The lesson to be drawn is quite simple and not particularly encouraging: Mrs. Thatcher’s success owes much to the intellectual revolution in economic theory. She did not invent anything new; there was nothing novel or original in her economic policies. However, while those ideas had been available for a long time, they had not been translated into policy changes until she came about. It was her leadership, courage, determination, and intellectual integrity that allowed those intellectual insights to inspire actual economic policies and change Britain.
Which brings me to my unpleasant conclusion: The limiting factor in politics today is not the comprehension of the nature of social problems and of their desirable solution — even though we still have a long way to go to make the case for economic freedom fully grasped by the majority of public opinion and of politicians. The really scarce resource is leadership. A principled and uncompromising leader capable of building a coalition, a majority consensus around his platform is essential if we want to move toward a freer world.
Unfortunately, however, the likes of Thatcher and Reagan are not in large supply, and we can’t wait for another one to come about. “So long as the people of any country place their hopes of political salvation in leadership of any description, so long will disappointment attend them.”37 We must continue polishing our case, making it more convincing, exploring new ways to enlarge our freedoms, and above all converting politicians to our cause. This is what Heritage is all about.
Antonio Martino is Professor of Economics at LUISS “G. Carli” University in Rome. He is currently on leave as a Member of Parliament. He delivered these remarks at a meeting of The Heritage Foundation’s Windsor Society in Sea Island, Georgia, on October 3-6, 1999.
I am afraid your argument is tangled up with greater difficulties than the ethnicity of the Samaritan, and so that issue really need not detain us any longer. I have been asking you to provide a warrant for morality, given atheism, and you have mostly responded with assertions that atheists can make what some people call moral choices. Well, sure. But what I have been after is what rational warrant they can give for calling one choice “moral” and another choice “not moral.” You finally appealed to “innate human solidarity,” a phrase that prompted a series of pointed questions from me. In response, you now tell us that we have an innate predisposition to both good and wicked behavior. But we are still stuck. What I want to know (still) is what
warrant you have for calling some behaviors “good” and others “wicked.” If both are innate, what distinguishes them? What could be wrong with just flipping a coin? With regard to your retort that my “talent for needless complexity” has simply gotten me “God’s coexistence with evil,” I reply that I would rather have my God and the problem of evil than your no God and “Evil? No problem!”
After this many installments, I now feel comfortable in asserting that I have posed this question to you from every point of the compass and have not yet received anything that approaches the semblance of an answer. On this question I am tempted to quote Wyatt Earp from the film Tombstone— ”You gonna do something or just stand there and bleed?”—but I think I’ll pass.
Earp was not very much like the Good Samaritan. But it is interesting that the same thing happens to you when you have to give some warrant for trusting in “reason.”. I noted your citation of LaPlace in your book and am glad you brought him up here. LaPlace believed he was not in need of the God hypothesis, just like you, but you should also know he held this position as a firm believer in celestial and terrestrial mechanics. He was a causal determinist, meaning that he believed that every element of the universe in the present was “the effect of its past and the cause of its future.”
So if LaPlace is why you think belief in God is now “optional,” this appeal of yours actually turns into quite a fun business. This doctrine means (although LaPlace admittedly got distracted before these implications caught up with him) that you, Christopher Hitchens, are not thinking your thoughts and writing them down because they are true, but rather because the position and velocity of all the atoms in the universe one hundred years ago necessitated it. And I am not sitting here thinking my Christian thoughts because they are the truth of God, but rather because that is what these assembled chemicals in my head always do in this condition and at this temperature. “LaPlace’s demon” could have calculated and predicted your arguments (and word count) a century ago in just the same way that he could have calculated the water levels of the puddles in my driveway — and could have done so using the same formulae. This means that your arguments and my puddles are actually the same kind of thing. They are on the same level, so to speak.
If you were to take a bottle of Mountain Dew and another of Dr. Pepper, shake them vigorously, and put them on a table, it would not occur to anyone to ask which one is “winning the debate.”
They aren’t debating; they are just fizzing. You refer to “language in which to write this argument,” and you do so as though you believed in a universe where argument was a meaningful concept. Argument?
Argument? I have no need for your “argument hypothesis.” Just matter in motion, man.
You dismiss the idea that the death of Jesus—the “torture and death of a single individual in a backward part of the Middle East” — could possibly be the solution to the sorrows of our brutish existence. When I said that Jesus is good for the world because he is the life of the world, you just tossed this away. You said, “You cannot possibly ‘know’ this. Nor can you present any evidence for it.”
Actually, I believe I can present evidence for what I know. But evidence comes to us like food, and that is why we say grace over it. And we are supposed to eat it, not push it around on the plate—and if we don’t give thanks, it never tastes right. But here is some evidence for you, in no particular order. The engineering that went into ankles. The taste of beer. That Jesus rose from
the dead on the third day, just like he said. A woman’s neck. Bees fooling around in the flower bed. The ability of acorns to manufacture enormous oaks out of stuff they find in the air and dirt.
Forgiveness of sin. Storms out of the North, the kind with lightning. Joyous laughter (diaphragm spasms to the atheistic materialist). The ocean at night with a full moon. Delta blues. The peacock that lives in my yard. Sunrise, in color. Baptizing babies. The pleasure of sneezing. Eye contact. Having your feet removed from the miry clay, and established forever on the rock. You may say none of this tastes right to you. But suppose you were to bow your head and say grace over all of it. Try it that way.
You say that you cannot believe that Christ’s death on the Cross was salvation for the world because the idea is absurd. I have shown in various ways that absurdity has not been a disqualifier for any number of your current beliefs. You praise reason to the heights, yet will not give reasons for your strident and inflexible moral judgments, or why you have arbitrarily dubbed certain chemical processes “rational argument.” That’s absurd right now, and yet there you are, holding it. So for you to refuse to accept Christ because it is absurd is like a man at one end of the pool refusing to move to the other end because he might get wet. Given your premises, you will have to come up with a different reason for rejecting Christ as you do.
But for you to make this move would reveal the two fundamental tenets of true atheism. One: There is no God. Two: I hate Him.
Christopher Hitchens – Against Abortion Uploaded by BritishNeoCon on Dec 2, 2010 An issue Christopher doesn’t seem to have addressed much in his life. He doesn’t explicitly say that he is against abortion in this segment, but that he does believe that the ‘unborn child’ is a real concept. ___________________________ I was suprised when I […]
Max Brantley in the Arkansas Times Blog reports that Ron Paul is leading in Iowa. Maybe it is time to take a closer look at his views. In the above clip you will see Chistopher Hitchens discuss Ron Paul’s views. In the clip below you will find Ron Paul’s latest commercial. Below is a short […]
DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 07 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 08 Author and […]
DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 04 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 05 Author and speaker Christopher […]
DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 01 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust Author and speaker Christopher Hitchens, a leader of an aggressive form of atheism that eventually […]
This was the background of the advent of Mrs. Thatcher. Wrong economic theories, entrenched interest groups, and a widespread aversion for the free market had resulted in economic sclerosis, inflation, unemployment, and general decline. She intended to change all of this, and she did.
Her first battle was in the field of macroeconomic policy, where there was a switch from reliance on fiscal policy as a means of managing aggregate demand to the use of monetary policy. In fiscal policy the aim was that of reducing the deficit (PSBR: Public Sector Borrowing Requirement). In the field of taxation, the goal was that of restoring incentives to work, save, and invest through cuts in all tax rates, especially at the highest levels. The underlying philosophy was that the restoration of incentives was more important than the search for equality.
But where she really excelled was in macroeconomic or supply side reforms:
[A]fter the inflation-fighting campaign of 1979-82, [she engaged in] non-stop reform of the supply side — union laws, privatisation, deregulation, local government finance reform, housing, radical tax reform and much else.30
Thatcher also succeeded in taming the unions. Even her detractors concede that that was one of her great successes, one which she shares with President Reagan:
[Reagan and Thatcher] did make considerable progress in shrinking the role of government, and in expanding the reach of market forces in the microeconomy. Both did so, first, by taming the trade union power…. The President successfully broke a strike by air traffic controllers in 1981…. The Prime Minister equally successfully broke a strike in 1984-85 by coal miners determined to impose their leader’s political agenda on an electorate that had rejected it.31
She also succeeded in shrinking government’s direct role in the economy through privatization. It is generally recognized that “Thatcherism’s success in converting state-owned to privately-owned enterprises…[was] a programme so radical in conception, and so successful in operation, as to have won the highest form of flattery from other nations — imitation.”32 Contrary to what people both on the right and on the left maintain, Mrs. Thatcher’s successes do not include a reduction in total public spending: “Indeed, 18 years of Tory government left the state’s overall share of the economy virtually undiminished: 44% of GDP in 1979 and 43% in 1996.”33
To sum up, Thatcher succeeded in drastically reducing inflation in a country that had become dependent on it; taming the power of what were probably the most powerful labor unions in Europe; privatizing a large portion of a bloated public sector; enacting a tax code more favorable to entrepreneurship and investment; and establishing the conditions for long-term economic growth.
She put an end to the “British disease.” She put Britain back to work. Last, but definitely not least, she shifted the focus of political debate on economic issues. Mr. Blair’s economic program would have been considered Conservative in the 1970s. If Labour has been forced to drastically alter its position, this is largely due to Mrs. Thatcher’s legacy. One can criticize some details, but overall hers has been a fantastic success.34
How Did She Do It?
How did she do it? I believe there are several factors that contributed to Thatcher’s “Conservative Revolution.”
Ideas. There is no doubt that Thatcher’s success is largely due to the power of ideas. She acknowledged the important role played by the Institute of Economic Affairs in providing the intellectual ammunition and the inspiration for her program. On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the IEA, she said:
[T]he Institute began at a time when despite free speech in a free country, there prevailed what I would call a censorship of fashion. Anyone who dared to challenge the conventional wisdom of the post-war years was frowned-upon, criticized, derided and pilloried as being reactionary or ignorant…. You set out to change public sentiment…. May I say how thankful we are to those academics, some of whom were very lonely, and to those journalists who joined your great endeavour. I do not think they ever numbered 364. They were the few. But they were right, and they saved Britain.35
Without those ideas, Thatcher’s revolution would have been impossible. However, let’s not forget that most of them were already available 10 years earlier at the time of the Heath government. It can be argued that in 1979 the justification for a radical change in economic policy was stronger than ever before, but it is still true that ideas alone do not explain the revolution. They were a necessary, but certainly not a sufficient, cause for the change.
Circumstances. It is true that by the end of the 1970s, the evidence of the failure of the statist policies pursued by both Labour and Tory governments was overwhelming. I believe that circumstances did play a role in Thatcher’s success. However, the evidence of the failure of those anti-market policies was already in existence in 1970, even though it was not as conspicuous as in 1979.
Furthermore, let’s not forget that not everybody drew the same conclusions from that experience. Certainly not the Labour Party that in 1979 was as Socialist as ever. And, as far as academic economists are concerned, the vast majority was convinced that there was no need for a change in policy, as revealed by the 364 of them who signed a manifesto against the new policies of the Thatcher government. The evidence was undoubtedly there, and it helped Thatcher’s cause, but it had been there before with no impact, and many educated people still failed to draw the correct conclusions from it.
Interests. The trade unions had abused their power, and this made the case for reducing their influence stronger than ever. However, even this was not new: The danger omnipotent labor unions pose to a free society had been obvious for years, yet nobody had ever tried to tame them.
Leadership. I believe that, while these factors played a role in Thatcher’s success, the crucial element was her personality, her principled and uncompromising leadership. It can be said of her what Ted Kennedy said of Reagan:
It would be foolish to deny that his success was fundamentally rooted in a command of public ideas. Ronald Reagan may have forgotten names, but never his goals. He was a great communicator, not simply because of his personality or his teleprompter, but mostly because he had something to communicate.36
She dared do what no one else had had the courage to do in Britain for decades: challenge the prevailing consensus, the common wisdom, the entrenched interests, and drive a reluctant party and a befuddled country in a radically new direction.
I can testify to her unusual personality. I have had the chance to meet her several times even before I entered politics. Once, in 1991, there was a conference in Fiesole, near Florence, organized by the National Review Institute. During a coffee break, we were walking along the portico of the hotel. Tuscany’s countryside looked magnificent under the afternoon sun. Mrs. Thatcher remarked: “Yours is a beautiful country, with a rotten government.” To which I replied: “My dear lady, the opposite would be much worse.”
Her straightforward, direct way of putting things, so unusual for a political leader, earned her some enemies among other leaders but made for a refreshing contrast with the hypocrisy and vacuity of the accepted political discourse. At times, she probably overdid it. For example, on that same occasion in Fiesole, during her summing-up of the conference, she came out with the statement: “Civilization is the exclusive prerogative of English-speaking peoples.” I was the only non-English, non-American in the room. I looked at John O’Sullivan, who was sitting next to me. He smiled and said, “You have been consigned to barbarism!”
She can also be very kind and thoughtful. When we won the elections in Italy in 1994, she sent me a fax of congratulations. I called her to thank her for her kindness. She gave me her usual pep talk: “You must do for Italy what I did for Britain.” I attempted to explain that we were at a disadvantage compared to her. I said: “You had a Constitution that was written in the hearts and the minds of your people. We don’t. You had an independent judiciary. We don’t. You had a clean and effective civil service. We don’t. You had a single party majority. We don’t. You had those think tanks, like the IEA, that provided you with the right ideas. We don’t.”
“However,” I added, “we have something which you didn’t have.” “What’s that?” she said. “Your example,” I replied.
As to the relative importance of ideas and/or leadership, she gave her own view on the occasion of the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the IEA. After having listened to a series of speeches by distinguished academics, all praising the great importance of ideas, she thus concluded her remarks: “Speaking as the eleventh speaker and the only woman, I hope you will recall that it may be the cock that crows but it is the hen who lays the eggs.”
Pele as can be expected came back to play with Brazil in the 1962 World Cup which was played in Chile. This time however Pele was much more known to the fans as well as opposing players; who were not really all that eager to see him score another six goals or perhaps more in this world cup. Brazil were defending champions with basically the same players which won the world cup in 58 and who despite the passage of four years were still relatively young. All of which making it easy to see why a second world cup for Brazil in as many tournaments was not out of the realms of realistic possibilities. Specially since there were no other teams which were really strong enough to challenge them. Germany going through a rebuilding period while Italy still did not have the sort of team which could aspire to recapture their glory days of the 30s. Uruguay pretty much being but a shadow of their former selves.
The world cup known as Chile 62 however become a very defensive affair as teams were no longer willing to score as many as three goals or more in loosing efforts as had been the case in Switzerland 54 and Sweden 58. Teams became more eager to hold on to their leads once they had them and not risk them by going forward for more goals. This making most teams play with four defenders and only three forwards where before it had been with two defenders and five forwards.
Brazil for its part got off to what looking back might have been considered a good start in beating Mexico by 2-0 with Pele scoring Brazil’s first goal yet despite this victory; Brazil was severely criticized with much of the blame falling not only on their performance but on Pele. This despite Pele’s having scored one of Brazil’s two goals. This perhaps allowing Pele to see for himself what Mazola had experienced four years earlier when despite having scored two goals in Brazil’s first match; still had people saying he should not be on Brazil’s team. It being a case that Brazilian fans in those days were used to seeing Brazil beat Mexico by much more goals than only two. Brazil, after all had beaten Mexico by 5-0 in Brazil 50 and by 4-0 in Switzerland 54. All of which standing to their reason that a defending world champion should be able to beat Mexico, once again by at least as wide a margin as their teams in the past had done if not by a wider one.
Brazil’s next game came against Czechoslovakia. This a match which ended in a 0-0 draw and with even more criticism aimed at Brazil by their fans and media back home. It was also in this match that Pele left the field injured not to return for the rest of the tournament. Pele had not even been touched by any of Czechoslovakia’s players yet despite this managed to do damage on himself which would take him out of the remainder of the world cup.
For my part, I being skeptical about almost everything, wonder if Pele’s injury was such that he could not have played Brazil’s next game against Spain. Pele after all had not broken anything and had not even been fouled. Was it perhaps an attempt to try another player? Pele had not really played all that well in Brazil’s first two matches or such it was perceived by the fans and the media back home. So I often wonder if perhaps Brazil’s trainer did not exaggerate the gravity of Pele’s injury in order to try another player in his place like he had done with Pele in Mazola’s place four years earlier. It being Amarildo who took Pele’s place against Spain in a game which though not an absolute must win game for Brazil; was one in which they would have to do better than they had in their first two matches. This if perhaps not to qualify, at least to demonstrate to their fans that they were still a team capable of producing great football.
The game started with Spain taking a 1-0 lead when Adelardo scored 35 minutes in to the game. Spain would even take a 1-0 lead in to the second half. This something which had not happened in a very long that that Brazil ended the first half behind on the scoreboard. Brazil at this point even finding themselves in danger of being eliminated in the first round. This being the case that Spain with a win would have had four points which would have put them first in the group. Brazil with a loss would have had three points which would leave them depending on what Mexico (who was already out of the competition) could do against Czechoslovakia. Naturally a Czech victory or even a tie would have left Brazil out had they lost.
All however proved to be academic, as Brazil came back in the second half to win the game by two goals to one with both goals being scored by Amarildo; who just happened to be the man playing in Pele’s place. Obviously Pele’s replacement was doing his duty so I wonder if Pele would have been able to return to the starting team even if he had been healthy or if his injury was such that it was the real reason he was kept out of the starting lineup.
Amarildo had played well against Spain, this there was no doubts about and specially in a world cup in which defensive play was the order of the day unlike it had been in the last two previous world cups. Spain, in fact having a strong team back then which two years later went on to win the European nations cup.
Brazil went on to win their next two matches with relative ease. First against England by 3-1. This in a game which Garrincha scored two truly amazing goals. First one off a header and the next one of a free kick which could not have been better placed. Brazil’s other goal being scored by Vava, who continued where he left off in Sweden 58. Brazil’s next win came in the semifinals against the home team, Chile whom they defeated by a score of 4-2 with once again; Garrincha and Vava doing the scoring for Brazil. It being Garrincha who scored Brazil’s first two while Vava scored Brazil’s third and fourth.
Brazil was clearly playing well and was in top form and all without Pele. It was a case of this team being of such a high quality that even the absence of Pele did not disturb anything. Apparently Amarildo had been more than capable of filling the void left by Pele while the rest by just keeping up their level allowed Brazil to easily get in to the final. Of course, one could always say that this world cup did not really have very strong teams and those which were in fact solid such as the Soviet Union (winner of the 1960 European Championship) and Hungary did not really live up to expectations; apart the fact that Brazil did not have to face them anyway. Brazil was in the finals however and to their credit deservedly so and all without the man who many would later call the best player of all time.
In the finals Brazil met Czechoslovakia for the second time in the tournament yet unlike in their first match; this one could not end in a draw. Czechoslovakia, for its part like Sweden four years earlier also scored the first goal though not as early in the match as Sweden. Czechoslovakia in fact having to wait till the 15th minute of the game when Masopust slipped past Brazil’s defense to give his team a 1-0 lead. Brazil however being the solid team they were did not take long to reply. Brazil in fact having to wait but two minutes till Amarildo (Pele’s replacement) scored to level matters at one a piece. Amarildo, scoring a brilliant goal from a very tight angle which perhaps Czechoslovakia’s goalkeeper; Schroijf should have saved yet the score none the less was tied at one all.
Czechoslovakia for what concerned them, were playing well and went in to the half time break tied at one though it is my opinion that they perhaps celebrated too much after scoring. This allowing Brazil to get back in to the game after only two minutes of having gone down by a goal to nil. Czechoslovakia had its chances in the first period and had it not been for their lack of concentration after scoring and Schroijf’s error perhaps would have gone in to the half time break with a one goal lead or perhaps a two goal lead. This if they had continued with the solid play which had gotten them to the final in the first place.
Brazil however regrouped at the half and came out strong with Zito scoring his first world cup goal and Brazil’s second in the final to put them up by 2-1. Brazil perhaps was not dominating as strongly as they had in 58 yet were definitely in the drivers seat. It being in the 78th minute of the game that Garrincha sent up a high ball which in all honesty should not have given Czech goalkeeper, Schroijf any problems what so ever yet he somehow managed to drop it. The ball falling straight in to the path of the ever opportunistic Vava, who scored his first goal of the match and Brazil’s third to make the score 3-1; which is how it would end.
This last goal making Vava the first player to score in two finals. Brazil had won the world cup and became just the second team, after Italy to win two in a row and to a certain extent Pele had picked up his second world cup win though in all truth, as I have clearly pointed out; he hardly played. Naturally, to many at the time this did not really matter as Pele was a man who at the age of 21 had already won two world cups even if the second one was just for being on the team and little else. This perhaps making it possible for Argentina to say that Pasarella won two world cups with Argentina, who as a matter of fact only played in their first game against South Korea but I ask is this enough to say he is a double world champion? I would go one step further and ask if Brazil had beaten France in 98 then could Ronaldo claim to have won three world cups as well since he was on their world cup winning team in 94 though did not play at all? This being a matter of interpretation of course.
As an added comment, I would like to say that I feel it is sad that Amarildo did not really get the credit he earned for his performance in Chile 62. It being Amarildo, who to a certain extent with his two goals against Spain saved Brazil from the humiliation of being eliminated in the first round. Amarildo even scoring in the final when Brazil was loosing by 1-0 yet despite his efforts which were important in Brazil’s second world cup win, is rarely if ever mentioned amongst the great players of all time though he undoubtedly was.
My name is Gianni Truvianni, author of many an article to be found on the internet along with the book “New York’s Opera Society”. My works also include the books “What Should Not Matter”, “Love Your Sister” and several others which still remain unpublished though I am presently looking to change this.
Tim Tebow FoundationTim Tebow with Jacob Rainey, one of the many people dealing with health problems Tebow hosted at Broncos games this season.
I’ve come to believe in Tim Tebow, but not for what he does on a football field, which is still three parts Dr. Jekyll and two parts Mr. Hyde.
No, I’ve come to believe in Tim Tebow for what he does off a football field, which is represent the best parts of us, the parts I want to be and so rarely am.
Who among us is this selfless?
Every week, Tebow picks out someone who is suffering, or who is dying, or who is injured. He flies these people and their families to the Broncos game, rents them a car, puts them up in a nice hotel, buys them dinner (usually at a Dave & Buster’s), gets them and their families pregame passes, visits with them just before kickoff (!), gets them 30-yard-line tickets down low, visits with them after the game (sometimes for an hour), has them walk him to his car, and sends them off with a basket of gifts.
Home or road, win or lose, hero or goat.
Remember last week, when the world was pulling its hair out in the hour after Tebow had stunned the Pittsburgh Steelers with an 80-yard OT touchdown pass to Demaryius Thomas in the playoffs? And Twitter was exploding with 9,420 tweets about Tebow per second? When an ESPN poll was naming him the most popular athlete in America?
Tebow was spending that hour talking to 16-year-old Bailey Knaub about her 73 surgeries so far and what TV shows she likes.
MORE FROM TIM TEBOW
For Tim Tebow’s take on being named America’s most popular athlete, click here.
“Here he’d just played the game of his life,” recalls Bailey’s mother, Kathy, of Loveland, Colo., “and the first thing he does after his press conference is come find Bailey and ask, ‘Did you get anything to eat?’ He acted like what he’d just done wasn’t anything, like it was all about Bailey.”
More than that, Tebow kept corralling people into the room for Bailey to meet. Hey, Demaryius, come in here a minute. Hey, Mr. Elway. Hey, Coach Fox.
Even though sometimes-fatal Wegener’s granulomatosis has left Bailey with only one lung, the attention took her breath away.
“It was the best day of my life,” she emailed. “It was a bright star among very gloomy and difficult days. Tim Tebow gave me the greatest gift I could ever imagine. He gave me the strength for the future. I know now that I can face any obstacle placed in front of me. Tim taught me to never give up because at the end of the day, today might seem bleak but it can’t rain forever and tomorrow is a new day, with new promises.”
I read that email to Tebow, and he was honestly floored.
“Why me? Why should I inspire her?” he said. “I just don’t feel, I don’t know, adequate. Really, hearing her story inspires me.”
It’s not just NFL defenses that get Tebowed. It’s high school girls who don’t know whether they’ll ever go to a prom. It’s adults who can hardly stand. It’s kids who will die soon.
For the game at Buffalo, it was Charlottesville, Va., blue-chip high school QB Jacob Rainey, who lost his leg after a freak tackle in a scrimmage. Tebow threw three interceptions in that Buffalo game and the Broncos were crushed 40-14.
“He walked in and took a big sigh and said, ‘Well, that didn’t go as planned,'” Rainey remembers. “Where I’m from, people wonder how sincere and genuine he is. But I think he’s the most genuine person I’ve ever met.”
There’s not an ounce of artifice or phoniness or Hollywood in this kid Tebow, and I’ve looked everywhere for it.
Take 9-year-old Zac Taylor, a child who lives in constant pain. Immediately after Tebow shocked the Chicago Bears with a 13-10 comeback win, Tebow spent an hour with Zac and his family. At one point, Zac, who has 10 doctors, asked Tebow whether he has a secret prayer for hospital visits. Tebow whispered it in his ear. And because Tebow still needed to be checked out by the Broncos’ team doctor, he took Zac in with him, but only after they had whispered it together.
And it’s not always kids. Tom Driscoll, a 55-year-old who is dying of brain cancer at a hospice in Denver, was Tebow’s guest for the Cincinnati game. “The doctors took some of my brain,” Driscoll says, “so my short-term memory is kind of shot. But that day I’ll never forget. Tim is such a good man.”
This whole thing makes no football sense, of course. Most NFL players hardly talk to teammates before a game, much less visit with the sick and dying.
Isn’t that a huge distraction?
Stephanie Taylor Not everything Tim Tebow does on one knee is controversial. Ask Zac Taylor.
“Just the opposite,” Tebow says. “It’s by far the best thing I do to get myself ready. Here you are, about to play a game that the world says is the most important thing in the world. Win and they praise you. Lose and they crush you. And here I have a chance to talk to the coolest, most courageous people. It puts it all into perspective. The game doesn’t really matter. I mean, I’ll give 100 percent of my heart to win it, but in the end, the thing I most want to do is not win championships or make a lot of money, it’s to invest in people’s lives, to make a difference.”
So that’s it. I’ve given up giving up on him. I’m a 100 percent believer. Not in his arm. Not in his skills. I believe in his heart, his there-will-definitely-be-a-pony-under-the-tree optimism, the way his love pours into people, right up to their eyeballs, until they believe they can master the hopeless comeback, too.
Remember the QB who lost his leg, Jacob Rainey? He got his prosthetic leg a few weeks ago, and he wants to play high school football next season. Yes, tackle football. He’d be the first to do that on an above-the-knee amputation.
Hmmm. Wonder where he got that crazy idea?
“Tim told me to keep fighting, no matter what,” Rainey says. “I am.”
The Arkansas Times jumped on this story as many other liberals outlets.
Change in the marketplace is driven by the wants and needs of consumers. Are we to protect the jobs of those who work for companies that want to cling to the past?
I posted about this before but I have decided to revisit this issue. Below is liberal piece by Newt on Romney followed by a great article that sets the record straight.
David Boaz is the executive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato Institute and the libertarian movement.
Added to cato.org on January 13, 2012
This article appeared in Daily Caller on January 13, 2012.
You expect Democrats to accuse former businessman Mitt Romney of “putting profits over people — making a buck or a few million of them no matter what it took or who it hurt,” as Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse did in releasing a new Web video.
But it’s sad to see the economic ignorance displayed by Romney’s Republican rivals. Rick Tyler, long the closest aide to Newt Gingrich who is now running the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, declares, “His business success comes from raiding and destroy businesses — putting people out of work, stealing their health care.” The PAC’s ad calls Romney “a predatorycorporate raider.”
Gingrich himself says that Romney’s work buying and selling companies at the investment firm Bain Capital was comparable to “rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company.”
Rick Perry ran TV ads in Iowa saying that Romney “made millions buying companies and laying off workers.”
Somehow the candidates of the party that claims to defend free enterprise and a dynamic economy are railing against economic change in action.
Somehow the candidates of the party that claims to defend free enterprise and a dynamic economy are railing against economic change in action.
In a growing economy, companies succeed and fail every day. Technology changes. Consumer tastes change. New competitors offer a better product or a better price. Raw materials or labor becomes too expensive. Some companies just aren’t viable, and some investments turn out to have been mistaken.
That’s what the “creative destruction” of a market economy is all about. Companies constantly seek to serve consumers better. And often one company’s success means that other companies fail. Manufacturers of obsolete products often go out of business. Jobs and investments are lost, but what’s the alternative? Should we be keeping the firms that once made horse-drawn buggies, gramophones, and slide rules in business? No, we understand that the process of economic change makes us all better off, even though there can be short-term pain for the owners and employees of failed firms.
Republicans are supposed to know all this. That’s why they proclaim their devotion to free markets and oppose industrial policy, government subsidies, bailouts, and other schemes to override the market process and keep current firms in business even when they’re no longer meeting consumers’ needs.
David Boaz is the executive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato Institute and the libertarian movement.
But when a businessman runs for president, all bets are off. Republicans let fly with the same denunciations of normal business practices that Democrats do.
Think back to the 2008 campaign when Romney first ran for president. During a Republican debate at the Reagan Library on May 3, 2007, Sen. John McCain derided Romney’s leadership ability, saying, “I led … out of patriotism, not for profit.” Challenged on his statement, McCain elaborated that Romney “managed companies, and he bought, and he sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs. That’s the nature of that business.” He could have been channeling Barack Obama.
There are plenty of good criticisms of Mitt Romney. His health care mandate in Massachusetts was a model for President Obama’s national mandate. No one knows what he really thinks about abortion and same-sex marriage, after he dramatically changed his positions at age 57 as he prepared to run for president. He wants to increase military spending by $2 trillion. Many of his foreign policy advisers helped to get us into the disastrous Iraq war.
But the fact that sometimes he closed companies and laid off workers is not a good reason to criticize him. We’d never get new companies like Staples, Domino’s, Bright Horizons, and Sports Authority — companies that Romney helped fund and nurture at Bain Capital — if investment capital was locked into existing companies.
And sometimes, as the movie “Other People’s Money” demonstrated, it takes a “predatory corporate raider” to go in and shake up a company, moving the land, labor, and capital to places where they can be more productive.
Republicans should stop attacking Romney for his role in the dynamic market process and spend more time explaining how they would limit government and improve the environment for business and economic growth.
On Sunday, when Denver Bronco wide receiver Demaryius Thomas caught a pass from Tim Tebow on the first play of overtime and ran it all the way for a game-winning touchdown, the stadium erupted. At once, people cried that it was a miracle, and Mr. Tebow went down to pray on one knee in his signature pose. Millions of viewers already knew the first words he would say whenever a reporter caught up to him for a postgame interview: “First of all, I want to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!”
Tim Tebow is not unique. Even on his own team, there are notably devout players like safety Brian Dawkins. In fact, the NFL has had a number of players who were outspoken in their faith. Think of quarterback Kurt Warner, who famously went from stocking shelves at a grocery store to a pair of league most-valuable-player awards and three Super Bowl appearances. Or Reggie White, one of the greatest defensive linemen of all time, who was also an ordained minister, nicknamed the “Minister of Defense.” The list goes on.
Religion certainly played a role in the game when I played. I grew up the son of a Pentecostal Holiness minister—we were charismatic before charismatic was cool. I was in church Wednesday night, Friday night, Sunday morning and Sunday night—every week of my childhood. I was there at the first-ever national camp for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, in Estes Park, Co., in 1956, along with everyone from legendary NFL quarterback Otto Graham to a young Don Meredith (although fellow quarterback Don and I didn’t make it to many of the meetings). When I went to the NFL, I needed special dispensation from the church to play on Sundays.
ReutersDenver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow prays after the Broncos defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers in Denver on Sunday.
As a player, though, I never understood why God would care who won a game between my team and another. It seemed like there were many far more important things going on in the world. There were religious guys on both teams. If God gets credit for the win, does he also take blame for defeat?
For what it’s worth, my forays into hoping for divine intervention didn’t work out. I prayed fervently before each of the three Super Bowls we Minnesota Vikings played in. We played against the Dolphins, the Steelers and the Raiders. I don’t know about the first two games, but I was sure God would be on our side for the game against the Raiders! After all, they were the villains of the league, and it was hard to believe they had more Christians on their team than on our saintly Vikings. We lost.
Faith had a place in every locker room I was in. When I played for the New York Giants, team owner Wellington Mara, a devout Catholic, invited half the priests in New York City into the locker room before games. Sometimes it was hard to find my teammates among all the priests. I’m sure Mara hoped it would somehow help the team win, but it was never enough to get us into the playoffs.
Before every game, no matter what team I was on at the time, the coach would always ask the most devout player to say a prayer. This would happen after we’d already been out warming up—so we’d all seen the crowd, we were in full uniform (complete with eye black doubling as war paint), and the intensity of the week had built up to a near frenzy in the locker room.
The prayer was always pretty much for the same thing: Let there not be any injuries, let everybody play a good game—anything except to win the game. No one ever asked to win the game, probably for fear that God would punish us for asking. After this moment of devotion, the team would all shout in unison, “Now let’s go kill those S.O.B.’s!”
We often attribute supernatural origins to football success, from Roger Staubach’s 1975 “Hail Mary” pass to Franco Harris’s “Immaculate Reception” in 1972, and we enshrine plays with names like the “Holy Roller” in 1978 and the “Music City Miracle” in 2000.
Although faith has been a part of football so long, a player like Mr. Tebow can still be extremely controversial among fans and pundits. But seriously, isn’t it refreshing that the chatter around the NFL is about a great athlete with great character who says and does all the right things and is a relentless leader for his team—and not about more arrests and bad behavior from our presumptive “heroes”?
Tim Tebow is the story of this football season, and a great story it is.
Mr. Tarkenton, an NFL quarterback from 1961-1978, is the chairman and founder of OneMoreCustomer.com.
Very interesting article below: The NFL bans eye-black messagers. Tebow’s numbers did the preaching on Sunday. (Lynn Sladky/AP) You ever feel like there’s too much Tim Tebow news? Neither do I. Here’s a roundup of some of the most interesting Timbits from the aftermath of the Denver Broncos 29-23 overtime victory over the Pittsburgh […]
For Barrett Jones is a Tim Tebow type of person and I am glad that people like Jones and Tebow are not ashamed of their Savior Jesus Christ. They don’t try to live two lives, one in church and one that is different in the lockerroom. Barrett Jones is the 2011 Outland Trophy winner […]
He did it again. Tebow does it again. It is simply amazing. With all the odds against him he comes through. I guess that will ruin Bill Maher’s jokes for the week. Can Tebow rally the team for another unlikely victory? The Steelers were 8 point favorites and I am sure the Patriots will be […]
Bill O’Reilly Interviews Jehmu Greene About Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad about Tim Tebow I got these quotes from someone off the internet that lives in England. The funny thing is the video is put to music and the song they picked won a grammy for an Arkansas band that lives in Little Rock. Here is […]
Arkansas Times Blogger who goes by the name “Elwood” remarked (The New Year line | Arkansas Blog ): I tuned in late to the KC v Denver Bronco game, just the last few minutes to see CBS giving adequate coverage to Tebow on his knees at his team’s bench in deep prayer. He seemed so isolated. Other […]
Tebow attacked by Bill Maher: Even in defeat, Tim Tebow creates controversy — this time in Tinseltown. HBO’s Bill Maher created a firestorm over the Christmas weekend with a scathing reaction to Tebow’s subpar performance in Buffalo. Shortly after Tebow threw four interceptions in the Broncos’ lopsided defeat to the Bills, Maher turned to […]
I really enjoyed this article and wanted to share it with you. Why We Love Tim Tebow posted by Linda Mintle | 7:33am Wednesday December 14, 2011 Yesterday I was asked to do a TV interview on Tim Tebow. This time the focus was positive. Tebow is very polarizing. People either love or hate him […]
Tim Tebow seems to win at everything he tries. The Good Book: Tim Tebow A No. 1 Author Monday, December 26, 2011 12:45 pm Written by: Ben Maller Sports experts go crazy debating whether Tim Tebow can win NFL games, but there’s no question he can win over readers. Tebow’s Christian life story, “Through My […]
I enjoyed this article below: 10 Reasons for Tim Tebow Hate posted by Linda Mintle | 7:25am Tuesday December 6, 2011 I walked in to a radio station focused on doing an interview totally unrelated to football and the producer starts ranting about how much he hates Tim Tebow. This was a day after Tebow […]
The epochal change in public policy began as an intellectual revolution. This is not as obvious as it sounds. On the practical importance of their ideas, economists disagree. As is well-known, Keynes was very sanguine: “the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else.”7 Alfred Marshall, his Economics teacher, on the other hand, was convinced that economists should preach unpopular truths:
Students of social sciences must fear popular approval, evil is with them when all men speak well of them…. It is almost impossible for a student to be a true patriot and to have the reputation of being one at the same time.8
This was also Hayek’s view, when he stressed that the economist “must not look for public approval or sympathy for his efforts”9 Finally, George J. Stigler was convinced that the practical relevance of the Economics profession’s intellectual output was minimal: “economists are subject to the coercion of the ruling ideologies of their times.”10
I tend to disagree with Stigler on this point.11 There is no doubt in my mind that “the Great U-turn” of our times has been initiated by a legendary revolution in economic thinking. From the perspective of the ideological confrontation, I am convinced that — thanks to the work of the great liberal scholars of this century — we live in one of the happiest times in the contemporary history of mankind. It seems to me that never before has the case for freedom been more thoroughly analyzed and better understood. Also, more people are aware of the importance of freedom on a theoretical level today than at any other time in the past 50 or 100 years.12
The “British Disease”
In the 1970s, Britain’s economy was in a sorry state: Many people were regularly referring to the “British disease.” This was not an exaggeration: “during the nineteenth century and the first three fifths of the twentieth century the United Kingdom remained ahead [in terms of output per head] of nearly all the main European countries.”13 “Since 1960, however, an absolute gap emerged…[and] by 1973 most European Economic Community countries were 30 to 40 per cent ahead of Britain.”14
Productivity was much lower than in continental Europe: According to studies by international corporations, at the end of the 1970s net output per head was over 50 percent higher in German and French plants than in corresponding plants in the United Kingdom.15 To top this all, Britain experienced rampant inflation — from 1972 to 1977, while the OECD price level rose by 60 percent, the British level rose by 120 percent — and high unemployment — by 1977, the British unemployment rate was 7 percent, or 2.5 percent above the OECD average.
This appalling record seemed paradoxical to the late Mancur Olson: “Britain has had more giants of economic thought than any other country,” and “[m]ost of the great early economists, and certainly men like David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, were classical liberals.” Their work had a definite impact on British public opinion: “classical liberalism was more popular in 19th-century Britain than…in most countries of continental Europe.” And yet, “Britain has suffered from the `British disease’ of slow growth.” He concluded: “[W]e need something besides the level of economic understanding to explain economic performance.”16
It seems to me that Olson makes a mistake in lumping together the British economic thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries with those of the 20th. First of all, while it is hard to dispute British supremacy in economic thought in the 18th and 19th centuries, I very much doubt that the same can be said of British economists in the 20th century. There have been notable exceptions, no doubt, but it seems to me that, compared to the previous centuries, the 20th century has been one of mediocrity as far as British economic thinkers are concerned.
Nor am I impressed by John Maynard Keynes — whom Olson quotes as evidence that British supremacy in economic theory continued in the 20th century — because his influence, in my view, has been disastrous. Britain and the world would have definitely been better off had Keynes devoted his tremendous intellectual powers to some other subject.
Finally, the majority of the Economics profession in Britain after Keynes’ death in 1946 has been notable for its mediocrity and its contempt for the free market: Let’s not forget the manifesto of 364 British economists against Mrs. Thatcher’s policies. Contrary to what Olson thought, the “British disease” was another example of the power of ideas, of wrong ideas: The anti-capitalistic consensus among British economists has undoubtedly contributed to Britain’s decline.17 In particular, let us see why Britain’s stagflation in the 1970s and her relative economic decline did not take place despite the influence of John Maynard Keynes, but because of it.
Keynesianism
Following Keynes’ teaching, British economists were convinced that inflation was the unavoidable price of economic growth and a cure for unemployment.18 They also believed that it was possible to reduce interest rates through monetary expansion and that the economy could be “fine tuned” in the short term, thus avoiding the ups and downs of the economic cycle. Furthermore, inflation was not considered a monetary phenomenon but the result of excessive increases in wages due to what Samuel Brittan calls “union pushfulness,” so that in order to combat inflation, one had to resort to wage and price controls, and come to terms with the unions, while at the same time pursuing expansionary monetary and fiscal policies to stimulate demand.
All of this sounds absurd today, and it certainly is, but it was the general Keynesian consensus at that time, shared by the Labour Party and to some extent also by the Tories. Everybody seemed to agree to the same Keynesian concoction: easy money, high taxation, deficit spending, and wage and price controls (incomes policy, as it was called in England).
Needless to add, all of these views have succumbed to the empirical evidence and the theoretical analyses of the last 30 years. The heroes of the counter-revolution are the great liberal thinkers I mentioned before: Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, etc. We now know that there is no evidence that economic growth inevitably involves price inflation.19 The idea that one can reduce unemployment through inflation is thoroughly discredited. Only an accelerating inflation could keep unemployment below its “natural rate,” but even that unappetizing possibility is dubious.20
Finally, as for the desirability of wage and price controls, we now know that the remedy was not only ineffective but also positively harmful.21 A side effect of these policies was that of making the problem of the excessive power of labor unions much worse. Britain in the 1970s confirmed the wisdom of Henry Simons who, in a famous 1944 article,22 had denounced the danger of labor unions:
labor monopolies…once established…enjoy an access to violence which is unparalleled in other monopolies…. Unions may deal with scabs in ways which make even Rockefeller’s early methods seem polite and legitimate. They have little to fear…from Congress or the courts.23
It may be argued that Simons, writing in the U.S. in the 1940s, was slightly too pessimistic. His analysis, however, describes perfectly the U.K. of the 1970s. Keynesianism had convinced the overwhelming majority of politicians of both parties that there was no alternative to a policy aimed at appeasing the unions, while at the same time following an expansionary demand policy, through easy money and budget deficits. Wrong ideas resulted in stagflation — slow growth, unemployment, and inflation — and a rapid growth of the size of government.
Ideas and Interests: The Case of Britain
To put it bluntly, by the 1970s Britain was a basket case. Many economists agree that the excessive power of labor unions was responsible for the sorry state of Britain’s economy.24 For example, according to Samuel Brittan:
[M]any of the particular perversities of British economic policy stem from the belief that inflation must be fought by regulation of specific pay settlements. To create a climate in which the unions will tolerate such intervention has been the object of much government activity. This has involved price controls, high marginal tax rates, and a special sensitivity to union leaders’ views on many aspects of policy. The post-1972 period of especially perverse intervention began, not with a change of government, but with the conversion of the Heath Conservative government to pay and price controls.25
Brittan is referring to the disastrous economic policies uniformly pursued by Conservative and Labour governments in Britain during the 1970s.26 In particular, the Conservative government to which Brittan is referring started with admirable intentions. In the Conservative manifesto for the 1970 election, one reads:
[W]e reject the detailed intervention of socialism, which usurps the function of management, and seeks to dictate prices and earnings in industry…. Our aim is to identify and remove obstacles that prevent effective competition and restrict initiative.27
These admirable intentions were not followed by equally commendable policies. In fact,
[T]he Conservative government of 1970-74 was the most corporatist of the post-war years. Its economic policies ended in disaster and the Conservative party lost two elections in succession. Not surprisingly, Mr. Heath lost the leadership of the party….28
According to Brittan, the excessive power of organized labor also influenced the tax code, with devastating consequences:
For most of the postwar period the real trouble has been…not average tax rates but the very high marginal rates of tax, both at the top and at the bottom of the income scale. The top marginal rates are not only higher than in other industrial countries, but reached at a much lower level of income. These are entirely political taxes. The revenue collected at the top is trivial in statistical terms; and the real effect is certainly to lower revenue…. As important…is the diversion of scarce energy and talent into trying to convert income into capital, or into benefits in kind not taxable at these rates.29
MCKENZIE: Ah, well, that’s not on our agenda actually. (Laughter)
VOICE OFF SCREEN: Why not?
MCKENZIE: I boldly repeat the question, though, the expectation having been __ having been raised in the public mind, can you reverse this process where government is expected to produce the happy result?
LEKACHMAN: Oh, no way. And it would be very foolish of the public which is on the whole more sensible than academic, to come to this conclusion. They look around them, what do they see? They see a whole collection of visible hands attached to EXXON, other large corporations. These are not small, independent competitors jostling with each other for the patronage of the public. These are large organizations, with substantial influence on their markets. Government’s interference, clumsy as it often is, is an almost unavoidable response to the very visible manipulations of large organizations.
FRIEDMAN: If there again, you’re an academic, we’re talking about fact in history. Now the history is that the growth of government has not been as a result of the things you’re pointing out. It isn’t the large corporations. It isn’t the large unions. It isn’t the technological development that has produced the major growth of government. The major growth of government in our time has come in the redistributive area. It’s come in the area of designing programs which take from some people and give to others. We’re not going to go into those here, because we discuss those in our next two programs which deal with exactly the question of whether the government intervention that was stimulated by The Great Depression has been a success or a failure. But to your point, the grounds that you give for greater government intervention have almost nothing whatsoever to do with the actual factual growth of government. Now at the end of the war, immediately after World War II, it was thought that government was going to get involved, especially in Britain, in France, in central economic planning on a large scale.
JAY: Partly because of the war experience, too, when government was very much involved.
FRIEDMAN: Partly.
MCKENZIE: In Germany and Japan as well.
FRIEDMAN: Germany and Japan as well, it was a war. It created a myth just as the, as The Great Depression created myth.
MCKENZIE: Or rather reinforced the myth of government responsibility.
FRIEDMAN: Yes, but it created a different myth. This is a subject we don’t discuss much in the film. We’ve discussed it in a book that we’re bringing out with the same title to go along with it but __ but the great, but the great myth that was created by the war, was the myth that government was inefficient. And it was.
MCKENZIE: We won the war.
FRIEDMAN: For wartime purposes in, at least in Britain and the United States. It wasn’t so inefficient in Germany and the losing countries. But why is that a myth? It was a myth because it is one thing for government to plan and to control an economy for a single overriding objective. One solitary objective __ win the war. It’s a very different thing for government to control the economy for the many numerous tastes of all us, of a very large number of people in a complex world. And I __ you ask the question of whether people’s opinions can be changed.
MCKENZIE: Yes.
FRIEDMAN: I can’t change their opinions. You can’t change their opinions, but experience is changing their opinions. Is there anybody, anywhere now who believes that government is an efficient way to run an industrial enterprise?
JAY: I think your question, can you get the genie back into the bottle, is a very important one. It is undoubtedly true that in democratic countries there will be a public urge expressed through the political process, for something to be done about anything that seems to be wrong. The one thing that inhibits that is the belief that it can’t be done. There is not politically expressed desire for the government to do something about the weather because it is widely believed that the government does not control the weather. It was widely believed under the gold standard and pre-Keynes that there was nothing the government could do about the kind of economic traits I call in depressions that we had before that time. Since then it is very widely believed, Milton may believe, I may believe wrongly, but nonetheless, it’s very widely believed that is now a manageable thing, and therefore the demand is expressed that unemployment should not rise too high, inflation should not rise too high, and so forth.
MCKENZIE: That we keep a war on want or a war on poverty.
JAY: If you believe, as Milton does, and on this issue I agree with him, that in fact government cannot handle this issue, and you want to get that genie back into the bottle, you can’t simply do it by authorities, or pundits, or academics, or others saying, “Here is a new rule. The government will do nothing. It will not intervene; it will not perform, but will just be a simple monetary rule.” You’ve got politically to persuade people that this is part of a system which they can understand, which will, in fact, deliver for them the minimal economic objectives that they have, which are basically high employment __ high employment and stability of prices, and one of two other things. Now in order to do that you’ve got to describe a political economic system which will in fact deliver that result. And they will not believe, and in my opinion they will rightfully not believe, that simply going back to where we were, or where we imagined that we were in 1930 or 1870, by withdrawing the government form the game and doing nothing else, will produce that result. And they’re right not to believe it.
TEMIN: The kind of pristine view that you appear to be putting up of no government isn’t really a consistent view because if you __
FRIEDMAN: I’m not putting up a view of no government. I’m putting up a view of a limited government. Limited __
TEMIN: Just how do you, how do you impose the limit?
FRIEDMAN: Note __ note that today the budget of HEW is one-and-a-half times the whole defense budget. That is not where the major growth of government has come. Whether we spend too little of too much on the military is very a arguable issue which I’m not competent to discuss.
TEMIN: Okay.
FRIEDMAN: But it is not the cutting edge of the dispute that we’re engaged in. That cutting edge is on all these other functions which government has increasingly taken on its shoulders.
TEMIN: Yes, but the question __
VON HOFFMAN: How do you get from here to there?
FRIEDMAN: By persuading people to do it, and by doing it gradually. You do not get it overnight. CAB was a very, very persuasive element on __ on getting rid of one branch of regulation. The failure of government to produce the full employment and the stable prices that was promised is another. You know what is __ who are we kidding? Is there anybody around any more who really believes that government knows how to prevent by its present methods inflation or unemployment? We’ve had increasing inflation. We’ve had increasing unemployment. Not only in the United States __
VON HOFFMAN: Well we __ we know that this government doesn’t __
VOICE OFF SCREEN: Wait, wait.
LEKACHMAN: It seems to me that we’re talking about at least four kinds of government intervention of different popularity among the public. One is redistributive __ via the Social Security System and so on __ and lots of that is popular. Welfare is unpopular, but Social Security is quite popular. Medicare has a mixed reputation, Medicaid a bad reputation. The redistributive system is a mixed bag from the public’s standpoint. Another kind of intervention deals with unemployment; a third kind deals with prices; and a fourth kind deals with regulation. Now, again, there is a cry about regulation which itself breaks down, it seems to me, into two parts: Partly a safety kind of thing, partly an economic kind of thing. I doubt that the public is prepared, for example, to eliminate the Food and Drug Administration.
FRIEDMAN: Take the way of trying to smooth out the business cycle.
LEKACHMAN: All right, now wait on that. I think that the record of doing this, in its clumsy way, Republicans, Democrats, assorted administrations in England and elsewhere, between 1945 and 1973 was quite good. Average unemployment during this considerable span of years was lower than had been probably in any previous spell of modern economic history. Inflation was not a persistent problem in this. Now I would say, putting the claim at a very modest one, that Keynesian intervention, if we use that as a label,
If you insist, I shall concede that the significance of the Samaritan lies in his ethnicity. It’s not a very impressive parable to begin with, though when I was taught it first in Sunday school, it was held up as an example of universal charity (with the added implication, not strange to us for some reason, that pious people are no more likely to behave with love and compassion than are others). Incidentally, what do we know about the ethnicity of the man who fell among thieves, or of the tribal character of those thieves if it comes to that? Surely you should be able to pronounce with authority on those details, too?
I agree that the origins of the cosmos are obscure—mysterious, if you like—to both of us. It’s still you who makes the mystery, though, by insisting that very recent developments on this tiny speck of a planet on the edge of a galaxy are what impart significance to the entire “Big Bang” or divine first cause. To ask what caused either is to invite, as you are aware, an infinite regression of questions about what caused either of those causes. In my book I cite the great [Pierre-Simon, Marquis de] LaPlace, who opened the modern era by saying that accounts of the cosmos and its workings were now complete, or incomplete, on their own terms. They did not require a “god.”
Belief in a deity has been optional ever since. Believe it if you choose, but be aware that it raises more questions than it answers (actually it doesn’t answer any important questions) and is thus highly vulnerable to Ockham’s trusty edge. Deists used to agree with you about a Creator but were not religious in that the assumption of such an entity did not license the further assumption that he or she desired to intervene in human affairs, let alone the assumption that the torture and death of a single individual in a backward part of the Middle East was the solution that we had been awaiting for tens of thousands of years of brutish Homo sapiens existence.
Apply something of the same reasoning to the origins of morality. I say that our “innate” predisposition to both good and wicked behavior is precisely what one would expect to find of a recently-evolved species that is (as we now know from the study of DNA) half a chromosome away from chimpanzees. By the way, do not take that as a denigration of humankind. Primate and elephant and even pig societies show considerable evidence of care for others, parent-child bonding, solidarity in the face of danger, and so on. As Darwin put it:
Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or nearly as well-developed, as in man.
We can now observe this to be the case. But animal and human “altruism” is contradicted by the way in which species are also designed to fight with, kill, dominate, and even consume each other. Humans are capable of even greater cruelty because only they have the imagination to inflict it. I do not think that this indicts the Creator who made them this way, because I long ago dispensed with the assumption that there is any such entity. Thus, it is you and not I who are left with the questions about God’s coexistence with evil. See where your talent for needless complexity has left you.
The fluctuations between social and anti-social conduct are fairly consistent across time and space: some societies have licensed cannibalism but they tend to die out, and others have licensed human sacrifice and infanticide (usually under the influence of some priesthood). But I answer your question by making the pragmatic observation that, if we surrendered to our lower instincts all the time, there would be no language in which to write this argument between us and no society in which we could find an audience. The struggle to assert what is positive in our human capacity—I don’t mind Lincoln’s metaphor of our “better angels” if you promise not to take it too
literally—is arduous enough. If I take myself, I find that I can derive pleasure from giving blood for free and also from contemplating the deaths of my clerical-fascist enemies in the ranks of Al Qaeda and even from the misfortunes of others who do not threaten me. I am sure you could give parallel examples of your own. But telling us that we are created sick and then ordered to be well is no help in clarifying this problem. And telling us that the solution to it only became available some two thousand years ago, according to some highly discrepant and selfcontradictory accounts, cannot strike me as anything but absurd. What on earth is proven— except your own vulnerability to making tautologous statements—by the claim that “Jesus Christ is good for the world because he came as the life of the world”? You cannot possibly “know” this. Nor can you present any evidence for it. And its corollary—that without Jesus we are abandoned to wickedness in all its forms—has the horrible implication that worthy actions are pointless unless accompanied by your own rather ill-grounded faith. As I say, believe it if it helps you. But do not insult the millions of people who have done the right thing without requiring any such supernatural authority. And do not tell me that I must be in love with death if I dissent from your view. That’s too much. Your Christianity, in case you have not noticed, has actually made you a less compassionate and thoughtful person than, without its exorbitant presumptions, you would otherwise be.
Christopher Hitchens – Against Abortion Uploaded by BritishNeoCon on Dec 2, 2010 An issue Christopher doesn’t seem to have addressed much in his life. He doesn’t explicitly say that he is against abortion in this segment, but that he does believe that the ‘unborn child’ is a real concept. ___________________________ I was suprised when I […]
Max Brantley in the Arkansas Times Blog reports that Ron Paul is leading in Iowa. Maybe it is time to take a closer look at his views. In the above clip you will see Chistopher Hitchens discuss Ron Paul’s views. In the clip below you will find Ron Paul’s latest commercial. Below is a short […]
DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 07 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 08 Author and […]
DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 04 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 05 Author and speaker Christopher […]
DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 01 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust Author and speaker Christopher Hitchens, a leader of an aggressive form of atheism that eventually […]
The Daily Hatch 