its nuances, it doesn’t include the extensive evidence suggesting that Lincoln could be an ambitious, secretive tyrant. It also excludes such facts that, just before the Civil War began, President Lincoln had actually expressed support for a Thirteenth Amendment to perpetuate slavery, which had just been passed under his predecessor to encourage Southern states to stay in the Union. Sadly, LINCOLN also contains a surprising amount of anachronistic foul language and a surprising lack of uplifting religious references.The movie opens with a scene of black Union soldier battling white Confederate soldiers to the death in the rain, at the Battle of Jenkin’s Ferry in April 1864. Cut to a corny, rather politically correct scene where two white Union soldiers and two black soldiers quote the Gettysburg Address back to Lincoln near the battlefield. One of the black soldiers complains about unequal pay to Lincoln. At the end of the scene, he’s the one who actually remembers the last line to the Gettysburg Address. Pointedly, the two white soldiers forget it.

After winning re-election the following November, Lincoln decides he wants to resubmit the amendment to free the slaves throughout the country. The amendment had passed the Senate but was defeated in the House. After his 1864 victory at the polls, however, Lincoln thinks he can sway the now lame-duck House Democrats who had voted against the amendment. He dangles some carrots in front of these Democrats – some patronage jobs in the federal government.

Most of the movie’s plot involves the political wrangling over gaining the votes to pass the amendment. Now that victory in the war is near, Lincoln feels slavery will never be abolished unless they pass the amendment right away. Interspersed with this political fight are emotional scenes of Lincoln’s relationship with his wife, Mary, and his two remaining sons, young Todd and adult son Robert. The serious drama is lightened with examples of Lincoln’s fabled wit and storytelling abilities.

Except for a couple awkward scenes that don’t play well, like the opening corny scene about the Gettysburg Address, LINCOLN is an engrossing, captivating work. It’s full of superb performances, including Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln, as well as exquisite period detail. It’s certain to grab some major nominations during the upcoming awards season.

On the positive side, the movie does have some historical nuances. For instance, one scene mentions Lincoln’s suspension of a couple civil rights during the war, including habeus corpus and freedom of the press. One mention, however, is certainly not enough. Lincoln didn’t suspend such civil rights for Southern sympathizers and rebels but also for political opponents and other dissenters. LINCOLN also shows a contentious relationship between Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens, the secular leader of the most radical abolitionist faction in the House of Representatives. In the end, however, there’s a politically correct scene of the rabble-rousing Stevens having a quiet moment in bed with the black woman who served as his housekeeper for many years. That relationship has long been rumored, and Stevens never outright denied it, but it’s also never been confirmed.

LINCOLN contains a few religious references. The strongest is a shot of black people raising their eyes to God when the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery is passed. There are a few verbal references to God. Some put belief in God in a relatively positive light (e.g., one God bless you is said and the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” which includes references to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, is sung). Some, however, put faith in God in a negative light. The most negative references are one or two comments by opponents of the Thirteenth Amendment that God created blacks to be inferior to whites, thus implying that freeing black slaves would be a bad idea violating God’s natural order.

Ultimately, LINCOLN is a salute to Lincoln’s efforts to outlaw slavery and pass the Thirteenth Amendment. This turns the movie from being an examination of Lincoln to being a strong moral plea against slavery, racism and prejudice. As such, it glosses over the changes in Lincoln’s opinions on the slavery issue as the Civil War progressed. It also mostly ignores other historical details that might tarnish Lincoln’s reputation. Finally, LINCOLN suggests that the ends (outlawing slavery) justified the means (political bribery and deception to the point of nearly lying, or, at the very least, obfuscating the truth). Sadly, the movie also contains about 40 obscenities and profanities, including four “f” words and more than 10 GDs.

All in all, despite its good intentions and meticulous depiction of the past, LINCOLN warrants strong caution. Moviegoers always should be very cautious about getting their history from movies. Movies are seldom, if ever, a good substitute for serious study of the actual historical record.

Finally, if you asked our reviewer’s opinion, he would say that he much preferred Spielberg’s SCHINDLER’S LIST to his LINCOLN. It’s more heartfelt and riveting.

Note: For a radically different view of Lincoln, the abolitionists, and the Civil War, you might want to read THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy. For a very scholarly, conservative examination of the limited meaning of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, see Chapter 8 of M.E. Bradford’s ORIGINAL INTENTIONS. For the Northern view of Lincoln and the Civil War, the works of historian James M. McPherson (BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM) are a great place to start.

In Brief:

Steven Spielberg’s LINCOLN focuses on President Lincoln’s efforts in January 1865 to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery in the United States and its territories. Now that victory in the Civil War is near, Lincoln feels slavery will never be abolished unless they pass the amendment right away. Interspersed with this political fight are emotional scenes of Lincoln’s relationship with his wife, Mary, and his two remaining sons, young Todd and adult son Robert. The serious drama is lightened with examples of Lincoln’s fabled storytelling wit.Except for a couple awkward scenes that don’t play well, LINCOLN is an engrossing, captivating work. It’s full of superb performances and exquisite period detail. The movie is primarily a strong moral plea against slavery, racism, and prejudice. However, it ignores some historical details that might tarnish Lincoln’s reputation. Also, there’s much strong foul language, to the point of being excessive. Finally, the movie suggests that the ends justifies the means. Therefore, MOVIEGUIDE® advises strong caution for LINCOLN. Movies are seldom, if ever, a good substitute for serious study of the actual historical record.

Related posts:

Television interview of witness who saw Lincoln shot

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

Letters from a former slave to his former master

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Music Monday “Ringo Starr tour Part 4”

I went  to a Ringo Starr concert on July 4, 2012 at Orange Beach, AL and enjoyed it very much and here are some of the songs I heard that night:

Ringo Starr and Barbara Bach«

______-

With a Little Help From My Friends / Give Peace a Chance Live Ringo Starr Bethel Woods June 16 2012

ished on Jun 17, 2012 by    

Ringo Starr plays With a Little Help From My Friends / Give Peace a Chance Live at Bethel Woods, on June 16, 2012. View from rushing the stage near the end of the concert

Ringo Starr and Barbara Bach«

___________–

Ringo Starr 2012: Album Review

27th Jan 2012 in Reviews, by Sean Keenan

Whilst in no way meaning to damn with faint praise (it’s Ringo Starr, who would wish him ill?), there is little on Ringo 2012 that is deserving of great praise either.

Nor does there really have to be. Beatles completists and milder nostalgists will find this comfortable stroll through the 4/4, twelve bar, ageing men playing competent blues checklist.

That should be, and will be enough for both camps. It’s interesting to hear what a musician with nothing to prove comes up with. It would be typical at this point to say something along the lines of ‘in 2012’s intensely competitive and failure-strewn music market, only music which strives to be great can hope to survive’, and point out that with a fanbase as solid as Ringo’s, perhaps there is some comforting aspect to making music which only has to strive to be good.

interesting to hear what a musician with nothing to prove comes up with

It misses a point though, which is that there never was a time when the recorded music market wasn’t viciously fought, and that being one of the few to have sold records over the course of six decades still doesn’t guarantee a smooth run with a record label. Ask Tom Jones.

And Ringo, the one member of The Beatles who wasn’t there from the start, described by John Lennon as ‘not even the best drummer in The Beatles’, still has to perform. Shouldering that quote for nigh-on sixty years can’t help but irritate, but to his credit, the album resists any urge to get flashy with the kit, throwing in nifty little syncopations or tricky assymetric paradiddles. (Lennon did tell Playboy magazine in 1980 that Ringo was ‘a damn good drummer’.)

not even the best drummer in The Beatles

Starr’s great gift as a drummer, and one which he is well aware of, is his time. Metronomic and sturdy, what he can do is beat out a backbone to any song, solid enough to anchor any amount of histrionics going on at the front of the stage. In his earlier days that may have been a couple of artschool scousers yelling out harmonies, now it’s more likely to be guitar solos or in one particularly sultry case, Rhodes piano.

‘Anthem’ opens the album with a surging flashback to ‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)’, the very same bridge-picked guitar sound (or as near as dammit) swooping in and livening up what is otherwise a pretty pedestrian runthrough of simplistic peace and love platitudes calling upon us all to get our act together and sort the world’s more obvious problems out.

a surging flashback to ‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)

There are no surprises in the exuberant guitar solos or solid percussion on the blues-rock structure, unless it has some coded clues that only true fans with encyclopaedic knowledge of his life and career will pick up. Perhaps, played backwards, there is a ghostly voice chanting ‘George is alive’, but in its absence, the track is a competent plodder.

Elsewhere the album is jaunty – from the steel drum peppered ‘Think it Over’, which sounds a bit like Dion’s ‘The Wanderer’ mated with ‘Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da’, to the strangely polka leanings of ‘Samba’. If these songs were to be played, this well, at a wedding reception, you would dance and enjoy. And there is the heart of it, because as can be expected after so many hugely successful years in the business, the man knows some fine musicians. It’s not the Wilburys, but its a bunch of experts, playing well within their competence, and thus getting on with all those beyond-competence facets of music that come from that: groove, humour, swagger, fun.

It’s not the Wilburys, but its a bunch of experts, playing well

Where that reaches its peak, as does the album, is in ‘Step Lightly’, where Benmont Tench’s languid dexterity on the Rhodes piano [it’s not specified on the notes who played what, but call this an educated guess] is gut-churningly electric, utterly captivating. Any complexity of lyricism or vocals would be wasted on the track, and completely inappropriate. Which is just as well, because to be brutal, there are none of either on the album. What Starr offers instead is unabashed honesty, not soul-baring intensity honest, but just the simple stuff:

the worst it ever was was wonderful, better than I ever dreamed, the worst it ever was was wonderful, because it’s always been you and me. And we made it through, like we always do

Nuff said.

But there is always the moment on solo albums where the artist overextends. Bands self-police, and when one member is in danger of megalomania, the others often cut him down to size. In the case of The Beatles, that could involve a kick in the head. Not ideal, or recommended, but effective nonetheless.

Session men, even as illustrious as Dave Stewart, tend to hold their tongues (and feet). Which is a pity, because with a little constructive criticism, ‘In Liverpool’ might have been the song to finally get Ringo that UK number one single that has been so elusive (all the other Fab Four have had them). It’s sweet, it’s even lump-in-throat at times, but it’s just not enough.

Clunky lyrics are forgiveable, or would be if there were just a detail or two

‘In Liverpool’ walks us through a halcyon recreation of the city where the young Starkey grew up, and whilst clearly autobiographical, is just not intimate enough to satisfy. Clunky lyrics are forgiveable, or would be if there were just a detail or two in the song to draw us into his confidence. Instead we get non-committal observations that whilst ‘the rain never stopped, but the sun always shone in my mind’, or that ‘an apprentice engineer, but I had something very clear in my mind, in Liverpool. Music was my goal, in my heart and in my soul and in my mind’.

So tantalising, especially where he sings of ‘Me and my band, living our fantasies’, there are memories here that would be wonderful to hear, but they are not shared. Instead we get (admittedly very fine) strings adding to the nostalgia of the song, but no real insight. (The subject is better covered on his earlier song ‘The Other Side of Liverpool’, on YNot)

Complex or poignant, ‘In Liverpool’ is not. Which is a pity, because it would be lovely to hear something more detailed. Then there is the unfortunate fact that the track owes a great deal in melody to The Kinks’ ‘Waterloo Sunset’. And that’s a tough, tough song to be compared to.

a complexity of feeling for that city that is utterly lacking in Ringo’s paean to Liverpool

Ray Davies’ self-consolatory but bittersweet musings on being left behind in London by an elder sister bound for Australia deliver a complexity of feeling for that city that is utterly lacking in Ringo’s paean to Liverpool. It wouldn’t be at all fair to even mention it, only that in tone and melodic hook they are so akin. Having spent as many years living in Los Angeles, Monte Carlo and Surrey, Starr’s relationship with Liverpool is surely more complicated than this runthrough of childhood and young adult rose-tinted images.

In truth, the song has much in common with the joke about the Irish boomerang (i.e. it never comes back, nor does it ever stop singing about it). Liverpool, a captivating city in so many ways, seems also to grow in romanticism the further one gets from it.

Boasting an undeniably heavyweight cultural punch for all that, Liverpool still lacks an anthem to rally behind. Marsden‘s ‘Ferry Across the Mersey’ wallows in bombast; ‘Penny Lane’ is too suburban, and ‘In Liverpool’ suffers from being simultaneously too personal – it is obviously autobiographical – but not personal enough to evoke the love for the city that Starr clearly feels. And judging by the mid-Atlantic blues, honky-tonk and pub rock flavour of the rest of the album, we may have to keep waiting.

Ringo Starr and His All Starr Band performs

Tuesday, June 26, 2012  9:03 PM

It Don’t Come Easy Live Ringo Starr Bethel Woods June 16 2012

Christopher Hitchens’ debate with Douglas Wilson (Part 11)

Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 11 of 12

PART 5

5/25/2007 08:49 AM

Christopher Hitchens

If you insist, I shall concede that the significance of the Samaritan lies in his ethnicity. It’s not a very impressive parable to begin with, though when I was taught it first in Sunday school, it was held up as an example of universal charity (with the added implication, not strange to us for some reason, that pious people are no more likely to behave with love and compassion than are others). Incidentally, what do we know about the ethnicity of the man who fell among thieves, or of the tribal character of those thieves if it comes to that? Surely you should be able to pronounce with authority on those details, too?

I agree that the origins of the cosmos are obscure—mysterious, if you like—to both of us. It’s still you who makes the mystery, though, by insisting that very recent developments on this tiny speck of a planet on the edge of a galaxy are what impart significance to the entire “Big Bang” or divine first cause. To ask what caused either is to invite, as you are aware, an infinite regression of questions about what caused either of those causes. In my book I cite the great [Pierre-Simon, Marquis de] LaPlace, who opened the modern era by saying that accounts of the cosmos and its workings were now complete, or incomplete, on their own terms. They did not require a “god.”

Belief in a deity has been optional ever since. Believe it if you choose, but be aware that it raises more questions than it answers (actually it doesn’t answer any important questions) and is thus highly vulnerable to Ockham’s trusty edge. Deists used to agree with you about a Creator but were not religious in that the assumption of such an entity did not license the further assumption that he or she desired to intervene in human affairs, let alone the assumption that the torture and death of a single individual in a backward part of the Middle East was the solution that we had been awaiting for tens of thousands of years of brutish Homo sapiens existence.

Apply something of the same reasoning to the origins of morality. I say that our “innate” predisposition to both good and wicked behavior is precisely what one would expect to find of a recently-evolved species that is (as we now know from the study of DNA) half a chromosome away from chimpanzees. By the way, do not take that as a denigration of humankind. Primate and elephant and even pig societies show considerable evidence of care for others, parent-child bonding, solidarity in the face of danger, and so on. As Darwin put it:

Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or nearly as well-developed, as in man.

We can now observe this to be the case. But animal and human “altruism” is contradicted by the way in which species are also designed to fight with, kill, dominate, and even consume each other. Humans are capable of even greater cruelty because only they have the imagination to inflict it. I do not think that this indicts the Creator who made them this way, because I long ago dispensed with the assumption that there is any such entity. Thus, it is you and not I who are left with the questions about God’s coexistence with evil. See where your talent for needless complexity has left you.

The fluctuations between social and anti-social conduct are fairly consistent across time and space: some societies have licensed cannibalism but they tend to die out, and others have licensed human sacrifice and infanticide (usually under the influence of some priesthood). But I answer your question by making the pragmatic observation that, if we surrendered to our lower instincts all the time, there would be no language in which to write this argument between us and no society in which we could find an audience. The struggle to assert what is positive in our human capacity—I don’t mind Lincoln’s metaphor of our “better angels” if you promise not to take it too

literally—is arduous enough. If I take myself, I find that I can derive pleasure from giving blood for free and also from contemplating the deaths of my clerical-fascist enemies in the ranks of Al Qaeda and even from the misfortunes of others who do not threaten me. I am sure you could give parallel examples of your own. But telling us that we are created sick and then ordered to be well is no help in clarifying this problem. And telling us that the solution to it only became available some two thousand years ago, according to some highly discrepant and selfcontradictory accounts, cannot strike me as anything but absurd. What on earth is proven— except your own vulnerability to making tautologous statements—by the claim that “Jesus Christ is good for the world because he came as the life of the world”? You cannot possibly “know” this. Nor can you present any evidence for it. And its corollary—that without Jesus we are abandoned to wickedness in all its forms—has the horrible implication that worthy actions are pointless unless accompanied by your own rather ill-grounded faith. As I say, believe it if it helps you. But do not insult the millions of people who have done the right thing without requiring any such supernatural authority. And do not tell me that I must be in love with death if I dissent from your view. That’s too much. Your Christianity, in case you have not noticed, has actually made you a less compassionate and thoughtful person than, without its exorbitant presumptions, you would otherwise be.

CH

Related posts:

Christopher Hitchens’ view on abortion may surprise you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“THIRSTY THURSDAY” open letters to Senator Pryor displayed here on the www.thedailyhatch.org

For almost a year now I have been writing an open letter to Senator Mark Pryor every week in what I call “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more of our money and the only way to stop it is to pass the BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT!!!!! I have electronically sent all of these letters to him before I post them on the blog. Below are some of the links. Check them out:

Dear Senator Pryor,

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

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

In this paper below you will read:

America cannot raise taxes to continue overspending, because tax hikes shrink our economy and grow our government. America cannot borrow more to continue overspending, because borrowing puts an enormous financial burden on the American children of tomorrow. A BBA will help address this long-term problem because, after the multi-year process for securing ratification of the BBA by three-quarters of the states, the BBA will keep federal spending under control in subsequent years.

Washington has not been able to cut spending so the BBA is needed to force Washington to do the right thing. Your father David Pryor was the governor of Arkansas and he knew what it meant to have a balanced budget by mandate.

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

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Balanced Budget Amendment: Cut Spending Later, Cut Spending Now

March 31, 2011

 

Two key principles should govern congressional consideration of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires the federal government to balance its budget:

  • First Principle: A Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) is important to help bring long-term fiscal responsibility to America’s future when the BBA takes effect after ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures; it is equally important for Congress to cut spending nowto address the current overspending crisis.
  • Second Principle: An effective BBA will include three elements to: (a) control spending, taxation, and borrowing, (b) ensure the defense of America, and (c) enforce the requirement to balance the budget.

Cuts for the Future, Cuts for the Present

Federal spending is out of control—both obligations for the future and spending right now.

Congress must get spending under control in the long term. America cannot raise taxes to continue overspending, because tax hikes shrink our economy and grow our government. America cannot borrow more to continue overspending, because borrowing puts an enormous financial burden on the American children of tomorrow. A BBA will help address this long-term problem because, after the multi-year process for securing ratification of the BBA by three-quarters of the states, the BBA will keep federal spending under control in subsequent years.

Congress also must get spending under control in the short term. Federal overspending is not simply about the future, but also about the present. Under the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Submission, measured by the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government will spend $1.2 trillion more than it will take in, a gargantuan burden of additional debt forced on future generations to pay current bills.

Thus, America needs both a Balanced Budget Amendment for the long term and deep cuts in federal spending starting right now, without waiting for a BBA to take effect. As Congress considers budget resolutions, appropriations bills, appropriations continuing resolutions, and debt limit bills, Congress should take every opportunity now to cut federal spending, including for the biggest overspending problem: the ever-growing entitlement programs.

Congress should recognize that the best way to encourage state legislatures to ratify a BBA is to demonstrate, through consistent congressional cuts in spending, that the American people have the will to accept spending cuts to balance the budget.

Elements of a Successful Balanced Budget Amendment

A successful BBA will:

  • Control spending, taxing, and borrowing through a requirement to balance the budget.The BBA should cap annual spending at a level not exceeding either: (a) a specified percentage of the value of goods and services the economy produces in a year (known as gross domestic product, or GDP), or (b) the level of revenues. To ensure that Congress cannot simply balance the budget by continually raising taxes instead of cutting overspending, the BBA should require Congress to act by supermajority votes if Members wish to raise taxes. Any authority the BBA grants Congress to deal with economic slowdowns, by waiving temporarily the requirement that spending not exceed the GDP percentage or revenue level, should specify the amount of above-revenue spending allowed and require supermajority votes.
  • Defend America. The BBA should allow Congress by supermajority votes to waive temporarily compliance with the balanced budget requirement when waiver is essential to pay for the defense of Americans from attack.
  • Enforce the balanced budget requirement. The BBA should provide for its own enforcement, but must specifically exclude courts from any enforcement of the BBA, so unelected judges do not make policy decisions such as determining the appropriate level of funding for federal programs. A government that spends money in excess of its revenues must borrow to cover the difference. Therefore, to enforce the requirement to balance the budget, the BBA should prohibit government issuance of debt, except when necessary to finance a temporary deficit resulting from congressional supermajority votes discussed above.

America is in a fiscal crisis. Our government spends too much. Overspending must stop immediately. Overspending will stop only if Congress cuts spending now, including with respect to the ever-expanding entitlement programs. For the future, Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures can adopt and ratify a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to anchor the American willingness to live within a balanced budget.

David S. Addington is Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy, and J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor,  Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

Milton Friedman 1982 NBC transcript in which he discusses Balanced Budget Amendment

My favorite economist Milton Friedman was great with the media.

General Information

Source:
Meet the Press
Creator:
Bill Monroe/Marvin Kalb/Irving R. Levine
Event Date:
03/21/1982
Air/Publish Date:
03/21/1982
Resource Type:
Video News Report
Copyright:
NBCUniversal Media, LLC.
Copyright Date:
1982
Clip Length:
00:03:08

Description

During this appearance on “Meet the Press,” economist Milton Friedman cites his support for a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. Friedman says that if such an amendment had been passed, the economy would not be undergoing a shake up.

Citation

MLA

Bill Monroe/Marvin Kalb/Irving R. Levine. “Economist Milton Friedman Supports Constitutional Amendment to Balance Budget”. Meet the Press. NBCUniversal Media, LLC. 03/21/1982. Accessed Wed Nov 16 2011 from NBC Learn: https://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/browse/?cuecard=3897

APA

Bill Monroe/Marvin Kalb/Irving R. Levine (Author). Meet the Press (Publisher). (03/21/1982). Economist Milton Friedman Supports Constitutional Amendment to Balance Budget. [Streaming video]. Accessed Wed Nov 16 2011 from NBC Learn: https://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/browse/?cuecard=3897

CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE

“Economist Milton Friedman Supports Constitutional Amendment to Balance Budget” Meet the Press, New York, NY: NBC Universal, 03/21/1982. Accessed Wed Nov 16 2011 from NBC Learn: https://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/browse/?cuecard=3897

Transcript

Economist Milton Friedman Supports Constitutional Amendment to Balance Budget

BILL MONROE, host:

Our reporters on Meet the Press today are Hobart Rowen of the Washington Post, Irving R. Levine of NBC News, and regular panelist Marvin Kalb of NBC News.

MARVIN KALB, reporting:

Other people sitting in that same seat who are also economists have given us– including Secretary of the Treasury, have given us the same kind of estimates based on the same kind of evidence and it hasn’t really happened.

Dr. MILTON FRIEDMAN (Economist): How do—excuse me, how do you know it hasn’t happened?

KALB: The projections keep getting pushed further and further back?

Dr. FRIEDMAN: How do you know, on what basis are you in a position to say that January is not the trough of the business age?

KALB: I was asking you the question, you’re the economist.

Dr. FRIEDMAN: I know but you say it hasn’t happened, there’s no evidence that it hasn’t happened.

KALB: Well the evidence is in the unemployed is it not?

Dr. FRIEDMAN: No, unemployment, as Bart Rowen will be glad to tell you, is a lagging indicator. The economy almost always turns around first and unemployment turns around some months later. So the contemporaneous evidence of unemployment is not evidence.

But at any event, there is no major issue involved in here. There would be a major issue if you were to say to me, well, is the economy going to collapse as it did in 1930-31? The answer to that is clearly not and I can give you the reasons why not. But there is no major issue involved in here; this economy is basically a strong healthy economy. It is going through a temporary period of adjustment and shake up primarily as a result of one of the great successes, which is that inflation is coming down. And the process of adjusting to a decline in inflation is difficult to many enterprises and groups, just as a rise in inflation is and we’re going through those adjustment problems. Basically we are a strong healthy economy.

MONROE: Dr. Friedman if the balanced budget constitutional amendment, which you favor, had gone into affect several years ago, would that have blocked president Reagan from pursuing his present policies allowing large deficits for the sake of military spending and tax cuts?

Dr. FRIEDMAN: Well in the first place you would’ve never been in the present situation if that amendment had been in affect, because if that amendment had been in effect government spending could not have risen as rapidly as it did. That amendment effectively limits the government spending to the same percentage as the rise in the income in the people. That amendment would therefore hold total government spending to a more or less fixed percentage of our income. What has actually been happening is that government spending has been rising above our income. So if that amendment had been in effect you wouldn’t have the problem at all.

MONROE: The amendment has got to start at a certain time just for the sake of argument to find out how the amendment would work, suppose it took effect just as president Reagan was taking office, would he have been unable then to run up these deficits.

Dr. FRIEDMAN: Well the amendment is written provides for a two-year period before it takes effect. So if it was going to start taking effect when he was taking office and it would’ve had to be in effect two years earlier.

MONROE: That’s my hypothesis.

Dr. FRIEDMAN: And there would’ve been that two-year intervening period in which the budget would have to be brought into a situation; no it would’ve assisted him and not the opposite.

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

Still of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Robert Lincoln in Lincoln

13 September 2012
Photo by David James, SMPSP – © 2012 – DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC. All Rights Reserved.

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

What about the historical characters mentioned in the movie Lincoln? Here is an excellent article on some of them:

How Accurate Is Lincoln?

By

 | 

Posted Friday, Nov. 9, 2012, at 8:23 PM ET

121108_BB_AbrahamLincoln-2x

What’s fact and what’s fiction in Lincoln?

Left: Abraham Lincoln courtesy Library of Congress. Right: Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln © 2012 – DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Steven Spielberg’s new historical drama Lincoln, written by Tony Kushner and based in part on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, depicts the crucial final weeks of Abraham Lincoln’s life, when he helped push the 13th Amendment through Congress and bring an end to the Civil War.

How honest is this portrait of Honest Abe? Below is a handy guide to help you sort the fact from the fiction. There are some spoilers ahead, so if you’d like to go into the movie not knowing what Mrs. Lincoln thought of Our American Cousin, come back after you’ve seen the movie.

Lincoln’s dream

Lincoln often spoke of a mysterious recurring dream about a ship, just as in the movie. However, Lincoln usually interpreted the dream as being not about the 13th amendment, but instead as being an omen of military victory. Lincoln’s secretary of the navy, Gideon Welles, wrote about one time that Lincoln told him about his dream, while they were awaiting an update from General William Tecumseh Sherman:

The President remarked it would, he had no doubt, come soon, and come favorable, for he had last night the usual dream which he had preceding nearly every great and important event of the War. Generally the news had been favorable which succeeded this dream, and the dream itself was always the same. … He said it related to [my] element, the water; that he seemed to be in some singular, indescribable vessel, and that he was moving with great rapidity towards an indefinite shore; that he had this dream preceding Sumter, Bull Run, Antietam, Gettysburg, Stone River, Vicksburg, Wilmington, etc.

According to White House guard William Henry Crook, Lincoln also spoke of having the dream the night before he was assassinated.

Lincoln’s stories

Just as in Lincoln, Uncle Abe was renowned for his love of storytelling, and his talent for it. Here’s one description from Team of Rivals:

In these convivial settings, Lincoln was invariably the center of attention. No one could equal his never-ending stream of stories nor his ability to reproduce them with such contagious mirth. As his winding tales became more famous, crowds of villagers awaited his arrival at every stop for the chance to hear a master storyteller.

One of the most memorable anecdotes delivered by Lincoln in the film is the story of Ethan Allen’s visit to England. Whether the content of Lincoln’s story is true or not, it was, according to Team of Rivals, one of his favorites:

One of Lincoln’s favorite anecdotes sprang from the early days just after the Revolution. Shortly after the peace was signed, the story began, the Revolutionary War hero Ethan Allen “had occasion to visit England,” where he was subject to considerable teasing banter. The British would make “fun of the Americans and General Washington in particular and one day they got a picture of General Washington” and displayed it prominently in the outhouse so Mr. Allen could not miss it. When he made no mention of it, they finally asked him if he had seen the Washington picture. Mr. Allen said, “He thought that it was a very appropriate [place] for an Englishman to Keep it. Why they asked, for said Mr. Allen there is Nothing that Will Make and Englishman Shit So quick as the Sight of Genl Washington.”

Another story Lincoln recounts is the tale of 70-year-old Illinois woman Melissa Goings, who allegedly murdered her husband. Lincoln suggests he aided in Goings’ escape from the law. This story, too, is taken almost verbatim from historical accounts:

Testimony indicated he was choking her and she broke loose, got a stick of stove wood, and fractured his skull. The dead man had a name for quarreling and hard drinking and his last words were, “I expect she has killed me. If I get over it I will have revenge.” … Public feeling ran overwhelmingly in her favor. Indications were that Lincoln held a conference with the prosecuting attorney, and that on the day set for trial Mrs. Goings was granted time for a short conference with her lawyer, Mr. Lincoln [and] was never again seen … A court bailiff, Robert T. Cassell, later said that when he couldn’t produce the defendant for trial he accused Lincoln of “running her off.” Lincoln replied, “Oh no, Bob. I did not run her off. She wanted to know where she could get a good drink of water, and I told her there was mighty good water in Tennessee.

As for his speeches, he really did—at least at some points in his career—keep scraps of paper in his hat.

Lincoln’s voice

Lincoln’s surprisingly high-pitched voice and accent sound “uncanny, convincing, and historically right” according to Lincoln historian Harold Holzer. (More: Does Daniel Day-Lewis Sound Like Lincoln?)

Mary Todd Lincoln

121108_BB_MaryToddLincoln-2x

Toward the end of Lincoln, Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field) predicts that “All everyone will remember of me was that I was crazy and that I ruined your happiness.” This is partially true, though in recent years some have disputed the idea that the First Lady really suffered from mental illness. Today many historians believe that she was a whip-smart, politically savvy woman. (More: Was Mary Todd Lincoln Really Insane?)

Lincoln’s sexuality
 
There is little evidence that Lincoln was gay. The movie, perhaps accordingly, offers little more than a suggestion. (More: How Gay Is Lincoln?)

Beards and appearances

Lincoln’s casting, makeup, and costume departments achieved strong resemblances between the actors in the film and the historical figures they represented. We’ve assembled a gallery where you can compare the actors and the historical figures side-by-side.

Lincoln’s pardons

The pardons Old Abe signs in Lincoln are based on the real pardons that he gave many deserters, preferring that they “fight instead of being shot.” For an extraordinary example of one such pardon, head to “Abraham Lincoln Scrawled This Astonishing Note to Save a Union Soldier’s Life.”

The peace talks

As in Lincoln, the vote on the 13th Amendment took place just as Confederate representatives were headed north for peace negotiations. When word of these peace commissioners got out, there was a motion to delay the vote until after negotiations, which could have put the vote in jeopardy. However, Lincoln was able to defuse this rumor by using carefully worded language, just as in the movie. He wrote:

To: James Ashley 

So far as I know, there are no peace commissioners in the city or likely to be in it.

A. Lincoln

This was technically true—the commissioners were on their way to Fortress Monroe, not Washington—and also a bit disingenuous. Lincoln met with the commissioners at Fortress Monroe a few days later.

The vote

Lincoln was able to pass the 13th Amendment due in large part to the work of three men who twisted arms on his (and Secretary of State William Seward’s) behalf. While it’s not well documented how these men procured the necessary votes and abstentions of lame duck Democrats, it does seem possible that they could have promised patronage positions in return, as they do in the film.

On the day of the vote, the proceedings played out much as they do in the movie, but Spielberg does take a few dramatic liberties. While free blacks were allowed in the galleries and some number of them (including one of Frederick Douglass’ sons) did come out for the vote, historians don’t think that they came out in quite the extraordinary force that they seem to in the movie. There may, however, have been an unusual number of women, who had been instrumental in the abolitionist movement.

The vote itself plays out much as it would have in real life. George Yeaman (Michael Stuhlbarg) of Kentucky, a slave state, really did change his position on the amendment in order to vote yes. And at the end of the vote, the speaker, Schuyler Colfax, really did break tradition in order to cast a vote. However, it’s very unlikely that Thaddeus Stevens was able to sneak the document home for the night once it was over.

The politicians involved in the vote would most likely not have called it “the 13th Amendment.” They would have called it, for example, “the Constitutional amendment,” or “the Constitutional amendment abolishing slavery.”

Thaddeus Stevens

121108_BB_ThaddeusStevens-2x

Thaddeus Stevens’ support for black suffrage, which provides one of Lincoln’s central conflicts, really was one of his most radical and controversial stances. In 1865, the Republican Congressman argued that “Without the right of suffrage in the late slave States (I do not speak of the free States,) I believe the slaves had far better been left in bondage.” However, in the deliberations before the amendment was passed, he was forced to reassure wavering Democrats that the amendment would not guarantee the equality of black people, in order to pass the amendment. He told them it pertained only to equality before the law.*

One of the other standout features of Tommy Lee Jones’ Thaddeus Stevens is his virtuosic talent for putdowns. While many of these seem to be inventions of screenwriter Tony Kushner’s, his razor-sharp tongue was inspired by history: For example, he once attacked Masons as a “feeble band of lowly reptiles”—an insult similar to one Stevens uses in the film to describe his rival Democrats.

Perhaps the film’s biggest surprise comes when Stevens gets in bed with his mulatto housekeeper (S. Epatha Merkerson) and apparent lover. Some have speculated that Stevens’ housekeeper, Lydia Hamilton Smith, really was his mistress. Stevens was accused of this by his anti-abolitionist critics, though there’s no concrete evidence it was true.

Robert Todd Lincoln

121108_BB_RobertToddLincolns-2x

Mary Todd Lincoln really did insist that Robert Todd Lincoln stay in college rather than enlisting in the army. The First Lady had already lost two sons, Edward “Eddie” Lincoln and William “Willie” Lincoln, and didn’t want to lose another. In January 1865, when the movie takes place, Lincoln wrote Ulysses S. Grant and asked if Robert could be placed in Grant’s “military family with some nominal rank.” Grant agreed to have him.

After joining up, Robert Todd Lincoln really was present for the surrender of General Robert E. Lee at the Appomattox Court House, where he waited on the front porch. However, the surrender may not have been as dramatic as depicted in the film: As Robert Lincoln told a newspaper reporter in 1881, “As I recall the scene now, it appeared to be a very ordinary transaction. … It seemed just as if I had sold you a house and we had but to pass the titles and other conveyances.” He would live to become the last living witness of the surrender.

The assassination

In a subversion of our expectations (and perhaps a gesture of respect), Lincoln doesn’t show Abraham Lincoln’s assassination at Ford’s Theatre. Instead, Spielberg takes us to Grover’s Theatre, where Tad had gone with his tutor to see Aladdin. The twelve-year-old learned of his father’s death when a theater manager interrupted the play’s action to announce that the president had been shot.

*Correction, Nov. 9, 2012: This post originally misquoted Thaddeous Stevens as referring to “slate States” rather than “slave States.”

Related posts:

Television interview of witness who saw Lincoln shot

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

Letters from a former slave to his former master

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Listing of transcripts and videos of Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” on www.theDailyHatch.org

Everywhere school vouchers have been tried they have been met with great success. Why do you think President Obama got rid of them in Washington D.C.? It was a political disaster for him because the school unions had always opposed them and their success made Obama’s allies look bad.

In 1980 when I first sat down and read the book “Free to Choose” I was involved in Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president and excited about the race. Milton Friedman’s books and film series really helped form my conservative views. Take a look at one of my favorite films of his and this one deals with school vouchers:

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 1 of 6.

 
Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools
Transcript:
Friedman: These youngsters are beginning another day at one of America’s public schools, Hyde Park High School in Boston. What happens when they pass through those doors is a vivid illustration of some of the problems facing America’s schools.
They have to pass through metal detectors. They are faced by security guards looking for hidden weapons. They are watched over by armed police. Isn’t that awful. What a way for kids to have to go to school, through metal detectors and to be searched. What can they conceivably learn under such circumstances. Nobody is happy with this kind of education. The taxpayers surely aren’t. This isn’t cheap education. After all, those uniformed policemen, those metal detectors have to be paid for.
What about the broken windows, the torn school books, and the smashed school equipment. The teachers who teach here don’t like this kind of situation. The students don’t like to come here to go to school, and most of all, the parents __ they are the ones who get the worst deal __ they pay taxes like the rest of us and they are just as concerned about the kind of education that their kids get as the rest of us are. They know their kids are getting a bad education but they feel trapped. Many of them can see no alternative but to continue sending their kids to schools like this.
To go back to the beginning, it all started with the fine idea that every child should have a chance to learn his three R’s. Sometimes in June when it gets hot, the kids come out in the yard to do their lessons, all 15 of them, ages 5 to 13, along with their teacher. This is the last one-room schoolhouse still operating in the state of Vermont. That is the way it used to be. Parental control, parents choosing the teacher, parents monitoring the schooling, parents even getting together and chipping in to paint the schoolhouse as they did here just a few weeks ago. Parental concern is still here as much in the slums of the big cities as in Bucolic, Vermont. But control by parents over the schooling of their children is today the exception, not the rule.
Increasingly, schools have come under the control of centralized administration, professional educators deciding what shall be taught, who shall do the teaching, and even what children shall go to what school. The people who lose most from this system are the poor and the disadvantaged in the large cities. They are simply stuck. They have no alternative.
Of course, if you are well off you do have a choice. You can send your child to a private school or you can move to an area where the public schools are excellent, as the parents of many of these students have done. These students are graduating from Weston High School in one of Boston’s wealthier suburbs. Their parents pay taxes instead of tuition and they certainly get better value for their money than do the parents in Hyde Park. That is partly because they have kept a good deal of control over the local schools, and in the process, they have managed to retain many of the virtues of the one-room schoolhouse.
Students here, like Barbara King, get the equivalent of a private education. They have excellent recreational facilities. They have a teaching staff that is dedicated and responsive to parents and students. There is an atmosphere which encourages learning, yet the cost per pupil here is no higher than in many of our inner city schools. The difference is that at Weston, it all goes for education that the parents still retain a good deal of control.
Unfortunately, most parents have lost control over how their tax money in spent. Avabelle goes to Hyde Park High. Her parents too want her to have a good education, but many of the students here are not interested in schooling, and the teachers, however dedicated, soon lose heart in an atmosphere like this. Avabelle’s parents are certainly not getting value for their tax money.
Caroline Bell, Parent: I think it is a shame, really, that parents are being ripped off like we are. I am talking about parents like me that work every day, scuffle to try to make ends meet. We send our kids to school hoping that they will receive something that will benefit them in the future for when they go out here and compete in the job market. Unfortunately, none of that is taking place at Hyde Park.
Friedman: Children like Ava are being shortchanged by a system that was designed to help. But there are ways to help give parents more say over their children’s schooling.
This is a fundraising evening for a school supported by a voluntary organization, New York’s Inner City Scholarship Fund. The prints that have brought people here have been loaned by wealthy Japanese industrialist. Events like this have helped raise two million dollars to finance Catholic parochial schools in New York. The people here are part of a long American tradition. The results of their private voluntary activities have been remarkable.
This is one of the poorest neighborhoods in New York City: the Bronx. Yet this parochial school, supported by the fund, is a joy to visit. The youngsters here from poor families are at Saint John Christians because their parents have picked this school and their parents are paying some of the costs from their own pockets. The children are well behaved, eager to learn, the teachers are dedicated. The cost per pupil here is far less than in the public schools, yet on the average the children are two grades ahead. That is because teachers and parents are free to choose how the children shall be taught. Private money has replaced the tax money and so control has been taken away from the bureaucrats and put back where it belongs.
This doesn’t work just for younger children. In the 60’s, Harlem was devastated by riots. It was a hot bed of trouble. Many teenagers dropped out of school.
_____
 
 
Milton Friedman congratulated by President Ronald Reagan. © 2008 Free To Choose Media, courtesy of the Power of Choice press kit

Here are some great jobs about Milton Friedman:

“Milton Friedman is a scholar of first rank whose original contributions to economic science have made him one of the greatest thinkers in modern history.”
President Ronald Reagan

“How grateful I have been over the years for the cogency of Friedman’s ideas which have influenced me. Cherishers of freedom will be indebted to him for generations to come.”
Alan Greenspan, former Chairman, Federal Reserve System

“Right at this moment there are people all over the land, I could put dots on the map, who are trying to prove Milton wrong. At some point, somebody else is trying to prove he’s right That’s what I call influence.”
Paul Samuelson, Nobel Laureate in Economic Science

“Friedman’s influence reaches far beyond the academic community and the world of economics. Rather than lock himself in an ivory tower, he has joined the fray to fight for the survival of this great country of ours.”
William E. Simon, former Secretary of the Treasury

“Milton Friedman is the most original social thinker of the era.”
John Kenneth Galbraith, former Professor of Economics, Harvard University

Other segments: 

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 6 of transcript and video)

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 6 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: FRIEDMAN: But I personally think it’s a good thing. But I don’t see that any reason whatsoever why I shouldn’t have been required […]

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 5 of transcript and video)

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 5 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: Are your voucher schools  going to accept these tough children? COONS: You bet they are. (Several talking at once.) COONS: May I answer […]

 

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 3 of transcript and video)

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 3 of transcript and video) Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 3 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: If it […]

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 2 of transcript and video)

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 2 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: Groups of concerned parents and teachers decided to do something about it. They used private funds to take over empty stores and they […]

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 1 of transcript and video)

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 1 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: Friedman: These youngsters are beginning another day at one of America’s public schools, Hyde Park High School in Boston. What happens when […]

Francis Schaeffer affected pro-life movement (Part 12) “Schaeffer Sunday”

If you want to understand why the evangelical pro-life movement then you need to read the material from Francis Schaeffer. Here is some good material about both Schaeffer and his good friend Dr. C. Everett Koop.

Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop’s Invaluable Impact on Pro-Life Evangelicalism

By Dr. Richard Land

It is difficult to overestimate the incredible impact that Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop made on evangelical Christians in the latter third of the 20th century. First Schaeffer, and then Dr. Koop, helped inform and energize a whole generation of evangelical Christians to engagement with a culture that had veered dangerously off course from its Judeo-Christian foundations. The pro-life movement owes them an enormous debt.

This culture’s collective loss of its moral compass was nowhere more dramatically revealed than in the rapid implosion of its historic pro-life consensus in the late 1960s culminating in the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in January 1973, and the pro-death culture of moral relativism it both symbolized and facilitated.

Francis Schaeffer exploded on the evangelical world in the 1960s. Having interacted from an evangelical theological foundation with the European world of modern philosophy through his and his wife’s ministry at their L’Abri home and retreat center in Switzerland, Schaeffer was well-prepared to lead evangelicals to a new and deeper understanding of the titanic clash of differing world views swirling around them.

Returning to the United States in the mid-1960s, Schaeffer electrified evangelical students with his lectures and books (largely based on the lectures) such as The God Who Is There (1968), Escape From Reason (1968), He is There and He is Not Silent (1972) and Back to Freedom and Dignity (1973), which was a stirring refutation of behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity.

As an evangelical Princeton University undergraduate in the late 1960s, I, like so many in my generation, was electrified and galvanized by Schaeffer’s challenge to rejoin the contemporary cultural and philosophical debate armed with what he called “true truth” that was true not only in our personal and church lives, but in every area of our existence 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Armed with Schaeffer’s guide and atlas of the intellectual terrain, tens of thousands of evangelical students felt called to a life of ministry in the intellectual world of scholarship and cultural discourse. Schaeffer gave us a cultural grid for both understanding and interacting with a culture increasingly hostile to Christian presuppositions of truth and moral absolutes.

Francis Schaeffer has often been criticized in recent years for “oversimplifying” and for “simplistic generalizations.” These criticisms miss the point of Schaeffer’s significance.

Schaeffer was a “thinker” more than a “scholar.” Where the “scholar” is haunted by the exception, the “thinker” is comfortable with the general rule and is more concerned with the big picture rather than the particulars of every case. The scholar sees the world largely through the microscope of his particular field of study, while the thinker views the world through a telescope that enables one to see general trends and seismic shifts in cultures and civilizations. Francis Schaeffer was the premier evangelical Christian “thinker” of the last half-century.

Nowhere did Francis Schaeffer see the big picture more clearly than on the issue of abortion and the brutalizing and dehumanizing impact of the pro-abortion movement and the philosophical presupposition upon which it was based.

Schaeffer had always opposed abortion, but the issue took on a new urgency for him in the wake of the Supreme Court’s declaration of abortion as a constitutional right in Roe v. Wade. With the help and encouragement of his son, Franky, Schaeffer produced a 10-part documentary film series and an accompanying book entitled How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (1976).

Intended in part as a response to Kenneth Clark’s very popular Civilization series, How Should We Then Live? was an extended look at how Western Civilization’s rejection of Judeo-Christian moral values had led to the neo-pagan devaluing of human life as symbolized in the pro-abortion movement. The book, film series and accompanying 18-city seminar tour were a huge success and electrified the general evangelical public in much the same way his earlier work had stirred the evangelical university and seminary world.

Schaeffer increasingly devoted himself to the pro-life issue and almost immediately began work on a five-part film series and accompanying book and lecture tour with old family friend and world-renowned pediatric surgeon Dr. C. Everett Koop. The resulting Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (1979) combined Schaeffer’s trenchant and powerful explanation of secular humanism’s inexorable devaluation of human life with Dr. Koop’s medically expert testimony to the horror that was abortion and its inevitable path to infanticide and euthanasia.

Once again, Schaeffer and Koop galvanized the evangelical general public and challenged them to become actively involved at every level of the pro-life movement. The combination of Schaeffer’s theological and philosophical critique with Dr. Koop’s medical expertise and international reputation as a surgeon and scientist had a powerful impact on evangelicalism from coast to coast.

They asked the questions that moved hundreds of thousands of evangelicals from the sidelines into the arena of the pro-life struggle: “If not you, then whom?” “If not this outrage, then what?” “If not now, then when?”

Dr. Koop went on to become President Reagan’s Surgeon-General, elevating both that office and the pro-life issue in an unprecedented way in the eight years of his service. It is impossible to imagine an overwhelmingly pro-life American evangelicalism, and its unprecedented involvement in public policy on that issue, without the impact and leadership of these two towering figures.

Everyone devoted to the pro-life cause owes an incalculable debt of gratitude to Francis Schaeffer and to Dr. C. Everett Koop.

Francis Schaeffer’s film series “How should we then live?” (The Scientific Age) can be seen on the www.thedailyhatch.org

Photo: of Francis and Edith Schaeffer.

Edith and Francis Schaeffer

This is one of the most insightful episodes and here is a portion of it with links to complete episodes below:

E P I S O D E 6

How Should We Then Live 6#1

I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: elimination of belief in a Creator.1. Closed system derives not from the findings of science but from philosophy.2. Now there is no place for the significance of Man, for morals, or for love.C. Darwin taught that all life evolved through the survival of the fittest.1. Serious problems inherent in Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.

This is probably one of the most important episodes in the series.

T h e

SCIENTIFIC AGE

I. Church Attacks on Copernican Science Were Philosophical

Galileo’s and Copernicus’ works did not contradict the Bible but the elements of Aristotle’s teaching which had entered the Church.

II. Examples of Biblical Influence

A. Pascal’s work.

1. First successful barometer; great writing of French prose.

2. Understood Man’s uniqueness: Man could contemplate, and Man had value to God.

B. Newton

1. Speed of sound and gravity.

2. For Newton and the other early scientists, no problem concerning the why, because they began with the existence of a personal God who had created the universe.

C. Francis Bacon

1. Stressed careful observation and systematic collection of information.

2. Bacon and the other early scientists took the Bible seriously, including its teaching concerning history and the cosmos.

D. Faraday

1. Crowning discovery was the induction of the electric current.

2. As a Christian, believed God’s Creation is for all men to understand and enjoy, not just for a scientific elite.

III. Scientific Aspects of Biblical Influence

A. Oppenheimer and Whitehead: biblical foundations of scientific revolution.

B. Not all early scientists individually Christian, but all lived within Christian thought forms. This gave a base for science to continue and develop.

C. The contrast between Christian-based science and Chinese and Arab science.

D. Christian emphasis on an ordered Creation reflects nature of reality and is therefore acted upon in all cultures, regardless of what they say their world view is.

1. Einstein’s theory of relativity does not imply relative universe.

2. Man acts on assumption of order, whether he likes it or not.

3. Master idea of biblical science.

a) Uniformity of natural causes in an open system: cause and effect works, but God and Man not trapped in a process.

b) All that exists is not a total cosmic machine.

c) Human choices therefore have meaning and effect.

d) The cosmic machine and the machines people make therefore not a threat.

Other segments:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward […]

If we just capped spending in 2007 we would have balanced budget now!!!

Look at the figures from 2007 and compare them to now and you will see that if had held spending at 2007 levels we would have a balanced budget now (or very close to it). The problem is that spending has skyrocketed. Why then do we want to get more revenue in when obviously the problem is spending. I have posted on this before and even given more figures.

Wikipedia reports:

2007 (2007) Budget of the United States federal government
2006 ·  · 2008
Submitted by George W. Bush
Submitted to 109th Congress
Total revenue $2.57 trillion
Total expenditures $2.73 trillion
Deficit $161 billion
Debt $8.95 trillion
Website Congressional Budget Office

The budget of the United States government for fiscal year 2007 was produced through a budget process involving both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. While the Congress has the constitutional “power of the purse,” the President and his appointees play a major role in budget deliberations. Since 1976, the federal fiscal year has started on October 1 of each year.

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Total receipts

Receipts for fiscal year 2007 were $2.4 trillion. FY2007 on-budget receipts were $1.7 trillion. FY2007 off-budget receipts were $608 billion. Off-budget receipts include Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, as well as the net profit or loss of the U.S. Postal Service.

Source: preliminary FY2007 year-end estimate from the U.S. Treasury Dept.

The IRS estimated that there were about $345 billion in uncollected taxes, which is sometimes referred to as the “tax gap.”.[1]

[edit] Total spending

A pie chart representing spending by category for the US budget for 2007

The President’s actual budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

  • $586.1 billion (+7.0%) – Social Security
  • $548.8 billion (+9.0%) – Defense[2]
  • $394.5 billion (+12.4%) – Medicare
  • $294.0 billion (+2.0%) – Unemployment and welfare
  • $276.4 billion (+2.9%) – Medicaid and other health related
  • $243.7 billion (+13.4%) – Interest on debt
  • $89.9 billion (+1.3%) – Education and training
  • $76.9 billion (+8.1%) – Transportation
  • $72.6 billion (+5.8%) – Veterans’ benefits
  • $43.5 billion (+9.2%) – Administration of justice
  • $33.1 billion (+5.7%) – Natural resources and environment
  • $32.5 billion (+15.4%) – Foreign affairs
  • $27.0 billion (+3.7%) – Agriculture
  • $26.8 billion (+28.7%) – Community and regional development
  • $25.0 billion (+4.0%) – Science and technology
  • $20.5 billion (+0.8%) – Energy
  • $20.1 billion (+11.4%) – General government
  • 2011 United States federal budget

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    2011 (2011) Budget of the United States federal government
    2010 ·  · 2012
    Submitted February 1, 2010
    Submitted by Barack Obama
    Submitted to 111th Congress
    Passed April 15, 2011 (Pub.L. 112-10)
    Total revenue $2.567 trillion (requested)[1]
    $2.314 trillion (enacted)[2]
    Total expenditures $3.834 trillion (requested)[1]
    $3.630 trillion (enacted)[2]
    Debt payment $0.25 trillion (requested)
    Deficit $1.56 trillion (requested)
    Website Library of Congress

    The 2011 United States federal budget is the United States federal budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year 2011, which is October 2010 – September 2011. The budget is the subject of a spending request by President Barack Obama.[3][4] The actual appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 had to be authorized by the full Congress before it could take effect, according to the United States budget process.

    No budget was passed by the September 30 deadline, and the government was funded by a series of seven continuing resolutions continuing funding at or near 2010 levels. The budget negotiations culminated in early April 2011, with a tense legislative standoff leading to speculation that the nation would face its first government shutdown since 1995. However, a deal containing $38.5 billion in cuts from 2010 funding levels was reached with just hours remaining before the deadline. The 2011 budget was enacted on April 15, 2011, as Public Law 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.[5]

    Contents

     [hide

    [edit] History

    President Barack Obama proposed his 2011 budget during February 2010. He has indicated that jobs, health care, clean energy, education, and infrastructure will be priorities. Total requested spending is $3.83 trillion and the federal deficit is forecast to be $1.56 trillion in 2010 and $1.27 trillion in 2011. Total debt is budgeted to increase from $11.9 trillion in FY2009, to $13.8 trillion in FY2010, and $15.1 trillion in FY2011.[6][7]

    It was widely anticipated that a government shutdown on April 8, 2011 was possible if a budget resolution or a seventh continuing resolution was not passed by the expiration of the sixth continuing resolution on April 8, 2011,[8] which would have caused the furlough of 800,000 out of 2 million civilian federal employees.[9][10] However, a deal was reached with just hours remaining before the deadline, averting the shutdown. The deal included $38.5 billion in cuts from what had been budgeted for 2010, in addition to another $10 billion in cuts that had been imposed in some of the continuing resolutions.[11][12] However, the April 13 Congressional Budget Office estimate showed that, compared with then-current spending rates, the spending bill would cut federal outlays from non-war accounts by just $352 million through Sept. 30. About $8 billion in immediate cuts to domestic programs and foreign aid were offset by nearly equal increases in defense spending.[13]

    [edit] Continuing resolutions

    Beginning in September 2010, Congress passed a series of continuing resolutions to fund the government.[14]

    • 1st Continuing Resolution, funding from October 1, 2010 through December 3, 2010, passed on September 29, 2010. (Pub.L. 111-242)
    • 2nd Continuing Resolution, funding through December 18, 2010, passed on December 2, 2010. (Pub.L. 111-290)[15]
    • 3rd Continuing Resolution, funding through December 21, 2010, passed on December 17, 2010. (Pub.L. 111-317)
    • 4th Continuing Resolution, funding through March 4, 2011, passed on December 21, 2010. (Pub.L. 111-322)[16]
    • 5th Continuing Resolution, funding through March 18, 2011, passed on March 2, 2011. (Pub.L. 112-4) This resolution cut $4 billion from 2010 spending levels.[17]
    • 6th Continuing Resolution, funding through April 8, 2011, passed on March 16, 2011. (Pub.L. 112-6) This resolution cut an additional $6 billion from 2010 spending levels.[18]
    • 7th Continuing Resolution, funding through April 15, 2011, passed on April 9, 2011. (Pub.L. 112-8) This continuing resolution followed a deal on the full annual budget which was made with just hours remaining before a government shutdown.[11] It itself contains an additional $2 billion in cuts.[12] Democrats had previously rejected a Republican-backed resolution passed by the House before the deal, which would have funded the government for another week and cut an additional $12 billion from 2010 levels.[19]

    [edit] Major initiatives

    The following initiatives were enacted in the final budget legislation:

    The following major changes were proposed to federal programs, but not necessarily enacted:

    • The proposed budget contains $4 billion for the creation of a national infrastructure bank called the “National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund.”[23] This proposal is similar to the National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank initiative previously proposed by Congress.
    • The budget would cut $40 billion of tax subsidies for oil, gas and coal companies over the next decade.[24]
    • Banks would face a $90 billion tax in total over 10 years.[citation needed]
    • The Research & Experimentation Tax Credit would be made permanent.[25]
    • Appropriates $36 billion to the Department of Energy to distribute in loan guarantees for construction of new nuclear power plants and reactors. As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, this appropriation is to provide funding for 80% of the total cost of construction at approved nuclear sites in the coming years www.world-nuclear.org.[26]

    [edit] Total revenues and spending

    In the Obama administration’s initial spending request, the federal budget for 2011 was originally projected at $3.83 trillion in total spending.[27]

    The projected 2011 gross domestic product is listed at $13.519 trillion (in 2005 dollars).[28]

    As of January 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that if current laws remain unchanged, the federal budget will show a deficit of close to $1.5 trillion, or 9.8 percent of GDP. The CBO projects total revenues of $2.228 trillion and total outlays of $3.708 trillion for a deficit of $1.48 trillion for 2011. The deficits in CBO’s baseline projections drop markedly over the next few years as a share of output and average 3.1 percent of GDP from 2014 to 2021. Those projections, however, are based on the assumption that tax and spending policies unfold as specified in current law. Consequently, they understate the budget deficits that would occur if many policies currently in place were continued, rather than allowed to expire as scheduled under current law.[29]

    On February 14, 2011, President Obama released his 2012 federal budget request. The report updated the projected 2011 deficit to $1.590 trillion. This is based on estimated revenues of $2.228 trillion and outlays of $3.818 trillion.[30]

    The enacted 2011 budget called for $2.314 trillion in receipts and $3.630 trillion in outlays, according to the September 1, 2011 Mid-Session Review.[2]

    The 2011 Financial Report of the United States Government was released on December 23, 2011, showing a net operating cost and cash-based budget deficit for the year of $1.3 trillion.[31] According to the Government Accountability Office, the ‘accrual deficit provides more information on the longer-term implications of the government’s annual operations’.[32] Gross costs fell from $4,472 billion in 2010 to $3,998 billion, largely due to the release of accounting provisions (estimates of future liabilities), while total taxes and other revenues rose from $2,217 billion to $2,364 billion.[33] The GAO was unable to provide an audit opinion on the 2011 financial statements due to ‘widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations’.[34] As in 2010, the GAO cited as the principal obstacle to its provision of an audit opinion ‘serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense that made its financial statements unauditable’, highlighting also recurrent issues at the Department of Homeland Security.[34][35]