Category Archives: Current Events

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

June 16, 2012 – 7:39 am

Uploaded by 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.

_________________________

 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)

“Tennis Tuesday” every week here on www.thedailyhatch.org

June 16, 2012 – 7:38 am

Every Tuesday you can find a great post like this one and below you can find some links to past posts.

From Wikipedia:

McEnroe won a total of 148 ATP titles (a record for a male professional) during his career — 77 in singles, 71 in men’s doubles, and 1 in mixed doubles (not counted as ATP title).He won seven Grand Slam singles titles. He also won a record eight year end championship titles overall, the Masters championships three times, and the WCT Finals,a record five times.His career singles match record was 875–198 (81.55%_. He posted the best single season match record (for a male player) in the Open Era with win-loss record: 82–3 (96.5%) set in 1984 and has the best Carpet Court career match winning percentage: 84.18% (411–346) of any player.

According to the ATP website, McEnroe had the edge in career matches on Jimmy Connors (20–14), Stefan Edberg (7–6), Mats Wilander (7–6), Michael Chang (4–1), Ilie Năstase (4–2), and Pat Cash (3–1). McEnroe was even with Björn Borg (7–7), Andre Agassi (2–2), and Michael Stich (1–1). He trailed against Pete Sampras (0–3), Goran Ivanišević (2–4), Boris Becker (2–8), Guillermo Vilas (5–6), Jim Courier (1–2), and Ivan Lendl (15–21). McEnroe won 12 of the last 14 matches with Connors, beginning with the 1983 Cincinnati tournament. Edberg won the last 5 matches with McEnroe, beginning with the 1989 tournament in Tokyo. McEnroe won 4 of the last 5 matches with Vilas, beginning with the 1981 tournament in Boca Raton, Florida. And Lendl won 11 of the last 12 matches with McEnroe, beginning with the 1985 US Open.

McEnroe, however, played in numerous events, including invitational tournaments, that are not covered by the ATP website. McEnroe won eight of those events and had wins and losses against the players listed in the preceding paragraph that are not reflected on the ATP website.

Grand Slam finals (11)

[edit] Singles: (7–4)

Wins (7)
Year Championship Surface Opponent in final Score in final
1979 US Open Hard United States Vitas Gerulaitis 7–5, 6–3, 6–3
1980 US Open (2) Hard Sweden Björn Borg 7–6(7–4), 6–1, 6–7(5–7), 5–7, 6–4
1981 Wimbledon Grass Sweden Björn Borg 4–6, 7–6(7–1), 7–6(7–4), 6–4
1981 US Open (3) Hard Sweden Björn Borg 4–6, 6–2, 6–4, 6–3
1983 Wimbledon (2) Grass New Zealand Chris Lewis 6–2, 6–2, 6–2
1984 Wimbledon (3) Grass United States Jimmy Connors 6–1, 6–1, 6–2
1984 US Open (4) Hard Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl 6–3, 6–4, 6–1
Runner-up (4)
Year Championship Surface Opponent in final Score in final
1980 Wimbledon Grass Sweden Björn Borg 6–1, 5–7, 3–6, 7–6(18–16), 6–8
1982 Wimbledon (2) Grass United States Jimmy Connors 6–3, 3–6, 7–6(7–2), 6–7(5–7), 4–6
1984 French Open Clay Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl 6–3, 6–2, 4–6, 5–7, 5–7
1985 US Open Hard Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl 6–7(1–7), 3–6, 4–6

Related posts:

Jack Sock “Tennis Tuesday”

2011 US Open Press Conferences: Jack Sock (Second Round) Uploaded by USOPEN on Sep 3, 2011 9/2/2011 http://www.usopen.org _________________ From Wikipedia: Jack Sock From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Jack Sock Country  United States Residence Overland Park, Kansas Born September 24, 1992 (1992-09-24) (age 19) Lincoln, Nebraska Height 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in) Weight 82 kg […]

Gael Monfils “Tennis Tuesday”

From Wikipedia: Gaël is nicknamed “La Monf“, or occasionally “Sliderman” due to his unusual sliding technique, especially on clay surfaces. He is of Caribbean heritage: his father, Rufin, a former football player employed as an agent for France Telecom, comes from the island of Guadeloupe, France. His mother, Sylvette, comes from the island of Martinique, […]

“Tennis Tuesday” David Wheaton (Part 4)

Testimony David Wheaton Tennis Uploaded by TheTrueSeven on Sep 23, 2011 Testimony David Wheaton Tennis David Wheaton WIMBLEDON : Grass Doesn’t Agree With Lendl Again July 02, 1991|BILL DWYRE | TIMES SPORTS EDITOR WIMBLEDON, England — Ivan Lendl, who crawled out of the coffin on Wimbledon’s graveyard court, No. 2, Sunday, succumbed on Centre Court […]

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 6

McEnroe was McNasty on and off the court By Larry Schwartz Special to ESPN.com “I wanted to spend [the night] with my family and friends and the people who had supported me, not a bunch of stiffs who were 70-80 years old, telling you that you’re acting like a jerk,” says John McEnroe on ESPN […]

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 5

Head-to-head [edit] Borg 9–11 McEnroe (7-7 at the main tour) No. Year Tournament Surface Round Winner Score 1 1978 Stockholm Hard SF McEnroe 6–3, 6–4 2 1979 Richmond Carpet SF Borg 4–6, 7–6(10-8), 6–3 3 1979 New Orleans Carpet SF McEnroe 5–7, 6–1, 7–6(8-6) 4 1979 Rotterdam Carpet F Borg 6–4, 6–2 5 1979 Dallas […]

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry Part 3

June 15, 2012 – 10:48 am

Uploaded by on Oct 22, 2011

Highlights of the #9 Razorbacks 29-24 victory over the Mississippi Rebels. The Black Bears would have a 17-0 2nd quarter lead, but the Hogs would score 29 straight points and would pick off a late Mississippi rally too hand them their 10th straight SEC loss. The win was the second straight over Houston Dale Nutt and his Rebels. Dennis Johnson would rush for a career high 160 yards on only 15 carries. Arkansas now leads the all-time series 32-25-1.

__________

Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry Part 3

Wikipedia talks about the Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry:

[edit] Notable games

[edit] 1908 – First Meeting

Arkansas 33 – Ole Miss 0

The very first meeting between the two teams was a 1908 contest in which Arkansas won by a score of 33–0. The teams were first scheduled to meet each other in 1906, but due to a cancellation, the 1908 contest was the first meeting.

[edit] 1914 – Contentious result

Arkansas lists the 1914 contest as a forfeit by Ole Miss because Ole Miss used an ineligible player. Ole Miss denies the allegation of using an ineligible player and therefore lists the contest by the recorded on the field winning score of 13–7 in favor of Ole Miss.[8] [9] [10] Therefore, the two school’s official records for the overall series shows a one game difference. As of the 2010 Arkansas win, Ole Miss lists the series as 30–26–1 in favor of Arkansas while Arkansas lists the series as 31–25–1 in Arkansas’ favor.

[edit] 1954 – Powder River Pass

Arkansas 6 – Ole Miss 0

Arkansas and Ole Miss met in War Memorial Stadium on October 23, 1954. The game was scoreless until the Razorbacks called a trick play: a 66-yard halfback pass from halfback Buddy Bob Benson to Preston Carpenter for the only points of the game. Arkansas head coach Bowden Wyatt named the play after the Powder River, a river in his native Wyoming. The river is a mile wide but deceptively only a foot deep. With the 6–0 win, Arkansas would go on to fall in the 1955 Cotton Bowl Classic against Bobby Dodd‘s Georgia Tech, and the Rebels would continue to the 1955 Sugar Bowl, losing to Navy.

[edit] 1959

Ole Miss 28 – Arkansas 0

The 1959 contest was won by Ole Miss 28–0 in Memphis, Tennessee on their way to a final record of 10–1 for the 1959 season and one of their three claimed national championships.

[edit] 1960

Ole Miss 10 – Arkansas 7

The 1960 contest between the teams was won by Ole Miss 10–7 at War Memorial Stadium in Little Rock, Arkansas, on their way to a final record of 10–0–1 for the 1960 season and the second of their three claimed national championships. Sometimes called the Tommy Bell game by Arkansas fans, he called a timeout in an attempt to quiet Razorback fans.[11] Rebel Allen Green did not hear the whistle and kicked the ball through the uprights. After the timeout, fans swear Bell signaled that the kick was good as soon as Green connected with the ball. Fans also swear that the kick was no good. Fighting broke out all around the stadium and because of this, the annual series between the two schools was played the next year in Jackson and then was canceled until the two teams renewed the series in 1981.

[edit] 1963 Sugar Bowl with National Championship implications

  1 2 3 4 Total
Razorbacks 0 3 10 0 13
Rebels 3 7 7 0 17

Ole Miss 17 – Arkansas 13

The January 1, 1963 Sugar Bowl in New Orleans was played between the two teams as a end to the 1962 regular season. It was both the Razorbacks’ and Rebels’ fourth bowl in four seasons, and was the second straight Sugar Bowl for Arkansas.

After each team kicked field goals, Ole Miss scored the first touchdown, a 33 yard strike from Glynn Griffing to Louis Guy gave the Rebels a 10–3 lead.[12] The Hogs replied with a five yard touchdown toss from Billy Moore to knot the game at 10. Ole Miss QB Griffing then scored on a one-yard touchdown scamper. The Razorbacks would tack on a field goal, but neither team could dent the scoreboard in the fourth quarter. Ole Miss won the game by a final score of 17–13 to finish the season 10–0 and win a share of the 1962 national championship in college football. This was their third of three national championships Ole Miss claims.

[show]Scoring summary
Quarter Time Drive Team Scoring information Score
Plays Yards TOP ARK UM
2     80   UM 30-yard field goal by Irwin 0 3
2     82   ARK 30-yard field goal by Tom McKnelly 3 3
2     67   UM Louis Guy 33-yard touchdown reception from Glynn Griffing, Irwin kick good 3 10
3     15   ARK Jesse Branch 5-yard touchdown reception from Billy Moore, Tom McKnelly kick good 10 10
3     80   UM Glynn Griffing 1-yard touchdown run, Irwin kick good 10 17
3     59   ARK 22-yard field goal by Tom McKnelly 13 17
“TOP” = time of possession. For other American football terms, see Glossary of American football. 13 17

[edit] 2001 – Record 7-Overtime Game

  1 2 3 4 OT 2OT 3OT 4OT 5OT 6OT 7OT Total
Razorbacks 0 7 3 7 7 0 6 6 6 8 8 58
Rebels 7 0 3 7 7 0 6 6 6 8 6 56

Arkansas 58 – Ole Miss 56 (7OT)

On November 3, 2001, Arkansas and Ole Miss played in an NCAA record 7-overtime game in Oxford, MS. The marathon game featured 114 points, 988 offensive yards, four 100-yard rushers, and seven overtimes, with Arkansas prevailing 58–56.[13][14] The game started slowly, however, with a 7–7 tie going into halftime. Arkansas completed a field goal attempt in the third quarter, giving the Hogs a 10–7 edge.[15] A tying 32-yard field goal attempt was then set up by Eli Manning.[15] Razorback fullback Mark Pierce ran in from one yard away to take a 17–10 Arkansas lead in the fourth quarter, but Eli Manning connected with Jamie Armstead to send the game into overtime.[13]

Razorback RB Cedric Cobbs scored from 16 yards out to start the overtime scoring.[15] Eli Manning responded with an 11 yard touchdown pass, sending the game to a second overtime, in which neither team would score.[13] Matt Jones scrambled all 25 yards for the go-ahead touchdown, but the two point run failed.[15] Ole Miss drove to the one yard line, where Joe Gunn ran in.[13] Given a chance to end the game by completing the two point conversion, Eli Manning threw the ball, but it was incomplete, sending the game to its fourth extra frame.[15] Rebel receiver Bill Flowers hauled in a 21 yard pass from Manning to take the lead, 30–24.[13] After the Rebels failed the two point pass, Jones threw a 24-yard TD pass to George Wilson.[15] The Hogs would fail the two point run, extending the game to a fifth overtime.[13] Jones again scored for the Razorbacks, an 8-yard rush, but failed the two point conversion.[15] Manning hit his tight end Doug Zeigler from twelve yards out, and failed the two point pass.[13] In the sixth overtime, Zeigler again caught a Manning aerial, and Ole Miss connected on the two point conversion with a Charles Stackhouse rush, taking a 50–42 lead.[15] Razorback Pierce ran in from two yards out, and Arkansas completed the tying two point conversion on a Jones pass.[13] The game would go to a seventh overtime.[15]

Mark Pierce again ran in for a two-yard touchdown (his third two-yard score of the game), and Decori Birmingham would receive the two point pass from Jones, making it a 58–50 Hog lead.[15] Manning would throw his sixth touchdown pass, but the two point pass to Doug Ziegler was stopped by Jermaine Petty, giving Arkansas a 58–56 win over rival Ole Miss.[13]

The two teams combined for 60 first downs, 130 rushing attempts (80 from the Razorbacks), 68 pass attempts, and 198 total offensive plays, while limiting mistakes, including two fumbles, eight penalties, and one sack.[13][15]

The win moved Arkansas to 5–3 on the year and 3–0 in overtime.[13] Arkansas would play another seven-overtime game, in 2003. Arkansas ended up winning with a final score of 58–56. Arkansas finished with 531 yards of offense, 370 rushing and 161 passing, while Ole Miss netted 457 yards of offense, 312 passing and 166 rushing. [16] [17]

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Case Study on Chelsea Clinton:Can equality of results be acheived best by punishing those who were born rich? “Friedman Friday”

June 15, 2012 – 7:18 am

chelsea_clinton1.jpg

Milton Friedman – Redistribution of Wealth

Uploaded by on Feb 12, 2010

Milton Friedman clears up misconceptions about wealth redistribution, in general, and inheritance tax, in particular. http://www.LibertyPen.com

_______________________________

Many times in the past our government has tried to even the playing field but the rich and poor will always be with us as Christ reminded us so long ago. Providing people a chance is fine but trying to punish others is not and it does not work.

Max Brantley pointed out that there are many kinds of riches. You are rich if you have two parents who love you enough to teach you the importance of education like Max’s parents taught him. 

Chelsea Clinton is a perfect example of this. She was not born rich in money but she definately got a big headstart in other areas.

Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times noted:

The New York Times carried a glowing profile Sunday about Chelsea Clinton’s decision to step fully from the shadows and seek a public life.

She’s joined a corporate board, gotten a job as a correspondent for NBC and has her pick of gatherings of the mighty or simply important just about anywhere on the globe.

Reactions tended to fall along partisan lines. Fans of Bill and/or Hillary Clinton were happy for their 31-year-old daughter. Non-fans weren’t impressed. She’d done nothing to deserve her good fortune except choose good parents, they said. The really ugly ones criticized everything from her hairstyle to her speech.

I’m not impartial on the subject. I’ve known Chelsea since she was an infant, though most of my exposure came before her move to Washington in junior high. She’s remained friendly with my daughter and has been good to her. That’s enough for me.

But Chelsea is smart and poised. She’s worked hard at demanding schools and jobs. Would she be precisely where she is today without her famous parents? Of course not. She hasn’t claimed otherwise. (I do like how often she credits her Grandmother Rodham for sage advice.)

But she now has made the important decision to accept inheritance of her parents’ considerable public franchise. If nothing else, her growth in the larger public world might position her to someday take leadership of the Clinton Foundation. If she’s lucky — if we’re all lucky — she will continue to amass the resources her father has raised for fighting significant global problems. If she should decide to try politics, she’s been homeschooled by the best and brightest.

Make no mistake. Chelsea Clinton is a one percenter, if not precisely in the net worth category, close enough. She is also, if you prefer, a lucky sperm club member. But she manages to send a signal that she understands how much of her stature is owed to her parents. She signals a generosity of spirit about her good fortune that is more reminiscent of a Buffett than a Koch.

We will always have the 1 percent. There’s nothing inherently evil about being in that small number. The question is how much the 1 percent is willing to allow the 99 percent to share.

____________________________

Milton Friedman discusses the inheritance of talent on “Free to Choose”

Uploaded by on Nov 1, 2009

“The inheritance of talent is no different (from an ethical point of view) from the inheritance of other forms of property– of bonds, of stocks, of houses, or of factories. Yet many people resent the one, but not the other.”

From “Free to Choose” (1980), Part V: “Created Equal.”
______________________________

Here is an article that shows how silly it is to use government to try and achieve equality of results:

Our Economic Past | Burton W. Folsom Jr.

Equality, Markets, and Morality

September 2008 • Volume: 58 • Issue: 7

Burton Folsom, Jr. is a professor of history at Hillsdale College and author of New Deal or Raw Deal?, to be published by Simon & Schuster this year.

The subject of “equality” is the source of much political debate. Ever since the founding era, free-market thinkers have argued for equality of opportunity in the economic order. Equality, in other words, is a framework, not a result. In modern terms the goal is a level playing field. Government is a referee that enforces property rights, laws, and contracts equally for all individuals.

What the free-market view means in policy terms is no (or few) tariffs for business, no subsidies for farmers, and no racism written into law. Also, successful businessmen will not be subject to special taxes or the seizure of property.

In America this view of equality is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence (“all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”) and the Constitution (“imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” and “equal protection of the laws”). Much of America’s first century as a nation was devoted to ending slavery, extending voting rights, and securing property and inheritance rights for women—fulfilling the Founders’ goal of equal opportunity for all citizens.

Progressives and modern critics of equality of opportunity have launched two significant criticisms against the Founders’ view. First, that equality of opportunity is impossible to achieve. Second, to the extent that equality of opportunity has been tried, it has resulted in a gigantic inequality of outcomes. Equality of outcome, in the Progressive view, is desirable and can only be achieved by massive government intervention. Let’s study both of these objections.

To some extent, of course, the Progressives have a valid point—equality of opportunity is, at an individual level (as opposed to an institutional level) hard to achieve. We are all born with different family advantages (or disadvantages), with different abilities, and in different neighborhoods with varying levels of opportunity. As socialist playwright George Bernard Shaw said on the subject, “Give your son a fountain pen and a ream of paper and tell him that he now has an equal opportunity with me of writing plays and see what he says to you.”

What the Progressives miss is that their cure is worse than the illness. Any attempt to correct imbalances in family, ability, and neighborhood will produce other inequalities that may be worse than the original ones. Thomas Sowell writes, “[A]ttempts to equalize economic results lead to greater—and more dangerous—inequality in political power.” Or, as Milton Friedman concluded, “A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”

Failure During the New Deal

Sowell’s and Friedman’s point is illuminated by the failed efforts of the federal government to reduce inequalities during the New Deal. In the early 1930s the United States had massive unemployment (sometimes over 20 percent). In 1932 President Herbert Hoover supported the nation’s first relief program: $300 million was distributed to states. This was not a transfer from richer states to poorer states but a political grab by most state governors to secure all they could. Illinois played this game well and secured over $55 million, more than New York, California, and Texas combined.

Massachusetts, with almost as many people as Illinois, received zero federal money. Massachusetts had much poverty and distress, but Governor Joseph Ely believed states should try to supply their own needs and not rush to Washington to gain funds at someone else’s expense. Ely therefore promoted a variety of fundraising events throughout his state to help those in need. “Whatever the justification for [federal] relief,” Ely noted, “the fact remains that the way in which it has been used makes it the greatest political asset on the practical side of party politics ever held by any administration.”

In 1935 President Franklin Roosevelt confirmed Ely’s beliefs by turning the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which he had established, into a gigantic political machine to transfer money to key states and congressional districts to secure votes. Roosevelt and his cohorts used the rhetoric of removing inequalities as a political cover to gain power. Reporter Thomas Stokes won a Pulitzer Prize for his investigative research that exposed the WPA for using federal funds to buy votes.

The use of tax dollars, then, to mitigate inequality failed because—whatever the good intentions—the funds quickly became politicized.

Presidential (and congressional) authority to tax and to transfer funds from one group to another also proved to be a dangerous centralization of power. Taxation increased both in size and complexity. The IRS thus became a weapon a president could use against those who resisted him. “My father,” Elliott Roosevelt observed of his famous parent, “may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution.”

Sowell and Friedman indeed recognized that efforts to remove inequalities would create new inequalities, perhaps just as severe, and would also dangerously concentrate power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. But Sowell and Friedman have readily conceded that when markets are left free, the inequality of outcomes is not necessarily morally justified. In other words, some people—through luck or inheritance—become incredibly rich and others, who may have worked harder and more diligently, end up barely earning a living. Rewards, as F. A. Hayek, among others, has noted, are “based only partly on achievements and partly on mere chance.” Societies are more prosperous under free markets, but individual success and failure can occur independently of ability and hard work.

Progressive Claims in Light of History

What the historical record does seem to demonstrate is that the richest men in American history have been creative entrepreneurs who have improved the lives of millions of Americans and have achieved remarkable upward mobility doing so. For example, the first American to be worth $10 million was John Jacob Astor, a German immigrant and a son of a butcher. Astor founded the largest fur company in the United States, transforming tastes and lowering costs in clothing for people all over the world.

John D. Rockefeller, the first American to be worth $1 billion, was the son of an itinerant peddler. Yet Rockefeller, with little education or training, went into the business of refining oil and did it better than anyone in the world. As a result, he sold the affordable kerosene that lit up most homes in the world. (He had a 60 percent world market share in the late 1800s.)

Henry Ford, the son of a struggling farmer, was the second American billionaire. He used the cheap oil sold by Rockefeller and cheap steel that was introduced by immigrant Andrew Carnegie to make cars affordable for most American families. The most recent wealthiest men in the United States—Sam Walton and Bill Gates—both came from middle-class households and both added much value for most American consumers.

Free markets may yield odd results and certainly unequal outcomes, but the greater opportunities and prosperity have made the tradeoff worthwhile for American society.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Milton Friedman, spending out of control, Taxes | Comments (0)

FDR’s D-day prayer

June 15, 2012 – 7:15 am

On D-Day FDR said  this prayer on radio. Here is the story  from CBN:

The U.S. Senate is marking the 68th anniversary of D-Day. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman will be reciting a famous prayer on the floor of the Senate.

As American and Allied troops invaded Nazi-occupied France on June 6, 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt asked the nation to join him in prayer.

Roosevelt offered that prayer in a national radio broadcast, saying, “Almighty God, our sons, pride of our nation, this day they set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.”

“Lead them straight and true, give strengths to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith,” he prayed.

Portman and Lieberman are also sponsoring legislation to add an inscription of FDR’s prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington.

A companion bill that passed the House calls for the plaque or inscription to be paid for with private donations.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Switchfoot coming to Hot Springs, Arkansas on July 14th!!!!

June 15, 2012 – 7:12 am

Saturday 14 July 2012

Switchfoot

Venue

Magic Springs Theme Park 1701 E. Grand Ave. 71901 Hot Springs, AR, US

Venue info and map

Uploaded by  on Aug 20, 2007

Interview with Tim Foreman and Chad Butler airing February 26th, 2007.
Discuss: cowbell, Christianity, fan connection

_______________________________________

SwitchfootSwitchfootCourtesy of: EMI

 

Making of Stars-Switchfoot

 

Switchfoot The Documentary

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry Part 1

June 14, 2012 – 7:18 am

1970 Sugar Bowl 1st Quarter

Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry Part 1

Wikipedia talks about the Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry:

The Arkansas–Ole Miss football rivalry is an American college football rivalry between the Arkansas Razorbacks football team of the University of Arkansas and the Ole Miss Rebels football team of the University of Mississippi. Although the rivalry currently exists predominantly between the respective programs’ football teams, all men’s and women’s sports teams of both universities play on an annual basis because the two universities both compete in the Southeastern Conference (SEC) Western Division. The football teams first met in 1908, and have played each other annually since 1981. Overall, Arkansas currently leads the football series at 31–25–1, which includes two wins by Ole Miss in post-season bowl games, the 1963 and 1970 Sugar Bowls.

1970 Sugar Bowl 2nd Quarter (2)

History

The rivalry between Arkansas and Ole Miss developed partially due to geography. Besides being neighboring states in the southeastern United States, from the University of Arkansas’ perspective, the University of Mississippi is closer in terms of distance than any other Southeastern Conference school. Arkansas has played Ole Miss more than any other SEC opponent. [1]

1970 Sugar Bowl 3rd Quarter

Pre 1980s

The teams were first scheduled to meet each other in 1906, but due to a cancellation, the two teams began play against one another in a 1908 contest in which Arkansas won by a score of 33–0. Arkansas and Mississippi played many times sporadically in the following years. In addition to several single years of playing each other, the two teams played each other from 1940–47 and 1952–62 on an annual basis. The Razorbacks and Rebels also met twice in the Sugar Bowl played in New Orleans, in 1963 and 1970; Both contests were won by Ole Miss. Especially in the early years, the teams often met in Memphis, Tennessee to play the game, besides the normal Arkansas and Mississippi game sites.

1970 Sugar Bowl 4th Quarter

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry Part 2

June 14, 2012 – 12:25 am

Arkansas Razorbacks vs. Ole Miss 2010

Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry Part 2

Wikipedia talks about the Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry:

1980s to present

Since 1981, the two teams have played each other annually in football. The games have generally alternated yearly between a site in Mississippi (Jackson, or more recently Oxford) and a site in Arkansas (Little Rock, or more recently Fayetteville), except for one time in 1995 when the game was played in Memphis, Tennessee. Since Arkansas joined the Southeastern Conference in 1991 (first football season was 1992; previously a member of the SWC), the two teams have played annually as both conference and Western division rivals.

[edit] Recently (2000s)

In 2001, Arkansas and Ole Miss had an NCAA record seven-overtime game in Oxford, MS. Arkansas has had the overall advantage since 2000, winning 8 games to 4 for Ole Miss.

[edit] Houston Nutt controversy

Upon the conclusion of the 2007 regular season, Arkansas Razorbacks coach Houston Nutt was forced to resign amid several controversies and allegations that had arisen. [2] [3] Hours later, he was announced as the head coach of the Ole Miss Rebels football team,[4] replacing Ed Orgeron who had been fired after three consecutive losing seasons.

Ole Miss and Arkansas met in Fayetteville on October 25, 2008 with identical 3–4 records. This marked Nutt’s first return to the University of Arkansas campus as an opposing coach. Nutt led his Rebels to a 23–21 victory over the Razorbacks. The long-standing rivalry has become more interesting because of his association with both universities.

[edit] Game results

The results of games played between Arkansas and Ole Miss: [5] [6] [7]

Arkansas victories are colored ██ red. Ole Miss victories are colored ██ blue. Disputed outcome shaded in ██ grey. Ties are white.

Year Arkansas Ole Miss Location
1908 Arkansas 33 Ole Miss 0 Fayetteville, AR
1913 Arkansas 10 Ole Miss 21 Little Rock, AR
1914 Arkansas 7* Ole Miss 13 Little Rock, AR
1924 Arkansas 20 Ole Miss 0 Little Rock, AR
1926 Arkansas 21 Ole Miss 6 Fayetteville, AR
1928 Arkansas 0 Ole Miss 25 Oxford, MS
1937 Arkansas 32 Ole Miss 6 Memphis, TN
1938 Arkansas 14 Ole Miss 20 Memphis, TN
1940 Arkansas 21 Ole Miss 20 Memphis, TN
1941 Arkansas 0 Ole Miss 18 Memphis, TN
1942 Arkansas 7 Ole Miss 6 Memphis, TN
1944 Arkansas 26 Ole Miss 18 Memphis, TN
1945 Arkansas 19 Ole Miss 0 Memphis, TN
1946 Arkansas 0 Ole Miss 9 Memphis, TN
1947 Arkansas 19 Ole Miss 14 Memphis, TN
1952 Arkansas 7 Ole Miss 34 Little Rock, AR
1953 Arkansas 0 Ole Miss 28 Memphis, TN
1954 Arkansas 6 Ole Miss 0 Little Rock, AR
1955 Arkansas 7 Ole Miss 17 Oxford, MS
1956 Arkansas 14 Ole Miss 0 Little Rock, AR
1957 Arkansas 12 Ole Miss 6 Memphis, TN
1958 Arkansas 12 Ole Miss 14 Little Rock, AR
1959 Arkansas 0 Ole Miss 28 Memphis, TN
1960 Arkansas 7 Ole Miss 10 Little Rock, AR
1961 Arkansas 0 Ole Miss 16 Jackson, MS
1963 Arkansas 7 Ole Miss 13 New Orleans, LA[1]
1970 Arkansas 22 Ole Miss 27 New Orleans, LA[2]
1981 Arkansas 27 Ole Miss 13 Jackson, MS
1982 Arkansas 14 Ole Miss 12 Little Rock, AR
Year Arkansas Ole Miss Location
1983 Arkansas 10 Ole Miss 13 Jackson, MS
1984 Arkansas 14 Ole Miss 14 Little Rock, AR
1985 Arkansas 24 Ole Miss 19 Jackson, MS
1986 Arkansas 21 Ole Miss 0 Little Rock, AR
1987 Arkansas 31 Ole Miss 10 Jackson, MS
1988 Arkansas 21 Ole Miss 13 Little Rock, AR
1989 Arkansas 24 Ole Miss 17 Jackson, MS
1990 Arkansas 17 Ole Miss 21 Little Rock, AR
1991 Arkansas 17 Ole Miss 24 Jackson, MS
1992 Arkansas 3 Ole Miss 17 Little Rock, AR
1993 Arkansas 0 Ole Miss 19 Jackson, MS
1994 Arkansas 31 Ole Miss 7 Fayetteville, AR
1995 Arkansas 13 Ole Miss 6 Memphis, TN
1996 Arkansas 13 Ole Miss 7 Fayetteville, AR
1997 Arkansas 9 Ole Miss 19 Oxford, MS
1998 Arkansas 34 Ole Miss 0 Fayetteville, AR
1999 Arkansas 16 Ole Miss 38 Oxford, MS
2000 Arkansas 24 Ole Miss 38 Fayetteville, AR
2001 Arkansas 58 Ole Miss 56 Oxford, MS
2002 Arkansas 48 Ole Miss 28 Fayetteville, AR
2003 Arkansas 7 Ole Miss 19 Oxford, MS
2004 Arkansas 35 Ole Miss 3 Fayetteville, AR
2005 Arkansas 28 Ole Miss 17 Oxford, MS
2006 Arkansas 38 Ole Miss 3 Fayetteville, AR
2007 Arkansas 44 Ole Miss 8 Oxford, MS
2008 Arkansas 21 Ole Miss 23 Fayetteville, AR
2009 Arkansas 17 Ole Miss 30 Oxford, MS
2010 Arkansas 38 Ole Miss 24 Fayetteville, AR
2011 Arkansas 29 Ole Miss 24 Oxford, MS

*Arkansas claims “Won by forfeit” while Ole Miss claims “Won on field”.
^ Played in the Sugar Bowl.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

SEC football champs in last 20 years

June 13, 2012 – 9:47 am

The SEC really did something that I thought was stupid twenty years ago when they put in a championship game, but I was wrong and it has served the SEC well.

Wikipedia notes:

SEC Overall Champs:

1992 – Alabama (Arkansas and South Carolina join; championship game starts.)
1993 – Florida
1994 – Florida
1995 – Florida
1996 – Florida
1997 – Tennessee
1998 – Tennessee
1999 – Alabama
2000 – Florida
2001 – LSU
2002 – Georgia
2003 – LSU
2004 – Auburn
2005 – Georgia
2006 – Florida
2007 – LSU
2008 – Florida
2009 – Alabama
2010 – Auburn
2011 – LSU

[edit] Divisional champions

Since the SEC expanded, Divisional Champions have been crowned. Occasionally, a tie between two or more teams occurs, requiring a tie-break. All teams involved in the tie breaker are considered Co-Divisional Champions, and the winner of the tie-breaker is the division’s representative to the Championship Game. Below is list of all Divisional Champions and Co-Champions; * denotes tie-break winner and subsequent division representative.

Year Eastern Division Western Division
1992 Florida*, Georgia Alabama
1993 Florida Alabama†
1994 Florida Alabama
1995 Florida Arkansas
1996 Florida Alabama*, LSU
1997 Tennessee Auburn*, LSU
1998 Tennessee Mississippi State*, Arkansas
1999 Florida Alabama
2000 Florida Auburn
2001 Tennessee LSU*, Auburn
2002 Georgia Arkansas*, Auburn, LSU‡
2003 Georgia*, Florida, Tennessee LSU*, Mississippi
2004 Tennessee Auburn
2005 Georgia LSU*, Auburn
2006 Florida Arkansas
2007 Tennessee*, Georgia LSU
2008 Florida Alabama
2009 Florida Alabama
2010 South Carolina Auburn
2011 Georgia LSU

†In 1993 Auburn finished first in the West standings but was ineligible due to NCAA probation and postseason ban. Alabama subsequently vacated the division title due to an ineligible player.
‡In 2002 Alabama finished first in the West standings but was ineligible due to NCAA probation and postseason ban.

By Everette Hatcher III | 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 ask the big questions I am hopeful that he will someday take a close look at the claims of the Bible and come to Christ.
 
—“We are all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions, moral choices. Some are on a grand scale. Most of these choices are on a lesser scale. 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.”
—Louis Levi in Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors
Related posts:
 

“Woody Wednesday” Biography of Woody Allen

Here is a great link on Woody Allen. With at least four distinct phases throughout his long career, writer-director-actor Woody Allen was one of the few American filmmakers rightly labeled an auteur. From the irreverent absurdity of his early satires like “Bananas” (1971) and “Sleepers” (1973) to his chronicles of neurotic New Yorkers in “Annie […]

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

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 […]

Did Hitler go to hell?

My debating opponent, Elwood, on the Arkansas Times Blog is at it again. He claims that the place hell is fiction. He stated, “… your imaginary place called ‘Hell.’ ” However, I responded that this life does count and those like Hitler that have done evil deeds will be punished in the afterlife. Early on […]

Hitler’s last few hours before entering hell (never before released photos)

Below are several never released before pictures of Hitler’s bunker. These are the sights that Hitler took in last before entering hell. How do I know he entered hell? Read below and you will see why I can say that with confidence. LIFE: Hitler’s Bunker On Monday, April 30, on the anniversary of the day […]

Woody Allen’s career in pictures “Woody Wednesday”

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)  “I did have her in mind for it when I wrote it,” Allen said of casting Scarlett Johansson in the movie, (which also starred Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz, who are now married). “She’s become a friend and I can think of her now and know that if I call her […]

Woody Allen’s career in pictures “Woody Wednesday”

September (1987) The director famously re-wrote, re-cast and re-shot this film after seeing his original finished product. The second go-round starred (from left) Jack Warden, Elaine Stritch and Mia Farrow (with Allen, second from right). “I usually reshoot tons of material,” he explained at the time. “The fact is, I’d like to shoot September a […]

“Woody Allen Wednesdays” can be seen on the www.thedailyhatch.org

 
By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)