Category Archives: Current Events

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1

Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009

BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of UK/BBC copyright.
Pardon the hissy audio. It was recorded 51 years ago after all. I tried to clean it up but I found that the voices were clearer without any filters. Meh.

This is an excerpt from the famous BBC Radio debate between Father Frederick C. Copleston and Bertrand Russell. In this section, they discuss Leibniz’s Argument from Contingency, which is a form of the Cosmological Argument. It differs from other Cosmological arguments (e.g. Kalam) in that it is consistent with an eternal universe, as it doesn’t appeal to first causes, but rather the principle of sufficient reason. It can be summarized in this way:

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

_________________________

There is no audio for part 3.

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

FATHER COPLESTON
Let’s. Well, perhaps I might say a word about religious experience, and then we can go on to moral experience. I don’t regard religious experience as a strict proof of the existence of God, so the character of the discussion changes somewhat, but I think it’s true to say that the best explanation of it is the existence of God. By religious experience I don’t mean simply feeling good. I mean a loving, but unclear, awareness of some object which irresistibly seems to the experiencer as something transcending the self, something transcending all the normal objects of experience, something which cannot be pictured or conceptualized, but of the reality of which doubt is impossible
— at least during the experience. I should claim that cannot be explained adequately and without residue, simply subjectively. The actual basic experience at any rate is most easily explained on the hypotheses that there is actually some objective cause of that experience.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
I should reply to that line of argument that the whole argument from our own mental states to something outside us, is a very tricky affair. Even where we all admit its validity, we only feel justified in doing so, I think, because of the consensus of mankind. If there’s a crowd in a room and there’s a clock in a room, they can all see the clock. The face that they can all see it tends to make them think that it’s not an hallucination: whereas these religious experiences do tend to be very private.

FATHER COPLESTON
Yes, they do. I’m speaking strictly of mystical experience proper, and I certainly don’t include, by the way, what are called visions. I mean simply the experience, and I quite admit it’s indefinable, of the transcendent object or of what seems to be a transcendent object. I remember Julian Huxley in some lecture saying that religious experience, or mystical experience, is as much a real experience as falling in love or appreciating poetry and art. Well, I believe that when we appreciate poetry and art we appreciate definite poems or a definite work of art. If we fall in love, well, we fall in love with somebody and not with nobody.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
May I interrupt for a moment here. That is by no means always the case. Japanese novelists never consider that they have achieved a success unless large numbers of real people commit suicide for love of the imaginary heroine.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, I must take your word for these goings on in Japan. I haven’t committed suicide, I’m glad to say, but I have been strongly influenced in the taking of two important steps in my life by two biographies. However, I must say I see little resemblance between the real influence of those books on me and the mystic experience proper, so far, that is, as an outsider can obtain an idea of that experience.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, I mean we wouldn’t regard God as being on the same level as the characters in a work of fiction. You’ll admit there’s a distinction here?

FATHER COPLESTON
I certainly should. But what I’d say is that the best explanation seems to be the not purely subjectivist explanation. Of course, a subjectivist explanation is possible in the case of certain people in whom there is little relation between the experience and life, in the case of deluded people and hallucinated people, and so on. But when you get what one might call the pure type, say St. Francis of Assisi, when you get an experience that results in an overflow of dynamic and creative love, the best explanation of that it seems to me is the actual existence of an objective cause of the experience.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, I’m not contending in a dogmatic way that there is not a God. What I’m contending is that we don’t know that there is. I can only take what is recorded as I should take other records and I do find that a very great many things are reported, and I am sure you would not accept things about demons and devils and what not — and they’re reported in exactly the same tone of voice and with exactly the same conviction. And the mystic, if his vision is veridical, may be said to know that there are devils. But I don’t know that there are.

FATHER COPLESTON
But surely in the case of the devils there have been people speaking mainly of visions, appearance, angels or demons and so on. I should rule out the visual appearances, because I think they can be explained apart from the existence of the object which is supposed to be seen.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
But don’t you think there are abundant recorded cases of people who believe that they’ve heard Satan speaking to them in their hearts, in just the same way as the mystics assert God — and I’m not talking now of an external vision, I’m talking of a purely mental experience. That seems to be an experience of the same sort as mystics’ experience of God, and I don’t seek that from what mystics tell us you can get any argument for God which is not equally an argument for Satan.

FATHER COPLESTON
I quite agree, of course, that people have imagined or thought they have heard of seen Satan. And I have no wish in passing to deny the existence of Satan. But I do not think that people have claimed to have experienced Satan in the precise way in which mystics claim to have experienced God. Take the case of a non-Christian, Plotinus. He admits the experience is something inexpressible, the object is an object of love, and therefore, not an object that causes horror and disgust. And the effect of that experience is, I should say, borne out, or I mean the validity of th experience is borne out in the records of the life of Plotinus. At any rate it is more reasonable to suppose that he had that experience if we’re willing to accept Porphyry’s account of Plontinus’ general kindness and benevolence.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
The fact that a belief has a good moral effect upon a man is no evidence whatsoever in favor of its truth.

FATHER COPLESTON
No, but if it could actually be proved that the belief was actually responsible for a good effect on a man’s life, I should consider it a presumption in favor of some truth, at any rate of the positive part of the belief not of its entire validity. But in any case I am using the character of the life as evidence in favor of the mystic’s veracity and sanity rather than as a proof of the truth of his beliefs.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
But even that I don’t think is any evidence. I’ve had experiences myself that have altered my character profoundly. And I thought at the time at any rate that it was altered for the good. Those experiences were important, but they did not involve the existence of something outside me, and I don’t think that if I’d thought they did, the fact that they had a wholesome effect would have been any evidence that I was right.

FATHER COPLESTON
No, but I think that the good effect would attest your veracity in describing your experience. Please remember that I’m not saying that a mystic’s mediation or interpretation of his experience should be immune from discussion or criticism.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Obviously the character of a young man may be — and often is — immensely affected for good by reading about some great man in history, and it may happen that the great man is a myth and doesn’t exist, but they boy is just as much affected for good as if he did. There have been such people. Plutarch’s Lives take Lycurgus as an example, who certainly did not exist, but you might be very much influenced by reading Lycurgus under the impression that he had previously existed. You would then be influenced by an object that you’d loved, but it wouldn’t be an existing object.

FATHER COPLESTON
I agree with you on that, of course, that a man may be influenced by a character in fiction. Without going into the question of what it is precisely that influences him (I should say a real value) I think that the situation of that man and of the mystic are different. After all the man who is influenced by Lycurgus hasn’t got the irresistible impression that he’s experience in some way the ultimate reality.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
I don’t think you’ve quite got my point about these historical characters — these unhistorical characters in history. I’m not assuming what you call an effect on the reason. I’m assuming that the young man reading about this person and believing him to be real loves him — which is quite easy to happen, and yet he’s loving a phantom.

FATHER COPLESTON
In one sense he’s loving a phantom that’s perfectly true, in the sense, I mean, that he’s loving X or Y who doesn’t exist. But at the same time, it is not, I think, the phantom as such that the young man loves; he perceives a real value, an idea which he recognizes as objectively valid, and that’s what excites his love.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, in the same sense we had before about the characters in fiction.

FATHER COPLESTON
Yes, in one sense the man’s loving a phantom — perfectly true. But in another sense he’s loving what he perceives to be a value.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Atheists Confronted | Comments (0)

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript and audio (Part 2)

January 3, 2013 – 4:48 am

Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009

_________________________

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, you say, I believe, that it is bad grammar, or rather bad syntax to say for example “T. S. Eliot exists”; one ought to say, for example, “He, the author of Murder in the Cathedral, exists.” Are you going to say that the proposition, “The cause of the world exists,” is without meaning? You may say that the world has no cause; but I fail to see how you can say that the proposition that “the cause of the world exists” is meaningless. Put it in the form of a question: “Has the world a cause?” or “Does a cause of the world exist?” Most people surely would understand the question, even if they don’t agree about the answer.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, certainly the question “Does the cause of the world exist?” is a question that has meaning. But if you say “Yes, God is the cause of the world” you’re using God as a proper name; then “God exists” will not be a statement that has meaning; that is the position that I’m maintaining. Because, therefore, it will follow that it cannot be an analytic proposition ever to say that this or that exists. For example, suppose you take as your subject “the existent round-square,” it would look like an analytic proposition that “the existent round- square exists,” but it doesn’t exist.

FATHER COPLESTON
No, it doesn’t, then surely you can’t say it doesn’t exist unless you have a conception of what existence is. As to the phrase “existent round-square,” I should say that it has no meaning at all.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
I quite agree. Then I should say the same thing in another context in reference to a “necessary being.”

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, we seem to have arrived at an impasse. To say that a necessary being is a being that must exist and cannot not exist has for me a definite meaning. For you it has no meaning.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, we can press the point a little, I think. A being that must exist and cannot not exist, would surely, according to you, be a being whose essence involves existence.

FATHER COPLESTON
Yes, a being the essence of which is to exist. But I should not be willing to argue the existence of God simply from the idea of His essence because I don’t think we have any clear intuition of God’s essence as yet. I think we have to argue from the world of experience to God.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, I quite see the distinction. But, at the same time, for a being with sufficient knowledge, it would be true to say “Here is this being whose essence involves existence!”

FATHER COPLESTON
Yes, certainly if anybody saw God, he would see that God must exist.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
So that I mean there is a being whose essence involves existence although we don’t know that essence. We only know there is such a being.

FATHER COPLESTON
Yes, I should add we don’t know the essence a priori. It is only a posteriori through our experience of the world that we come to a knowledge of the existence of that being. And then one argues, the essence and existence must be identical. Because if God’s essence and God’s existence was not identical, then some sufficient reason for this existence would have to be found beyond God.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
So it all turns on this question of sufficient reason, and I must say you haven’t defined sufficient reason” in a way that I can understand — what do you mean by sufficient reason? You don’t mean cause?

FATHER COPLESTON
Not necessarily. Cause is a kind of sufficient reason. Only contingent being can have a cause. God is His own sufficient reason; and He is not cause of Himself. By sufficient reason in the full sense I mean an explanation adequate for the existence of some particular being.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
But when is an explanation adequate? Suppose I am about to make a flame with a match. You may say that the adequate explanation of that is that I rub it on the box.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, for practical purposes — but theoretically, that is only a partial explanation. An adequate explanation must ultimately be a total explanation, to which nothing further can be added.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Then I can only say that you’re looking for something which can’t be got, and which one ought not to expect to get.

FATHER COPLESTON
To say that one has not found it is one thing; to say that one should not look for it seems to me rather dogmatic.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, I don’t know. I mean, the explanation of one thing is another thing which makes the other thing dependent on yet another, and you have to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire to do what you want, and that we can’t do.

FATHER COPLESTON
But are you going to say that we can’t, or we shouldn’t even raise the question of the existence of the whole of this sorry scheme of things — of the whole universe?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, I don’t think there’s any meaning in it at all. I think the word “universe” is a handy word in some connections, but I don’t think it stands for anything that has a meaning.

FATHER COPLESTON
If the word is meaningless, it can’t be so very handy. In any case, I don’t say that the universe is something different from the objects which compose it (I indicated that in my brief summary of the proof), what I’m doing is to look for the reason, in this case the cause of the objects — the real or imagined totality of which constitute what we call the universe. You say, I think that the universe — or my existence if you prefer, or any other existence — is unintelligible?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
First may I take up the point that if a word is meaningless it can’t be handy. That sounds well but isn’t in fact correct. Take, say, such a word as “the” or “than.” You can’t point to any object that those words mean, but they are very useful words; I should say the same of “universe.” But leaving that point, you ask whether I consider that the universe is unintelligible. I shouldn’t say unintelligible — I think it is without explanation. Intelligible, to my mind, is a different thing. Intelligible has to do with the thing itself intrinsically and not with its relations.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, my point is that what we call the world is intrinsically unintelligible, apart from the existence of God. You see, I don’t believe that the infinity of the series of events — I mean a horizontal series, so to speak — if such an infinity could be proved, would be in the slightest degree relevant to the situation. If you add up chocolates you get chocolates after all and not a sheep. If you add up chocolates to infinity, you presumably get an infinite number of chocolates. So if you add up contingent beings to infinity, you still get contingent beings, not a necessary being. An infinite series of contingent beings will be, to my way of thinking, as unable to cause itself as one contingent being. However, you say, I think, that it is illegitimate to raise the question of what will explain the existence of any particular object?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
It’s quite all right if you mean by explaining it, simply finding a cause for it.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, why stop at one particular object? Why shouldn’t one raise the question of the cause of the existence of all particular objects?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Because I see no reason to think there is any. The whole concept of cause is one we derive from our observation of particular things; I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, to say that there isn’t any cause is not the same thing as saying that we shouldn’t look for a cause. The statement that there isn’t any cause should come, if it comes at all, at the end of the inquiry, not the beginning. In any case, if the total has no cause, then to my way of thinking it must be its own cause, which seems to me impossible. Moreover, the statement that the world is simply there if in answer to a question, presupposes that the question has meaning.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
No, it doesn’t need to be its own cause, what I’m saying is that the concept of cause is not applicable to the total.

FATHER COPLESTON
Then you would agree with Sartre that the universe is what he calls “gratuitous”?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, the word “gratuitous” suggests that it might be something else; I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, I can’t see how you can rule out the legitimacy of asking the question how the total, or anything at all comes to be there. Why something rather than nothing, that is the question? The fact that we gain our knowledge of causality empirically, from particular causes, does not rule out the possibility of asking what the cause of the series is. If the word “cause” were meaningless or if it could be shown that Kant’s view of the matter were correct, the question would be illegitimate I agree; but you don’t seem to hold that the word “cause” is meaningless, and I do not suppose you are a Kantian.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother — that’s a different logical sphere.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, I can’t really see any parity. If I were saying “every object has a phenomenal cause, therefore, the whole series has a phenomenal cause,” there would be a parity; but I’m not saying that; I’m saying, every object has a phenomenal cause if you insist on the infinity of the series — but the series of phenomenal causes is an insufficient explanation of the series. Therefore, the series has not a phenomenal cause but a transcendent cause.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
That’s always assuming that not only every particular thing in the world, but the world as a whole must have a cause. For that assumption I see no ground whatever. If you’ll give me a ground I’ll listen to it.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, the series of events is either caused or it’s not caused. If it is caused, there must obviously be a cause outside the series. If it’s not caused then it’s sufficient to itself, and if it’s sufficient to itself it is what I call necessary. But it can’t be necessary since each member is contingent, and we’ve agreed that the total has no reality apart from its members, therefore, it can’t be necessary. Therefore, it can’t be — uncaused — therefore it must have a cause. And I should like to observe in passing that the statement “the world is simply there and is inexplicable” can’t be got out of logical analysis.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
I don’t want to seem arrogant, but it does seem to me that I can conceive things that you say the human mind can’t conceive. As for things not having a cause, the physicists assure us that individual quantum transitions in atoms have no cause.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, I wonder now whether that isn’t simply a temporary inference.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
It may be, but it does show that physicists’ minds can conceive it.

FATHER COPLESTON
Yes, I agree, some scientists — physicists — are willing to allow for indetermination within a restricted field. But very many scientists are not so willing. I think that Professor Dingle, of London University, maintains that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us something about the success (or the lack of it) of the present atomic theory in correlating observations, but not about nature in itself, and many physicists would accept this view. In any case, I don’t see how physicists can fail to accept the theory in practice, even if they don’t do so in theory. I cannot see how science could be conducted on any other assumption than that of order and intelligibility in nature. The physicist presupposes, at least tacitly, that there is some sense in investigating nature and looking for the causes of events, just as the detective presupposes that there is some sense in looking for the cause of a murder. The metaphysician assumes that there is sense in looking for the reason or cause of phenomena, and, not being a Kantian, I consider that the metaphysician is as justified in his assumption as the physicist. When Sartre, for example, says that the world is gratuitous, I think that he has not sufficiently considered what is implied by “gratuitous.”

BERTRAND RUSSELL
I think — there seems to me a certain unwarrantable extension here; a physicist looks for causes; that does not necessarily imply that there are causes everywhere. A man may look for gold without assuming that there is gold everywhere; if he finds gold, well and good, if he doesn’t he’s had bad luck. The same is true when the physicists look for causes. As for Sartre, I don’t profess to know what he means, and I shouldn’t like to be thought to interpret him, but for my part, I do think the notion of the world having an explanation is a mistake. I don’t see why one should expect it to have, and I think you say about what the scientist assumes is an over-statement.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, it seems to me that the scientist does make some such assumption. When he experiments to find out some particular truth, behind that experiment lies the assumption that the universe is not simply discontinuous. There is the possibility of finding out a truth by experiment. The experiment may be a bad one, it may lead to no result, or not to the result that he wants, but that at any rate there is the possibility, through experiment, of finding out the truth that he assumes. And that seems to me to assume an ordered and intelligible universe.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
I think you’re generalizing more than is necessary. Undoubtedly the scientist assumes that this sort of thing is likely to be found and will often be found. He does not assume that it will be found, and that’s a very important matter in modem physics.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, I think he does assume or is bound to assume it tacitly in practice. It may be that, to quote Professor Haldane, “when I Iight the gas under the kettle, some of the water molecules will fly off as vapor, and there is no way of finding out which will do so,” but it doesn’t follow necessarily that the idea of chance must be introduced except in relation to our knowledge.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
No it doesn’t — at least if I may believe what he says. He’s finding out quite a lot of things — the scientist is finding out quite a lot of things that are happening in the world, which are, at first, beginnings of causal chains — first causes which haven’t in themselves got causes. He does not assume that everything has a cause.

FATHER COPLESTON
Surely that’s a first cause within a certain selected field. It’s a relatively first cause.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
I don’t think he’d say so. If there’s a world in which most events, but not all, have causes, he will then be able to depict the probabilities and uncertainties by assuming that this particular event you’re interested in probably has a cause. And since in any case you won’t get more than probability that’s good enough.

FATHER COPLESTON
It may be that the scientist doesn’t hope to obtain more than probability, but in raising the question he assumes that the question of explanation has a meaning. But your general point then, Lord Russell, is that it’s illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, that’s my position.

FATHER COPLESTON
If it’s a question that for you has no meaning, it’s of course very difficult to discuss it, isn’t it?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, it is very difficult. What do you say — shall we pass on to some other issue?

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Atheists Confronted | Comments (0)

“Woody Wednesday” Discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Part 3)

January 2, 2013 – 12:30 am

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 3

Uploaded by camdiscussion on Sep 23, 2007

Part 3 of 3: ‘Is Woody Allen A Romantic Or A Realist?’
A discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, Crimes and Misdemeanors, perhaps his finest.
By Anton Scamvougeras.

http://camdiscussion.blogspot.com/
antons@mail.ubc.ca

______________

One of my favorite Woody Allen movies and I reviewed it earlier but I wanted you to hear some key quotes from the movie. Here are some:

Halley Reed: After all, he is an American phenomenon.
Clifford Stern: Yeah, but so is acid rain.
Share this quote

Judah Rosenthal: I remember my father telling me, “The eyes of God are on us always.” The eyes of God. What a phrase to a young boy. What were God’s eyes like? Unimaginably penetrating, intense eyes, I assumed. And I wonder if it was just a coincidence I made my specialty ophthalmology.
Share this quote

Clifford Stern: While we’re waiting for a cab I’ll give you your lesson for today. Don’t listen to what your teachers tell ya, you know. Don’t pay attention. Just, just see what they look like and that’s how you’ll know what life is really gonna be like.
Share this quote

Clifford Stern: [after being handed a box of Milk Duds] Great. Now I can get rid of my few remaining teeth.
Share this quote

Halley Reed: [on the philosopher Lewis Levy] He was very eloquent on the subject of love, didn’t you think?
Clifford Stern: I wish I had met him before I got married. It would’ve saved me a gall bladder operation.
Share this quote

[On Lester]
Halley Reed: He wants to produce something of mine.
Clifford Stern: Yeah. Your first child.
Share this quote

Clifford Stern: Show business is, is dog-eat-dog. It’s worse than dog-eat-dog. It’s dog-doesn’t-return-other-dog’s-phone-calls, which reminds me. I should check my answering service.
Share this quote

Clifford Stern: [on Professor Levy’s demise] He left a note. He left a simple little note that said “I’ve gone out the window.” This is a major intellectual and he leaves a note that says “I’ve gone out the window.” He’s a role-model. You’d think he’d leave a decent note.
Share this quote

Clifford Stern: I don’t know from suicide, y’know. Where I grew up in Brooklyn we were too unhappy to commit suicide.
Share this quote

Clifford Stern: What is the guy so upset about? You’d think nobody was ever compared to Mussolini before.
Share this quote

Clifford Stern: [on receiving his love letter back] It’s probably just as well. I plagiarized most of it from James Joyce. You probably wondered why all the references to Dublin.
Share this quote

Ben: It’s a human life. You don’t think God sees?
Judah Rosenthal: God is a luxury I can’t afford.
Share this quote

Judah Rosenthal: She’s not an insect! You don’t just step on her!
Share this quote

Judah Rosenthal: It’s pure evil, Jack! A man kills for money and he doesn’t even know his victims!
Share this quote

Cliff Stern: I think I see a cab. If we run quickly we can kick the crutch from that old lady and get it.
Share this quote

Lester: If it bends, it’s funny. If it breaks, it isn’t.
Share this quote

Judah Rosenthal: If you want a happy ending, you should go see a Hollywood movie.
Share this quote

[first lines]
Professor Levy: [voiceover] We are all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions. Moral choices. Some are on a grand scale. Most of these choices are on lesser points. But! We define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are in fact the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, human happiness does not seem to have been included, in the design of creation. It is only we, with our capacity to love, that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying, and even to find joy from simple things like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more.
Share this quote

Lester: Comedy is tragedy plus time!
Share this quote

Judah Rosenthal: [to Ben] Jack lives in the real world. You live in the kingdom of heaven. I’d managed to keep free of that real world but suddenly it’s found me.
Share this quote

Professor Levy: You will notice that what we are aiming at when we fall in love is a very strange paradox. The paradox consists of the fact that, when we fall in love, we are seeking to re-find all or some of the people to whom we were attached as children. On the other hand, we ask our beloved to correct all of the wrongs that these early parents or siblings inflicted upon us. So that love contains in it the contradiction: The attempt to return to the past and the attempt to undo the past.
Share this quote

Ben: But the law, Judah. Without the law, it’s all darkness.
Share this quote

Judah Rosenthal: And after the awful deed is done, he finds that he’s plagued by deep-rooted guilt. Little sparks of his religious background which he’d rejected are suddenly stirred up. He hears his father’s voice. He imagines that God is watching his every move. Suddenly, it’s not an empty universe at all, but a just and moral one, and he’s violated it. Now, he’s panic-stricken. He’s on the verge of a mental collapse-an inch away from confessing the whole thing to the police. And then one morning, he awakens. The sun is shining, his family is around him and mysteriously, the crisis has lifted. He takes his family on a vacation to Europe and as the months pass, he finds he’s not punished. In fact, he prospers. The killing gets attributed to another person-a drifter who has a number of other murders to his credit, so I mean, what the hell? One more doesn’t even matter. Now he’s scott-free. His life is completely back to normal. Back to his protected world of wealth and privilege.
Share this quote

Sol Rosenthal: Whether it’s the Bible or Shakespeare, murder will out!
Judah Rosenthal: Who said anything about murder?
Sol Rosenthal: You did.
Share this quote

[first lines]
Testimonial Speaker: We’re all very proud of Judah Rosenthal’s philanthropic efforts. His endless hours of fund raising for the hospital, the new medical center, and now, the ophthalmology wing, which until this year had just been a dream. But it’s due to Rosenthal our friend that we most appreciate. The husband, the father, the golf companion. Naturally if you have a medical problem you can call Judah…
Miriam Rosenthal: You’re blushing darling.
Testimonial Speaker: …day or night, weekends or holidays. But you can also call Judah to find out which is the best restaurant in Paris – or Athens. Or which hotel to stay at in Moscow. Or the best recording of a particular Mozart symphony…
Sharon Rosenthal: My father’s so nervous about having to get up to speak.
Chris: I know, I know. I knew he was nervous when you didn’t eat any of those cocktail weenies at the hors d’oeuvres.
Miriam Rosenthal: He was so courageous all week. Then suddenly tonight, stage fright. Really Judah, you were fine until you got home from work today.
Share this quote

Discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Part 1)

July 11, 2012 – 7:39 am

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 Uploaded by camdiscussion on Sep 23, 2007 Part 1 of 3: ‘What Does Judah Believe?’ A discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, perhaps his finest. By Anton Scamvougeras. http://camdiscussion.blogspot.com/ antons@mail.ubc.ca _____________ Today I am starting a discusssion of the movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” by Woody Allen. This 1989 […]

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

Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” wins an academy award (link to complete listing of all historical figures mentioned in “Midnight in Paris”)

February 27, 2012 – 6:26 am

Sleepers (1973) Allen (left) wrote, directed and starred in this oddball love story, set 200 years in the future. It was his first on-screen collaboration with Diane Keaton (second left), who went on to become one of the director’s muses in the early days of his career. ___________ I have written more on […]

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

Can we learn from Woody Allen Films? (Part 2)

July 4, 2012 – 1:33 am

Looking at the (sometimes skewed) morality of Woody Allen’s best films. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) Allen continues the art-as-salvation theme in Hannah and Her Sisters, an ensemble drama about family and infidelity. The film tells three stories, one of which stars Allen as a hypochondriac named Mickey. Terrified of death, Mickey begins a search […]

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

Chris Martin of Coldplay unknowingly lives out his childhood Christian beliefs (Part 3 of notes from June 23, 2012 Dallas Coldplay Concert, Martin left Christianity because of teaching on hell then he writes bestselling song that teaches hell exists)

June 27, 2012 – 6:51 am

Viva La Vida Published on Jun 23, 2012 by TheRyanj64 Coldplay’s Viva La Vida at American Airlines Center in Dallas on June 22, 2012 __________ Coldplay brought confetti, lights and thousands of fans to the American Airlines Center; see photos from their colorful show Photo Gallery News Sports Lifestyles Comments (0) 5/11 Chris […]

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

“Woody Wednesdays” Woody Allen on God and Death

June 27, 2012 – 6:46 am

Good website on Woody Allen How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he’d never stop throwing up. If only God would give me some clear […]

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

Michelangelo Antonioni influenced Woody Allen and was discussed by Francis Schaeffer

June 26, 2012 – 6:34 am

Francis Schaeffer discussed modern films and how they showed the state of man. That is why I like Woody Allen’s films so much. He knows what the big issues are in life and even though he present the right answers he does grapple with the right questions. Michelangelo Antonioni heavily influenced Allen and below is […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Review of “To Rome with Love”

June 20, 2012 – 8:23 am

Jesse Eisenberg – Press Conference “To Rome With Love” Published on Apr 21, 2012 by portugal888 Review: Allen’s ‘Rome’ delivers lackluster love Published: Tuesday, June 19 2012 11:06 a.m. MDT By David Germain View 4 photos » This film image released by Sony Pictures Classics shows, : Alec Baldwin as John, left, and Jesse Eisenberg […]

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

Woody Allen, ‘To Rome With Love’ Director, Talks ‘Midnight In Paris’ Success, Acting Career

June 20, 2012 – 8:15 am

How To Recover From a Break Up With Greta Gerwig Published on May 16, 2012 by younghollywood Young Hollywood is hanging out in NYC during the Tribeca film festival, where we chat with rising star Greta Gerwig about her hip slice-of-life movie, ‘Lola Versus’. Greta offers up some advice on how to get over a […]

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

June 14, 2012 Wall Street Journal interview of Woody Allen and he is still talking about the meaninglessness of existence

June 19, 2012 – 3:30 pm

TO ROME WITH LOVE – conferenza stampa con Allen, Benigni e Cruz http://WWW.RBCASTING.COM Published on Apr 18, 2012 by RBcasting http://www.rbcasting.com Conferenza stampa del film “To Rome With Love”, scritto e diretto da Woody Allen. Tra gli interpreti, lo stesso Allen, Alec Baldwin, Roberto Benigni, Penelope Cruz, Judy Davis, Jesse Eisenberg, Ellen Page e Greta […]

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

Woody Allen’s worldview as seen in his movies

June 13, 2012 – 12:02 am

I love the movie Crimes and Misdemeanors and have written on it many times in the past. This quote below sums up Woody Allen’s worldview which I disagree with. In fact, the person who said this actually could not live with its conclusions in the movie and committed suicide. Because Allen continues to […]

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

Atheists have no basis for saying that Hitler was wrong!!!!!

May 8, 2012 – 8:37 am

On April 30, 2012 (67 years after Hitler killed himself) I stated on the Arkansas Times Blog: Hitler’s last few moments of life were filled with anxiety as they should have been. He went on to face his maker and pay dearly for his many sins. When I look at the never before released pictures […]

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

“Woody Wednesday” Will Allen and Martin follow same path as Kansas to Christ?

September 28, 2011 – 12:59 am

Several members of the 70′s band Kansas became committed Christians after they realized that the world had nothing but meaningless to offer. It seems through the writings of both Woody Allen and Chris Martin of Coldplay that they both are wrestling with the issue of death and what meaning does life bring. Kansas went through […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (1)

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript and audio (Part 1)

January 1, 2013 – 4:43 am

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1

Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009

_________________________

A DEBATE
ON THE EXISTENCE
OF GOD

A DEBATE
ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

FATHER COPLESTON VERSUS BERTRAND RUSSELL
Fredric Charles Copleston, (1907 – 1994)
A Jesuit priest and author of a nine-volume History of Philosophy

FATHER COPLESTON
As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term “God.” I presume that we mean a supreme personal being — distinct from the world and creator of the world. Would you agree — provisionally at least — to accept this statement as the meaning of the term “God”?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, I accept this definition.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?

BERTRAND RUSSELL

No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.

FATHER COPLESTON
Would you agree with me that the problem of God is a problem of great importance? For example, would you agree that if God does not exist, human beings and human history can have no other purpose than the purpose they choose to give themselves, which — in practice — is likely to mean the purpose which those impose who have the power to impose it?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Roughly speaking, yes, though I should have to place some limitation on your last clause.

FATHER COPLESTON
Would you agree that if there is no God — no absolute Being — there can be no absolute values? I mean, would you agree that if there is no absolute good that the relativity of values results?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
No, I think these questions are logically distinct. Take, for instance, G. E. Moore’s Principia Ethica, where he maintains that there is a distinction of good and evil, that both of these are definite concepts. But he does not bring in the idea of God to support that contention.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, suppose we leave the question of good till later, till we come to the moral argument, and I give first a metaphysical argument. I’d like to put the main weight on the metaphysical argument based on Leibniz’s argument from “Contingency” and then later we might discuss the moral argument. Suppose I give a brief statement on the metaphysical argument and that then we go on to discuss it?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
That seems to me to be a very good plan.

THE ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY

FATHER COPLESTON

Well, for clarity’s sake, I’ll divide the argument into distinct stages. First of all, I should say, we know that there are at least some beings in the world which do not contain in themselves the reason for their existence. For example, I depend on my parents, and now on the air, and on food, and so on. Now, secondly, the world is simply the real or imagined totality or aggregate of individual objects, none of which contain in themselves alone the reason for their existence. There isn’t any world distinct from the objects which form it, any more than the human race is something apart from the members. Therefore, I should say, since objects or events exist, and since no object of experience contains within itself reason of its existence, this reason, the totality of objects, must have a reason external to itself. That reason must be an existent being. Well, this being is either itself the reason for its own existence, or it is not. If it is, well and good. If it is not, then we must proceed farther. But if we proceed to infinity in that sense, then there’s no explanation of existence at all. So, I should say, in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence, that is to say, which cannot not exist.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
This raises a great many points and it is not altogether easy to know where to begin, but I think that, perhaps, in answering your argument, the best point at which to begin is the question of necessary being. The word “necessary” I should maintain, can only be applied significantly to propositions. And, in fact, only to such as are analytic
— that is to say — such as it is self-contradictory to deny. I could only admit a necessary being if there were a being whose existence it is self-contradictory to deny. I should like to know whether you would accept Leibniz’s division of propositions into truths of reason and truths of fact. The former — the truths of reason — being necessary.

FATHER COPLESTON
Well, I certainly should not subscribe to what seems to be Leibniz’s idea of truths of reason and truths of fact, since it would appear that, for him, there are in the long run only analytic propositions. It would seem that for Leibniz truths of fact are ultimately reducible to truths of reason. That is to say, to analytic propositions, at least for an omniscient mind. Well, I couldn’t agree with that. For one thing it would fail to meet the requirements of the experience of freedom. I don’t want to uphold the whole philosophy of Leibniz. I have made use of his argument from contingent to necessary being, basing the argument on the principle of sufficient reason, simply because it seems to me a brief and clear formulation of what is, in my opinion, the fundamental metaphysical argument for God’s existence.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
But, to my mind, “a necessary proposition” has got to be analytic. I don’t see what else it can mean. And analytic propositions are always complex and logically somewhat late. “Irrational animals are animals” is an analytic proposition; but a proposition such as “This is an animal” can never be analytic. In fact, all the propositions that can be analytic are somewhat late in the build-up of propositions.

FATHER COPLESTON
Take the proposition “if there is a contingent being then there is a necessary being.” I consider that that proposition hypothetically expressed is a necessary proposition. If you are going to call every necessary proposition an analytic proposition, then — in order to avoid a dispute in terminology — I would agree to call it analytic, though I don’t consider it a tautological proposition. But the proposition is a necessary proposition only on the supposition that there is a contingent being. That there is a contingent being actually existing has to be discovered by experience, and the proposition that there is a contingent being is certainly not an analytic proposition, though once you know, I should maintain, that there is a contingent being, it follows of necessity that there is a necessary being.

BERTRAND RUSSELL
The difficulty of this argument is that I don’t admit the idea of a necessary being and I don’t admit that there is any particular meaning in calling other beings “contingent.” These phrases don’t for me have a significance except within a logic that I reject.

FATHER COPLESTON
Do you mean that you reject these terms because they won’t fit in with what is called “modern logic”?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, I can’t find anything that they could mean. The word “necessary,” it seems to me, is a useless word, except as applied to analytic propositions, not to things.

FATHER COPLESTON
In the first place, what do you mean by “modern logic?” As far as I know, there are somewhat differing systems. In the second place, not all modern logicians surely would admit the meaninglessness of metaphysics. We both know, at any rate, one very eminent modern thinker whose knowledge of modern logic was profound, but who certainly did not think that metaphysics are meaningless or, in particular, that the problem of God is meaningless. Again, even if all modern logicians held that metaphysical terms are meaningless, it would not follow that they were right. The proposition that metaphysical terms are meaningless seems to me to be a proposition based on an assumed philosophy.

The dogmatic position behind it seems to be this: What will not go into my machine is non-existent, or it is meaningless; it is the expression of emotion. I am simply trying to point out that anybody who says that a particular system of modern logic is the sole criterion of meaning is saying something that is over-dogmatic; he is dogmatically insisting that a part of philosophy is the whole of philosophy. After all, a “contingent” being is a being which has not in itself the complete reason for its existence that’s what I mean by a contingent being. You know, as well as I do, that the existence of neither of us can be explained without reference to something or somebody outside us, our parents, for example. A “necessary” being, on the other hand means a being that must and cannot not exist. You may say that there is no such being, but you will find it hard to convince me that you do not understand the terms I am using. If you do not understand them, then how can you be entitled to say that such a being does not exist, if that is what you do say?

BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, there are points here that I don’t propose to go into at length. I don’t maintain the meaninglessness of metaphysics in general at all. I maintain the meaninglessness of certain particular terms — not on any general ground, but simply because I’ve not been able to see an interpretation of those particular terms. It’s not a general dogma — it’s a particular thing. But those points I will leave out for the moment. And I will say that what you have been saying brings us back, it seems to me, to the ontological argument that there is a being whose essence involves existence, so that his existence is analytic. That seems to me to be impossible, and it raises, of course, the question what one means by existence, and as to this, I think a subject named can never be significantly said to exist but only a subject described. And that existence, in fact, quite definitely is not a predicate.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Atheists Confronted | Comments (0)

We need to stop paying for Germany and Japan’s defense

December 31, 2012 – 2:24 pm

I have said for years that the USA should not pay for the defense Germany and Japan. Yes, there were many reasons that was true in the past, but now they are two of our biggest friends and trading partners and they are on our side. Why should we limit their military now?

I read the article, “Pawlenty Understands Incentives, Except When It Comes to Defense,” by Christopher Preble of the Cato Institute and here is a portion of it:

…the U.S. government could cut military spending in half and still spend more than our next two potential rivals, combined.

Our European and East Asian allies are consumers of the security provided by the U.S. military, and all Americans are the third party payers. As my colleague Ben Friedman likes to say, we agree to defend our allies, and they agree to let us. We shouldn’t blame them for under-providing for their own defense; it’s our fault for agreeing to do it for them.

Cato President and Founder Ed Crane’s quick take on Pawlenty’s view on defense military spending is worth repeating:

There is a difference between military spending and defense spending. The Constitution provides for a military to defend the U.S—not to democratize the world. One would hope that presidential candidates would consider America’s commitments overseas very seriously before endorsing those commitments.

Cato scholars have been out in front for years making the case for a principled, constitutional view of “defense” that does not include defending others who can and should defend themselves. If we adopted a strategy of restraint, we could responsibly make significant cuts in military spending, deliver the savings to American taxpayers, and remain the safest and most secure country on the planet. Yesterday, Tim Pawlenty took the opposite tack. He argued that the U.S. military should continue to serve as the world’s policeman/armed social worker, allow other countries to free ride, and require U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill.

Although that might be popular elsewhere in Washington, I can’t imagine it will sell in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, or Manchester, New Hampshire.

Christopher Preble • May 26, 2011 @ 1:53 pm

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute | Comments (0)

“Music Monday” Video interviews of Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin (Part 4)

December 31, 2012 – 8:50 am

As far as I know they have never done an interview together. Therefore, I have included separate interviews that they have done below and I have some links to past posts I have done on them too.

Shane Warne – Chris Martin Interview (Part 1)

Uploaded by HandyAndy136 on Nov 24, 2010

Originally broadcast on the 24 November, 2010, on Channel Nine Australia as part of the ‘Warnie’ television series. This is part one of an interview with Chris Martin.

Apologies for the semi-low quality

________________

Gwyneth Paltrow in the kitchen

Uploaded by CBSNewsOnline on May 17, 2011

Actress and singer Gwyneth Paltrow shares some recipes with Chris Wragge from her new cookbook, “My Father’s Daughter,” including baked macaroni and cheese.

___________

Shane Warne – Chris Martin Interview (Part 2)

Uploaded by HandyAndy136 on Nov 24, 2010

Originally broadcast on the 24 November, 2010, on Channel Nine Australia as part of the ‘Warnie’ television series. This is part two of an interview with Chris Martin.

Apologies for the semi-low quality.

Are Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin looking for Spiritual Answers? (Coldplay’s spiritual search Part 4)jh62

June 5, 2011 – 8:56 am

I wrote this article a couple of years ago. Are Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin looking for Spiritual Answers? Just like King Solomon’s predicament in the Book of Ecclesiastes, both of these individuals are very wealthy, famous, and successful, but they still are seeking satisfying answers to life’s greatest questions even though it seems […]

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

Insight into what Coldplay meant by “St. Peter won’t call my name” (Series on Coldplay’s spiritual search, Part 3)jh61

June 4, 2011 – 1:43 pm

Coldplay seeks to corner the market on earnest and expressive rock music that currently appeals to wide audiences Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago about Chris Martin’s view of hell. He says he does not believe in it but for some reason he writes a song that teaches that it […]

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

Will Coldplay’s 2011 album continue on spiritual themes found in 2008 Viva La Vida? (Series on Coldplay’s spiritual search, Part 2)jh60

June 3, 2011 – 4:55 pm

Views:2 By waymedia Coldplay Coldplay – Life In Technicolor ii Back in 2008 I wrote a paper on the spiritual themes of Coldplay’s album Viva La Vida and I predicted this spiritual search would continue in the future. Below is the second part of the paper, “Coldplay’s latest musical lyrics indicate a Spiritual Search for the […]

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

Will Coldplay’s 2011 album continue on spiritual themes found in 2008 Viva La Vida? (Series on Coldplay’s spiritual search, Part 1)jh59

June 3, 2011 – 4:29 pm

Coldplay performing “Glass of Water.” Back in 2008 I wrote a paper on the spiritual themes of Coldplay’s album Viva La Vida and I predicted this spiritual search would continue in the future. Below is the first part of the paper, “Coldplay’s latest musical lyrics indicate a Spiritual Search for the Afterlife.” Coldplay’s latest musical […]

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Dan Mitchell: “Bailouts reward past bad behavior”

December 29, 2012 – 9:49 am

Uploaded by danmitchellcato on Jun 8, 2011

No description available.

I wish the federal government would not play favorites and come in and do bailouts. It simply is not fair.

In the “Opposing View” Column, I Explain Why USA Today Is Wrong about Bailouts

September 17, 2012 by Dan Mitchell

I think it’s a mistake to bail out profligate governments, and I have the same skeptical attitude about bailouts for mismanaged banks and inefficient car companies.

Simply stated, bailouts reward past bad behavior and make future bad behavior more likely (what economists call moral hazard).

But some folks think government was right to put taxpayers on the hook for the sloppy decisions of private companies. Here’s the key passage in USA Today’s editorial on bailouts.

Put simply, the bailouts worked. True, in some cases the government did not do a very good job with the details, and taxpayers are out $142 billion in connection with the non-TARP takeovers of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But it’s time for the economic purists and the Washington cynics to admit that government can occasionally do something positive, at least when faced with a terrifying crisis.

Well, I guess I’m one of those “economic purists” and “Washington cynics,” so I’m still holding firm to the position that the bailouts were a mistake. In my “opposing view” column, I argue that the auto bailout sets a very bad precedent.

Unfortunately, the bailout craze in the United States is a worrisome sign cronyism is taking root. In the GM/Chrysler bailout, Washington intervened in the bankruptcy process and arbitrarily tilted the playing field to help politically powerful creditors at the expense of others. …This precedent makes it more difficult to feel confident that the rule of law will be respected in the future when companies get in trouble. It also means investors will be less willing to put money into weak firms. That’s not good for workers, and not good for the economy.

If I had more space (the limit was about 350 words), I also would have dismissed the silly assertion that the auto bailout was a success. Yes, GM and Chrysler are still in business, but the worst business in the world can be kept alive with sufficiently large transfusions of taxpayer funds.

And we’re not talking small amounts. The direct cost to taxpayers presently is about $25 billion, though I noted as a postscript in this otherwise humorous post that experts like John Ransom have shown the total cost is far higher.

And here’s what I wrote about the financial sector bailouts.

The pro-bailout crowd argues that lawmakers had no choice. We had to recapitalize the financial system, they argued, to avoid another Great Depression. This is nonsense. The federal government could have used what’s known as “FDIC resolution” to take over insolvent institutions while protecting retail customers. Yes, taxpayer money still would have been involved, but shareholders, bondholders and top executives would have taken bigger losses. These relatively rich groups of people are precisely the ones who should burn their fingers when they touch hot stoves. Capitalism without bankruptcy, after all, is like religion without hell. And that’s what we got with TARP. Private profits and socialized losses are no way to operate a prosperous economy.

The part about “FDIC resolution” is critical. I’ve explained, both in a post criticizing Dick Cheney and in another post praising Paul Volcker, that policymakers didn’t face a choice of TARP vs nothing. They could have chosen the quick and simple option of giving the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation additional authority to put insolvent banks into something akin to receivership.

Indeed, I explained in an online debate for U.S. News & World Report that the FDIC did handle the bankruptcies of both IndyMac and WaMu. And they could have used the same process for every other poorly run financial institution.

But the politicians didn’t want that approach because their rich contributors would have lost money.

I have nothing against rich people, of course, but I want them to earn money honestly.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, spending out of control | Comments (0)

“Woody Wednesday” Discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Part 2)

December 26, 2012 – 12:27 am

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 2

Uploaded by camdiscussion on Sep 23, 2007

Part 2 of 3: ‘What Does The Movie Tell Us About Ourselves?’
A discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, perhaps his finest.
By Anton Scamvougeras.

http://camdiscussion.blogspot.com/
antons@mail.ubc.ca

_________________-

One of my favorite Woody Allen movies and I reviewed it earlier but I wanted you to hear from somone else:

Guest Review: Crimes and Misdemeanors

07.13.11 | guest-blogs | FanFare Guests<!–Email this Post | –>Print this Post

Tags: Woody Allen

Guest blogger Alex Kittle writes:

Since enjoying Midnight in Paris so much, I’ve been dipping more intoWoody Allen‘s filmography. First up was Crimes and Misdemeanors, which interested me since it’s more of a drama than a romantic comedy (which is primarily what I’ve seen from him, it feels). The sizable cast features a number of loosely interconnected figures, all somehow dealing with love and disappointment. Judah (Martin Landau), a prominent ophthalmologist, is facing threats from his slightly unhinged mistress (Anjelica Huston) and is given a difficult choice to protect his marriage. Meanwhile, struggling documentary filmmaker Cliff (Woody Allen) is filming a special on his asshole brother-in-law (Alan Alda), a successful and lecherous comedy producer. He finds himself falling for the documentary’s producer Halley (Mia Farrow), as his own marriage has been failing. The two men’s lives seem unrelated, but come together through mutual acquaintances at a dinner party.

Crimes and Misdemeanors has a lot going on, balancing traumatic ruminations on death and faith with light-hearted romance and comedic dialogue. It’s a bit off-putting at times, but eventually the very different experiences of the two main characters begin to betray the darkness that can pervade any lifestyle or worldview. Cliff comes off as a slightly silly, intelligent film buff, but it’s clear he uses humor to overcome his own insecurities and cannot responsibly deal with his crumbling marriage. Judah seems so put-together, a wealthy doctor, husband, and father, but his own misgivings about his Jewish background and atheist present lead to a complete shift in ideology after he makes a life-changing decision. Their final meeting at the end is a pivotal scene.

The dialogue and characters are the standout of the film, with the story and tone a little too uneven for me. It’s a decent mix of comedy and drama, but doesn’t quite nail it, plus the ending felt abrupt despite the voiceover montage, somehow. But I loved the interactions between Allen and Farrow (they hang out and watch Singin’ in the Rain!) and his adorable niece. Alan Alda is hilarious and douchebaggy; Martin Landau brings the gravitas. It’s an interesting and entertaining film overall, but I didn’t all-out love it. For one thing, the way it ends with Farrow and Allen’s characters is frustratingly written, and I can’t help but think that this is the sort of thing that influences the one-sided sexism of movies like (500) Days of Summer, wherein women are untrustworthy and fickle just because they don’t fall for the protagonist. That’s a bit extreme, I guess, but I couldn’t help but have that line of thinking.

4/5

Pair This Movie With: Oh jeez. Um. Maybe something kind of noir-y, like The Square.

Alex Kittle is an art, movie, and comic geek with a penchant for nonsensical jokes and exaggerated claims. Her blog Film Forager explores movies of every genre, from weird high-concept sci-fi to classic brooding romance.

Discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Part 1)

July 11, 2012 – 7:39 am

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

Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” wins an academy award (link to complete listing of all historical figures mentioned in “Midnight in Paris”)

February 27, 2012 – 6:26 am

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

Can we learn from Woody Allen Films? (Part 2)

July 4, 2012 – 1:33 am

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

Chris Martin of Coldplay unknowingly lives out his childhood Christian beliefs (Part 3 of notes from June 23, 2012 Dallas Coldplay Concert, Martin left Christianity because of teaching on hell then he writes bestselling song that teaches hell exists)

June 27, 2012 – 6:51 am

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

“Woody Wednesdays” Woody Allen on God and Death

June 27, 2012 – 6:46 am

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

Michelangelo Antonioni influenced Woody Allen and was discussed by Francis Schaeffer

June 26, 2012 – 6:34 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Review of “To Rome with Love”

June 20, 2012 – 8:23 am

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

Woody Allen, ‘To Rome With Love’ Director, Talks ‘Midnight In Paris’ Success, Acting Career

June 20, 2012 – 8:15 am

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

June 14, 2012 Wall Street Journal interview of Woody Allen and he is still talking about the meaninglessness of existence

June 19, 2012 – 3:30 pm

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

As far as I know they have never done an interview together. Therefore, I have included separate interviews that they have done below and I have some links to past posts I have done on them too.

Ellen Catches Up with Gwyneth Paltrow

Uploaded by TheEllenShow on Oct 14, 2010

It’s been several years since Gwyneth Paltrow visited Ellen, and they had a lot to talk about! Ellen asked about Gwyneth’s life in London and brought up the possibility that they might be related…

_____________

Coldplay over Mylo Xyloto

Coldplay’s spiritual search continues with song “Major Minus” (Coldplay’s spiritual search Part 7)jh64

July 22, 2011 – 8:16 am

Elusive: Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin in a rare shot together at a beach party in the Hamptons I was very interested in the first single that came out from Coldplay a few weeks ago, but this second single escaped my attention. Then this morning my son Hunter told me all about this second song […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Tagged chris martin, climbing the stairs, coldplay, eye on the road, gwyneth paltrow, oooh oooh, spiritual search., www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Solomon, Woody Allen, Coldplay and Kansas (Coldplay’s spiritual search Part 6)

June 5, 2011 – 10:02 am

Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago: Solomon, Woody Allen, Coldplay and Kansas What does King Solomon, the movie director Woody Allen and the modern rock bands Coldplay and Kansas have in common? All four took on the issues surrounding death, the meaning of life and a possible afterlife, although they all came up with their own conclusions on […]

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

Three things that do not bring lasting Satisfaction, (Coldplay’s spiritual search Part 5)jh63

June 5, 2011 – 9:17 am

Coldplay – 42 Live Coldplay perform on the french television channel W9. I wrote this article a couple of years ago: The Spiritual Search for the Afterlife Russ Breimeier rightly noted that it seems that Coldplay is “on the verge of identifying a great Truth” and their latest CD is very provocative. Many songs mention […]

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

All-American Rejects Part 4 (Leadsingers Tyson Ritter and Gene Simmons have something in common)

December 19, 2012 – 7:08 am

In-Studio Interviews – Tyson Ritter ‘The All American Rejects’ Interview: Kids In The Street

I enjoyed the concert in Little Rock on 12-13-12, and lead singer Tyson Ritter wrote a song on his latest cd that we should all pay attention to because it covers an issue that both him and many other lead singers in rock bands have dealt with.

Beekeeper’s Daughter is about a guy who uses women and has lost sight of what it means to treat women with respect. It reminds me of what I saw a while back on the weekly show “Gene Simmons Family Jewels.”

Here Gene Simmons the lead singer of KISS experiences the same type of life that Tyson Ritter, the lead singer of All-American Rejects the two years in LA when he slept with every woman that he could.

The only difference is that Gene is actually married. However, many of the consequences are the same. Below is a picture of Gene’s wife.

On the show Gene Simmons Family Jewels, Shannon Tweed, 54 yrs old, is the mother of Gene’s two kids and she has been with Gene for 28 yrs but now she is looking for more committment from Gene. She wants him to stop cheating on her.

In the July 19th episode Nick said to his father “You were a great father but not a good spouse.” Sophie went even farther and said that Gene “was not a good dad.” Both of these clips were repeated in this week’s episode on July 26th.

The pain of finding out that her father had lied to her about being faithful to their mother really must have hurt Sophie in a tremendous way.

In the message that Brandon Barnard brought to Fellowship Bible Church on July 24th he made a big point at the beginning of the message that many people don’t like to talk about this topic of sexual purity. The battle for purity is raging all around us. Brandon is very correct on this point because I turn on the show “Gene Simmons Family Jewels” every week and that is exactly what I see.

Brandon mentioned that when ever you go to the doctor if you have a broken bone, then he will press against it until you react. They catch that tender spot and press against it until you say, yes that is exactly where it is. It identifies where it is broken and there is a lot of pain. That is the same way that Proverbs will treat us on the subject of sexual purity in chapters 5, 6 and 7.

In the show “Gene Simmons Family Jewels,” Gene wants his kids included in the counseling session, but all of sudden his kids say that their father has the problem. Then faced with both his counselor, his wife (Shannon is his wife practically speaking) and now his kids all saying that he has the problem, then he responds that he thought this was going to be a fun day.

ADVICE FOR GENE SIMMONS: READ PROVERBS 5, 6, 7, AND SEE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT BEING COMMITTED TO THE WIFE OF YOUR YOUTH?

Brandon Barnard started off the sermon on July 24th at Fellowship Bible Church by reading three chapters from Proverbs. Here are the verses:

Proverbs 5:1-23

English Standard Version (ESV)

Proverbs 5

Warning Against Adultery

¹ My son, be attentive to my wisdom;
incline your ear to my understanding,
²that you may keep discretion,
and your lips may guard knowledge.
³For the lips of a forbidden^[a] woman drip honey,
and her speech^[b] is smoother than oil,
⁴but in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a two-edged sword.
⁵Her feet go down to death;
her steps follow the path to^[c] Sheol;
⁶she does not ponder the path of life;
her ways wander, and she does not know it. ⁷And now, O sons, listen to me,
and do not depart from the words of my mouth.
⁸Keep your way far from her,
and do not go near the door of her house,
⁹lest you give your honor to others
and your years to the merciless,
¹⁰lest strangers take their fill of your strength,
and your labors go to the house of a foreigner,
¹¹and at the end of your life you groan,
when your flesh and body are consumed,
¹²and you say, “How I hated discipline,
and my heart despised reproof!
¹³I did not listen to the voice of my teachers
or incline my ear to my instructors.
¹⁴ I am at the brink of utter ruin
in the assembled congregation.”

¹⁵Drink water from your own cistern,
flowing water from your own well.
¹⁶Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets?
¹⁷ Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for strangers with you.
¹⁸Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,

¹⁹a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated^[d] always in her love.
²⁰Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman
and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?^[e]
²¹For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the LORD,
and he ponders^[f] all his paths.
²²The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him,
and he is held fast in the cords of his sin.
²³ He dies for lack of discipline,
and because of his great folly he is led astray.

Proverbs 6:20-35

English Standard Version (ESV)

Warnings Against Adultery

²⁰ My son, keep your father’s commandment,
and forsake not your mother’s teaching.
²¹ Bind them on your heart always;
tie them around your neck.
²² When you walk, they^[a] will lead you;
when you lie down, they will watch over you;
and when you awake, they will talk with you.
²³For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light,
and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life,
²⁴to preserve you from the evil woman,^[b]
from the smooth tongue of the adulteress.^[c]
²⁵ Do not desire her beauty in your heart,
and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes;
²⁶for the price of a prostitute is only a loaf of bread,^[d]
but a married woman^[e] hunts down a precious life.
²⁷Can a man carry fire next to his chest
and his clothes not be burned?
²⁸Or can one walk on hot coals
and his feet not be scorched?
²⁹So is he who goes in to his neighbor’s wife;
none who touches her will go unpunished.
³⁰People do not despise a thief if he steals
to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry,
³¹but if he is caught, he will pay sevenfold;
he will give all the goods of his house.
³²He who commits adultery lacks sense;
he who does it destroys himself.
³³He will get wounds and dishonor,
and his disgrace will not be wiped away.
³⁴For jealousy makes a man furious,
and he will not spare when he takes revenge.
³⁵He will accept no compensation;
he will refuse though you multiply gifts.

Proverbs 7:6-27

English Standard Version (ESV)

⁶For at the window of my house
I have looked out through my lattice,
⁷and I have seen among the simple,
I have perceived among the youths,
a young man lacking sense,
⁸passing along the street near her corner,
taking the road to her house
⁹in the twilight, in the evening,
at the time of night and darkness.

¹⁰And behold, the woman meets him,
dressed as a prostitute, wily of heart.^[a]
¹¹She is loud and wayward;
her feet do not stay at home;
¹²now in the street, now in the market,
and at every corner she lies in wait.
¹³She seizes him and kisses him,
and with bold face she says to him,
¹⁴“I had to offer sacrifices,^[b]
and today I have paid my vows;
¹⁵so now I have come out to meet you,
to seek you eagerly, and I have found you.
¹⁶I have spread my couch with coverings,
colored linens from Egyptian linen;
¹⁷I have perfumed my bed with myrrh,
aloes, and cinnamon.
¹⁸Come, let us take our fill of love till morning;
let us delight ourselves with love.
¹⁹For my husband is not at home;
he has gone on a long journey;
²⁰he took a bag of money with him;
at full moon he will come home.”

²¹With much seductive speech she persuades him;
with her smooth talk she compels him.
²²All at once he follows her,
as an ox goes to the slaughter,
or as a stag is caught fast^[c]
²³till an arrow pierces its liver;
as a bird rushes into a snare;
he does not know that it will cost him his life.

²⁴And now, O sons, listen to me,
and be attentive to the words of my mouth.
²⁵Let not your heart turn aside to her ways;
do not stray into her paths,
²⁶for many a victim has she laid low,
and all her slain are a mighty throng.
²⁷Her house is the way to Sheol,
going down to the chambers of death.

The All-American Rejects – Beekeeper’s Daughter

Beekeeper’s Daughter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

“Beekeeper’s Daughter”

Single by The All-American Rejects

from the album Kids in the Street

Released

January 31, 2012
(see release history)

Format

Digital download

Recorded

2011

Genre

Alternative rock, power pop

Length

3:33

Label

Interscope, DGC

Writer(s)

Nick Wheeler, Tyson Ritter

Producer

Greg Wells

The All-American Rejects singles chronology

“I Wanna”
(2009)

“Beekeeper’s Daughter”
(2012)

“Kids in the Street”
(2012)

“Beekeeper’s Daughter” is a song by American rock band The All-American Rejects, released as the lead single from their fourth studio album Kids in the Street on January 31, 2012.

[hide]

[edit] Background and composition

“Beekeeper’s Daughter” was written by Tyson Ritter and Nick Wheeler, the song captures a tumultuous time while Ritter was living in Los Angeles after wrapping two years of touring behind the band’s 2008 album When the World Comes Down.

“‘Beekeeper’s Daughter’ is a story about a guy who thinks he can get away with anything and always have a girl there waiting for him,” Ritter says. “He never backs down from that opinion. At the end of it, he’s even stronger and more snide and thinks he’s invincible no matter what. He’s an asshole, but at that point in my life, I was kind of an asshole. As we were making Kids in the Street, I went from that to being a completely humbled guy who’s looking at his reflection saying, ‘Wow, what have I done?’ It may make me not seem very likeable, but it was important that I be truthful and really open up on this album about what I’ve been through.”

The song is a mid-tempo track blending pop and rock sounds in an infectious hook. Tyson sings expressively, backed up by a fun melody and an upbeat chorus “that gets stuck in your head.” Ritter explained, “Music, somewhat ‘festive atmosphere’, fits well with the meaning of lyrics. The ending of the song is funny and original too!” Wheeler added how got to use a talk box on the track, “I’m surprised anybody let me do that,” he notes, “but I got a talk box back on the radio, which is cool.”

[edit] Reception

The song has received mixed reviews from music critics. Billboard stated “Although the lyrics fall in line with the Rejects’ usual emotional sensitivities, the band’s sound has moved from earlier, more driving tracks like “Swing, Swing” and “Move Along” to a glossier power-pop sound here. Ritter finds himself confused, facing a common “leave or stay” dilemma with his lover. But while the lyrics have Ritter searching for answers, the melodies confidently amble through the song’s sugary hook. “Beekeeper’s Daughter” may lack the raw, earnest energy of earlier Rejects work, but it’s a fun and memorable romp that brings out the best of their pop side.” ^[1]

Stitched Sound was, however, slightly more positive, stating ““Beekeeper’s Daughter” has a feel-good vibe to it that has Tyson Ritter’s unique, well crafted voice wonderfully meshed into the song. The lyrics “You’re a pretty little flower/ I’m a busy little bee” basically scream out adorable. Not to mention that the more orchestrated bridge leading into the chorus is extremely catchy and something we haven’t heard from The All-American Rejects in the past.” ^[2] Clark Chronicle were also positive, saying “‘Beekeeper’s Daughter’ is one of [the band’s] most enjoyable and successful songs in comparison to their more serious songs from previous albums. The All-American Rejects have once again fulfilled their expectations with an upbeat, fun song that anyone can listen to.” ^[3]

[edit] Music video

A music video for “Beekeeper’s Daughter”, directed by Isaac Rentz, was shot in late January 2012 ^[4] and released on February 2 onto Vevo.^[4] It evolves around the band’s front-man Tyson Ritter acting carefree while walking through a city after just being rejected by his girlfriend while various pedestrians – some dressed distinctively – take part in dance routines along his way. The video also features a cameo appearance from American singer and entertainer Wayne Newton.

Critically, Promo News said “Isaac Rentz delivers a touch of old Hollywood magic in his song-and-dance promo for All-American Rejects’ Beekeeper’s Daughter. With dancing construction workers, street muggers and camp cops, it’s about as theatrical as you can get”,^[5] while MTV described the video as “A big, buzzy clip, brimming with dancing she-devils, cheerleaders, cops, ticker tape, a mariachi band and Mr. Newton (to name just a few). And while everything in the video elicits a thrill, it’s Newton’s cameo that takes the cake.”

“This was the first video where, when we got [the treatment], everyone said ‘yes’ and I said ‘yes … but could we please have some of this?’ And I proceeded to sort of expel every fantastic idea I could think of,” frontman Tyson Ritter explained. “From, like, a hipster fight – beards versus mustaches, a lot of plaid, had to be like ‘West Side Story’ – to some she-devils. Everything we could ever sort of think of for a video that was impractical is in this one. And the whole thing is floating on a through-line of a man walking through his day, experiencing every random encounter from every random walk of life,” he continued. “And at the very end, there’s a big parade with Wayne Newton.” ^[6]

[edit] Appearances in popular culture

“Beekeeper’s Daughter” first premiered in the plenitude episode of the fourth season of American teen drama 90210 featuring an appearance from the band as themselves playing the song.^[7]

[edit] Track listing

Digital download

“Beekeeper’s Daughter” – 3:33

[edit] Charts

Chart (2012)	Peak position
UK Singles Chart^[8]	132
US Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles	24
US Billboard Pop Songs	38
US Billboard Adult Pop Songs	30

[edit] Release history

Country	Date	Format
United States	January 31, 2012	Digital download
Worldwide	February 14, 2012 ^[4]
United Kingdom	March 26, 2012 ^[9]

_________________________

“Tip Tuesday” Advice to Gene Simmons (Part 18)

November 8, 2011 – 12:50 am

Below is an article on the show: (This came out several months ago) Gene Simmons gets ‘whipped’ on ‘Family Jewels’ Amanda Edwards / Getty Images Contributor Gene Simmons took his son Nick to Israel, where the KISS frontman was born. By Randee Dawn, TODAY.com contributor It seemed that “Gene Simmons Family Jewels” might end prematurely: After Simmons’ […]

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

“Tip Tuesday” Advice to Gene Simmons part 17

November 1, 2011 – 12:17 am

I really hope that Gene Simmons and his wife Shannon Tweed really do have a successful marriage that lasts forever. However, when people live together statistics show it is usually an uphill battle to have a marriage that lasts. Take Kim Kardashian for instance. Here is an article that I found helpful below: Cohabitation Confusion: […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Tagged benefit of marriage, kim kardashian, marriage relationship., personal commitments, shannon tweed | Edit | Comments (0)

“Tip Tuesday” Advice to Gene Simmons (Part 16)

October 25, 2011 – 12:40 am

Gene, 61, and Shannon, 54, have been together for 27 years and have two children, Nicholas, 22, and Sophie, 19. I READ THIS ARTICLE BELOW A FEW MONTHS AGO. MAYBE THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEN. Fans of Gene Simmons’ Family Jewels may be asking themselves “Are Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed engaged or what?” This […]

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

“Tip Tuesday” Advice to Gene Simmons (Part 15)

October 18, 2011 – 12:27 am

(On last night’s episode on Oct 17, 2011, Gene Simmons admitted that he did not have a problem with his head or his heart but with his sexual desires that have been allowed to get what they want anytime they want it with whomever they desired. ) Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed Shannon Tweed and […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

“Tip Tuesday” Advice to Gene Simmons (Part 14)

October 11, 2011 – 12:58 am

Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed People Magazine reported: You can’t always believe what you see on reality TV. Case in point: KISS bassist Gene Simmons finally proposed to longtime girlfriend Shannon Tweed. Turns out, the proposal scene in Tuesday night’s finale of A&E’s reality show Gene Simmons Family Jewels was taped “several months ago,” […]

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

“Tip Tuesday” Advice to Gene Simmons (Part 13)

October 4, 2011 – 12:06 am

Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed Gene, 61, and Shannon, 54, have been together for 27 years and have two children, Nicholas, 22, and Sophie, 19. The ‘Rock and Roll All Nite’ hitmaker has previously made his views on marriage very clear, saying in 2007: “The problem with marriage is somebody else has a right to […]

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

“Tip Tuesday” Advice to Gene Simmons (Part 12)

September 27, 2011 – 12:59 am

Gene, 61, and Shannon, 54, have been together for 27 years and have two children, Nicholas, 22, and Sophie, 19. The ‘Rock and Roll All Nite’ hitmaker has previously made his views on marriage very clear, saying in 2007: “I don’t believe man is designed to be married. Marriage means nothing to me. Happiness means […]

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

“Tip Tuesday” Advice for Gene Simmons (Part 11) Fellowship Bible Church July 24th

September 20, 2011 – 7:48 am

Gene Simmons and his son Nick (Refer to end of post for more on Nick and Gene) 28 July 2011 Gene Simmons has proposed to long-term girlfriend Shannon Tweed. The Kiss bassist – who claims to have slept with over 2,000 women and has for a long time vowed never to marry – popped the question […]

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

“Tip Tuesday” Advice for Gene Simmons (Part 10),

September 13, 2011 – 7:46 am

Nick is Gene and Shannon’s son and he appears often on Gene Simmons Family Jewels show. Gene Simmons has been guilty of having affairs while on tour for years. On July 19th episode of Gene Simmons Family Jewels he told his tour manager that he was not going to the after party. Then he said […]

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

“Tip Tuesday,” Advice to Gene Simmons Part 9, Fellowship Bible Church July 24th

September 6, 2011 – 7:44 am

Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed John McArthur The Truth About Divorce, #2 (Mark 10:1-12) On the show Gene Simmons has been arguing the point that he admits that he is selfish, but he still feels he has the right to be selfish. In the conclusion of the final episode of the year on July 24th […]

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

“Tip Tuesday” Advice to Gene Simmons (Part 19) Fellowship Bible Church Service July 24th

November 15, 2011 – 12:47 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (1)

Advice to Gene Simmons Part 8, (“Tip Tuesday” Part D)

August 30, 2011 – 5:04 am

Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed The series I have been doing on “Advice to Gene Simmons” that I am starting what I am calling “Tip Tuesday.” For the next few months we will be looking at the Simmons family. In the July 19th episode Nick said to his father “You were a great father but […]

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

Advice to Gene Simmons Part 7, (“Tip Tuesday Part C)jh17a

August 23, 2011 – 4:01 am

__________________________________ Gene Simmons Family Jewels The series I have been doing on “Advice to Gene Simmons” that I am starting what I am calling “Tip Tuesday.” For the next few months we will be looking at the Simmons family. In the July 19th episode Nick said to his father “You were a great father but […]

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

Advice to Gene Simmons Part 6, (“Tip Tuesday” Part B)jh16a

August 16, 2011 – 5:59 am

Gene Simmons Family Jewels, Shannon Tweed, 54 yrs old, has been with Gene Simmons 27 years and raised two children with him. The series I have been doing on “Advice to Gene Simmons” that I am starting what I am calling “Tip Tuesday.” For the next few months we will be looking at the Simmons […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Advice to Gene Simmons Part 5, (“Tip Tuesday” Part A) jh15a

August 9, 2011 – 5:50 am

Gene Simmons Family Jewels Adrian Rogers – [2/3] How to Cultivate a Marriage The series I have been doing on “Advice to Gene Simmons” that I am starting what I am calling “Tip Tuesday.” For the next few months we will be looking at the Simmons family. On July 19th on Gene Simmons Jewels, in a […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

	SLIMJIM on FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART…
	mosckerr on RFK Jr: “If Trump is kep…
	mosckerr on “Now whether the 14th Am…
	Everette Hatcher III on “Now whether the 14th Am…
	Everette Hatcher III on RFK Jr: “If Trump is kep…

Category Archives: Current Events

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1

Proverbs 5:1-23

Proverbs 5

Warning Against Adultery

Proverbs 6:20-35

Warnings Against Adultery

Proverbs 7:6-27

The All-American Rejects – Beekeeper’s Daughter

Beekeeper’s Daughter

Contents

[edit] Background and composition

[edit] Reception

[edit] Music video

[edit] Appearances in popular culture

[edit] Track listing

[edit] Charts

[edit] Release history

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta