Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 4)

THE MORAL ARGUMENT

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
But aren’t you now saying in effect, I mean by God whatever is good or the sum total of what is good — the system of what is good, and, therefore, when a young man loves anything that is good he is loving God. Is that what you’re saying, because if so, it wants a bit of arguing.

    FATHER COPLESTON
I don’t say, of course, that God is the sum-total or system of what is good in the pantheistic sense; I’m not a pantheist, but I do think that all goodness reflects God in some way and proceeds from Him, so that in a sense the man who loves what is truly good, loves God even if he doesn’t advert to God. But still I agree that the validity of such an interpretation of a man’s conduct depends on the recognition of God’s existence, obviously.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, but that’s a point to be proved.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Quite so, but I regard the metaphysical argument as probative, but there we differ.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don’t say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Yes, but what’s your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
I don’t have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
By my feelings.

    FATHER COPLESTON
By your feelings. Well, that’s what I was asking. You think that good and evil have reference simply to feeling?

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, why does one type of object look yellow and another look blue? I can more or less give an answer to that thanks to the physicists, and as to why I think one sort of thing good and another evil, probably there is an answer of the same sort, but it hasn’t been gone into in the same way and I couldn’t give it [to] you.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Well, let’s take the behavior of the Commandant of Belsen. That appears to you as undesirable and evil and to me too. To Adolf Hitler we suppose it appeared as something good and desirable, I suppose you’d have to admit that for Hitler it was good and for you it is evil.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
No, I shouldn’t quite go so far as that. I mean, I think people can make mistakes in that as they can in other things. if you have jaundice you see things yellow that are not yellow. You’re making a mistake.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Yes, one can make mistakes, but can you make a mistake if it’s simply a question of reference to a feeling or emotion? Surely Hitler would be the only possible judge of what appealed to his emotions.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
It would be quite right to say that it appealed to his emotions, but you can say various things about that among others, that if that sort of thing makes that sort of appeal to Hitler’s emotions, then Hitler makes quite a different appeal to my emotions.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Granted. But there’s no objective criterion outside feeling then for condemning the conduct of the Commandant of Belsen, in your view?

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
No more than there is for the color-blind person who’s in exactly the same state. Why do we intellectually condemn the color-blind man? Isn’t it because he’s in the minority?

    FATHER COPLESTON
I would say because he is lacking in a thing which normally belongs to human nature.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, but if he were in the majority, we shouldn’t say that.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Then you’d say that there’s no criterion outside feeling that will enable one to distinguish between the behavior of the Commandant of Belsen and the behavior, say, of Sir Stafford Cripps or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
The feeling is a little too simplified. You’ve got to take account of the effects of actions and your feelings toward those effects. You see, you can have an argument about it if you can say that certain sorts of occurrences are the sort you like and certain others the sort you don’t like. Then you have to take account of the effects of actions. You can very well say that the effects of the actions of the Commandant of Belsen were painful and unpleasant.

    FATHER COPLESTON
They certainly were, I agree, very painful and unpleasant to all the people in the camp.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, but not only to the people in the camp, but to outsiders contemplating them also.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Yes, quite true in imagination. But that’s my point. I don’t approve of them, and I know you don’t approve of them, but I don’t see what ground you have for not approving of them, because after all, to the Commandant of Belsen himself, they’re pleasant, those actions.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, but you see I don’t need any more ground in that case than I do in the case of color perception. There are some people who think everything is yellow, there are people suffering from jaundice, and I don’t agree with these people. I can’t prove that the things are not yellow, there isn’t any proof, but most people agree with him that they’re not yellow, and most people agree with me that the Commandant of Belsen was making mistakes.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Well, do you accept any moral obligation?

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, I should have to answer at considerable length to answer that. Practically speaking — yes. Theoretically speaking I should have to define moral obligation rather carefully.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Well, do you think that the word “ought” simply has an emotional connotation?

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
No, I don’t think that, because you see, as I was saying a moment ago, one has to take account of the effects, and I think right conduct is that which would probably produce the greatest possible balance in intrinsic value of all the acts possible in the circumstances, and you’ve got to take account of the probable effects of your action in considering what is right.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Well, I brought in moral obligation because I think that one can approach the question of God’s existence in that way. The vast majority of the human race will make, and always have made, some distinction between right and wrong. The vast majority I think has some consciousness of an obligation in the moral sphere. It’s my opinion that the perception of values and the consciousness of moral law and obligation are best explained through the hypothesis of a transcendent ground of value and of an author of the moral law. I do mean by “author of the moral law” an arbitrary author of the moral law. I think, in fact, that those modern atheists who have argued in a converse way “there is no God; therefore, there are no absolute values and no absolute law,” are quite logical.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
I don’t like the word “absolute.” I don’t think there is anything absolute whatever. The moral law, for example, is always changing. At one period in the development of the human race, almost everybody thought cannibalism was a duty.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Well, I don’t see that differences in particular moral judgments are any conclusive argument against the universality of the moral law. Let’s assume for the moment that there are absolute moral values, even on that hypothesis it’s only to be expected that different individuals and different groups should enjoy varying degrees of insight into those values.

        BERTRAND RUSSELL
I’m inclined to think that “ought,” the feeling that one has about “ought” is an echo of what has been told one by one’s parents or one’s nurses.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Well, I wonder if you can explain away the idea of the “ought” merely in terms of nurses and parents. I really don’t see how it can be conveyed to anybody in other terms than itself. It seems to be that if there is a moral order bearing upon the human conscience, that that moral order is unintelligible apart from the existence of God.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
Then you have to say one or other of two things. Either God only speaks to a very small percentage of mankind — which happens to include yourself — or He deliberately says things are not true in talking to the consciences of savages.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Well, you see, I’m not suggesting that God actually dictates moral precepts to the conscience. The human being’s ideas of the content of the moral law depends entirely to a large extent on education and environment, and a man has to use his reason in assessing the validity of the actual moral ideas of his social group. But the possibility of criticizing the accepted moral code presupposes that there is an objective standard, and there is an ideal moral order, which imposes itself (I mean the obligatory character of which can be recognized). I think that the recognition of this ideal moral order is part of the recognition of contingency. It implies the existence of a real foundation of God.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
But the law-giver has always been, it seems to me, one’s parents or someone like. There are plenty of terrestrial law-givers to account for it, and that would explain why people’s consciences are so amazingly different in different times and places.

    FATHER COPLESTON
It helps to explain differences in the perception of particular moral values, which otherwise are inexplicable. It will help to explain changes in the matter of the moral law in the content of the precepts as accepted by this or that nation, or this or that individual. But the form of it, what Kant calls the categorical imperative, the “ought,” I really don’t see how that can possibly be conveyed to anybody by nurse or parent because there aren’t any possible terms, so far as I can see, with which it can be explained. it can’t be defined in other terms than itself, because once you’ve defined it in other terms than itself you’ve explained it away. It’s no longer a moral “ought.” It’s something else.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, I think the sense of “ought” is the effect of somebody’s imagined disapproval, it may be God’s imagined disapproval, but it’s somebody’s imagined disapproval. And I think that is what is meant by “ought.”

    FATHER COPLESTON
It seems to me to be external customs and taboos and things of that sort which can most easily be explained simply through environment and education, but all that seems to me to belong to what I call the matter of the law, the content. The idea of the “ought” as such can never be conveyed to a man by the tribal chief or by anybody else, because there are no other terms in which it could be conveyed. It seems to me entirely….

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
But I don’t see any reason to say that — I mean we all know about conditioned reflexes. We know that an animal, if punished habitually for a certain sort of act, after a time will refrain. I don’t think the animal refrains from arguing within himself, “Master will be angry if I do this.” He has a feeling that that’s not the thing to do. That’s what we can do with ourselves and nothing more.

    FATHER COPLESTON
I see no reason to suppose that an animal has a consciousness or moral obligation; and we certainly don’t regard an animal as morally responsible for his acts of disobedience. But a man has a consciousness of obligation and of moral values. I see no reason to suppose that one could condition all men as one can “condition” an animal, and I don’t suppose you’d really want to do so even if one could. If “behaviorism” were true, there would be no objective moral distinction between the emperor Nero and St. Francis of Assisi. I can’t help feeling, Lord Russell, you know, that you regard the conduct of the Commandant of Belsen as morally reprehensible, and that you yourself would never under any circumstances act in that way, even if you thought, or had reason to think, that possibly the balance of the happiness of the human race might be increased through some people being treated in that abominable manner.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
No. I wouldn’t imitate the conduct of a mad dog. The fact that I wouldn’t do it doesn’t really bear on this question we’re discussing.

    FATHER COPLESTON
No, but if you were making a utilitarian explanation of right and wrong in terms of consequences, it might be held, and I suppose some of the Nazis of the better type would have held that although it’s lamentable to have to act in this way, yet the balance in the long run leads to greater happiness. I don’t think you’d say that, would you? I think you’d say that sort of action is wrong — and in itself, quite apart from whether the general balance of happiness is increased or not. Then, if you’re prepared to say that, then I think you must have some criterion of feeling, at any rate. To me, that admission would ultimately result in the admission of an ultimate ground of value in God.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
I think we are perhaps getting into confusion. It is not direct feeling about the act by which I should judge, but rather a feeling as to the effects. And I can’t admit any circumstances in which certain kinds of behavior, such as you have been discussing, would do good. I can’t imagine circumstances in which they would have a beneficial effect. I think the persons who think they do are deceiving themselves. But if there were circumstances in which they would have a beneficial effect, then I might be obliged, however reluctantly, to say — “Well, I don’t like these things, but I will acquiesce in them,” just as I acquiesce in the Criminal Law, although I profoundly dislike punishment.

    FATHER COPLESTON
Well, perhaps it’s time I summed up my position. I’ve argued two things. First, that the existence of God can be philosophically proved by a metaphysical argument; secondly, that it is only the existence of God that will make sense of man’s moral experience and of religious experience. Personally, I think that your way of accounting for man’s moral judgments leads inevitably to a contradiction between what your theory demands and your own spontaneous judgments. Moreover, your theory explains moral obligation away, and explaining away is not explanation.

As regards the metaphysical argument, we are apparently in agreement that what we call the world consists simply of contingent beings. That is, of beings no one of which can account for its own existence. You say that the series of events needs no explanation: I say that if there were no necessary being, no being which must exist and cannot not-exist, nothing would exist. The infinity of the series of contingent beings, even if proved, would be irrelevant. Something does exist; therefore, there must be something which accounts for this fact, a being which is outside the series of contingent beings. If you had admitted this, we could then have discussed whether that being is personal, good, and so on. On the actual point discussed, whether there is or is not a necessary being, I find myself, I think in agreement with the great majority of classical philosophers.

You maintain, I think, that existing beings are simply there, and that I have no justification for raising the question of the explanation of their existence. But I would like to point out that this position cannot be substantiated by logical analysis; it expresses a philosophy which itself stands in need of proof. I think we have reached an impasse because our ideas of philosophy are radically different; it seems to me that what I call a part of philosophy, that you call the whole, insofar at least as philosophy is rational.

It seems to me, if you will pardon my saying so, that besides your own logical system — what you call “modern” in opposition to antiquated logic (a tendentious adjective) — you maintain a philosophy which cannot be substantiated by logical analysis. After all, the problem of God’s existence is an existential problem whereas logical analysis does not deal directly with problems of existence. So it seems to me, to declare that the terms involved in one set of problems are meaningless because they are not required in dealing with another set of problems, is to settle from the beginning the nature and extent of philosophy, and that is itself a philosophical act which stands in need of justification.

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, I should like to say just a few words by way of summary on my side. First, as to the metaphysical argument: I don’t admit the connotations of such a term as “contingent” or the possibility of explanation in Father Copleston’s sense. I think the word “contingent” inevitably suggests the possibility of something that wouldn’t have this what you might call accidental character of just being there, and I don’t think is true except int he purely causal sense. You can sometimes give a causal explanation of one thing as being the effect of something else, but that is merely referring one thing to another thing and there’s no — to my mind — explanation in FATHER COPLESTON’s sense of anything at all, nor is there any meaning in calling things “contingent” because there isn’t anything else they could be.

That’s what I should say about that, but I should like to say a few words about Father Copleston’s accusation that I regard logic as all philosophy — that is by no means the case. I don’t by any means regard logic as all philosophy. I think logic is an essential part of philosophy and logic has to be used in philosophy, and in that I think he and I are at one. When the logic that he uses was new — namely, in the time of Aristotle, there had to be a great deal of fuss made about it; Aristotle made a lot of fuss about that logic. Nowadays it’s become old and respectable, and you don’t have to make so much fuss about it. The logic that I believe in is comparatively new, and therefore I have to imitate Aristotle in making a fuss about it; but it’s not that I think it’s all philosophy by any means — I don’t think so. I think it’s an important part of philosophy, and when I say that, I don’t find a meaning for this or that word, that is a position of detail based upon what I’ve found out about that particular word, from thinking about it. It’s not a general position that all words that are used in metaphysics are nonsense, or anything like that which I don’t really hold.

As regards the moral argument, I do find that when one studies anthropology or history, there are people who think it their duty to perform acts which I think abominable, and I certainly can’t, therefore, attribute Divine origin to the matter of moral obligation, which FATHER COPLESTON doesn’t ask me to; but I think even the form of moral obligation, when it takes the form of enjoining you to eat your father or what not, doesn’t seem to me to be such a very beautiful and noble thing; and, therefore, I cannot attribute a Divine origin to this sense of moral obligation, which I think is quite easily accounted for in quite other ways.

June 21, 2012 – 7:12 am Categories: Atheists Confronted, Current Events | Post a comment

Estonia uses austerity to growth economy

Senator Marco Rubio Talks Cuba, Budget and Obamacare

Published on Mar 22, 2012 by

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/22/exclusive-interview-sen-marco-rubio-talks… | Pope Benedict XVI will visit the communist island of Cuba next week. But while there, the Catholic leader has no plans to visit Cuban dissidents who are fighting for freedom from the Castro regime.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), born to Cuban immigrants, told us in an exclusive interview Wednesday that the pope should make time to see dissidents. Rubio was at Heritage to promote freedom in Cuba, particularly as it relates to technology and Internet access.

_______________

We got to cut spending soon and try some austerity here at home.

Austerity Works

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Added to cato.org on June 20, 2012

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on June 20, 2012.

As Greece, and now Spain and Italy, struggle with the crushing burden of debt brought on by the modern welfare state, perhaps we should shift our gaze some 1,200 miles north to see how austerity can actually work.

Exhibit #1 is Estonia. This small Baltic nation recently had a spate of notoriety when its president, Toomas Ilves, got into a Twitter debate with Paul Krugman over the country’s austerity policies. Krugman sneered at Estonia as the “poster child for austerity defenders,” remarking of the nation’s recovery from recession, “this is what passes for economic triumph?” In return, President Ilves criticized Krugman as “smug, overbearing, and patronizing.”

Twitter-borne tit-for-tat aside, here are the facts: Estonia had been one of the showcases for free-market economic policies and had been growing steadily until the 2008 economic crisis burst a debt-fueled property bubble, shut off credit flows, and curbed export demand, plunging the country into a severe economic downturn.

However, instead of increasing government spending in hopes of stimulating the economy, as Krugman has urged, the Estonians rejected Keynesianism in favor of genuine austerity. Among other measures, the Estonian government cut public-sector wages by 10 percent, gradually raised the retirement age from 61 to 65 by 2026, reduced eligibility for health benefits, and liberalized the country’s labormarket, making it easier for businesses to hire and fire workers.

Estonia did unfortunately enact a small increase in its value-added tax, but it deliberately kept taxes low on businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs, refusing to make changes to its flat 21 percent income tax. In fact, the government has put in place plans to reduce the income tax to 20 percent by 2015.

Cutting government spending, reducing taxes, and liberalizing labor markets brings more economic growth, increased employment, less debt, and more prosperity.

Today, Estonia is actually running a budget surplus. Its national debt is 6 percent of GDP. By comparison, Greece’s is 159 percent of GDP. Ours is 102 percent.

Economic growth has been a robust 7.6 percent, the best in the EU. And, although the unemployment rate remains too high, at 11.7 percent, that is down from 19 percent during the worst of the recession. It’s hard to see how a Krugman-style stimulus would have done much better.

Next door, Latvia has also embarked on a successful austerity program. In 2008, facing a deep recession — the worst in Europe, with a 24 percent drop in GDP from 2007 to 2009 — and a run on the country’s largest bank, Latvia turned to Europe for a €7.5 billion bailout. But unlike Greece and other countries that seem to look at such assistance as a form of permanent welfare payment, Latvia used the EU loan as an opportunity to make the painful government reforms necessary to restore long-term economic health.

Latvia embarked on the toughest budget cuts in Europe. Half of all government-run agencies were eliminated, the number of public employees was reduced by a third, and public-sector wages were slashed by an average of 25 percent.

In the end, Latvia borrowed just €4.4 billion of the available €7.5 billion, and its economy is on the rebound. Unemployment, which reached 19 percent at the height of the recession, has declined to around 15 percent. Real GDP growth was 5.5 percent last yearCanada and is expected to be at least 3.5 percent this year. This year’s budget deficit will be just 1.2 percent of GDP, and the national debt is just 37 percent of GDP and declining. The credit-rating agencies recently upgraded the country’s credit-worthiness. And, while Greece mulls leaving the euro zone, Latvia has been pronounced eligible for membership.

The third Baltic country, Lithuania, also dramatically cut government spending — as much as 30 percent in nominal terms — including reductions in public-sector wages of 20 to 30 percent and pension cuts of as much as 11 percent. Unfortunately, Lithuania may have undermined the effects of those cuts by also raising taxes, including a significant hike in corporate taxes. Still, Lithuania is expected to see its economy grow by 2.2 percent this year.

Krugman and others do have a point in saying that the Baltic countries benefit from strong trade opportunities with neighbors such as Sweden and Finland that have growing economies. And it is true that, while their recoveries have been strong, none of the Baltic countries is expected to fully return to pre-recession levels of prosperity until 2014 at the earliest. On the other hand, when are Greece, Spain, or for that matter the United States — none of which has done much if anything to reduce government spending — likely to return to pre-recession growth?

If the Baltics are not a sufficient example of the value of cutting government, we can look a bit to the west, to Switzerland. Switzerland’s constitution includes provisions that limit the country’s ability both to run debt (the growth in government spending can be no higher than average revenue growth, calculated over a multi-year period) and to increasetaxes (taxes can be increased only by a double-majority referendum, meaning that a majority of voters in a majority of cantons would have to approve the increase).

As a result, total government spending in Switzerland at all levels of government is just 34 percent of GDP, compared to an average of 52 percent in the EU, and more than 41 percent in the United States. Switzerland’s national debt is just 41 percent of GDP and shrinking at a time when other European countries are becoming more insolvent. Switzerland’s economic growth has not yet returned to pre-recession levels, but it is better than the growth in, say, Greece or Spain. And its unemployment rate is just 3.1 percent, the lowest in Europe.

If that’s not enough evidence, we can just look to our own neighbor Canada. The Canadian federal government has been reducing spending in real terms since the 1990s. As a result, federal spending as a share of GDP has fallen from 22 percent in 1995 to just 15.9 percent today. Compare that to the United States, where the federal government spends 24 percent of GDP, roughly half again as much. And, while Canadian provincial governments spend appreciably more than do most U.S. states, total government spending at all levels in Canada has declined from 53 percent in the 1990s to just 42 percent today — still far too high, but clearly moving in the right direction.

Canada has also cut taxes. Corporate tax rates at the federal level were slashed from 29 percent in 2000 to 15 percent today, less than half the U.S. federal rate. Capital-gains taxes were also cut, as were, to a lesser degree, income taxes.

When Canada — led for so long by the ultra-liberal Pierre Trudeau — has smaller government and lower taxes than the U.S., something is seriously out of whack.

As a result of these changes, Canada’s national debt is now less than 34 percent of GDP. Its budget deficit this year will be just 3.5 percent of GDP, while ours will be 8.3 percent. Canada’s economy will grow at 2.6 percent this year — a modest rate but faster than ours — and its unemployment rate is 7.3 percent, again better than ours.

All these countries are following the successful examples set by other nations such as Chile, Ireland, and New Zealand in the 1980s and ’90s, and Slovakia from 2000 to 2003.

Of course, none of these examples is perfect, and cuts in government spending will not, by themselves, cure all ills. These countries often benefited from circumstances aside from fiscal discipline. Still, the evidence is there. Cutting government spending, reducing taxes, and liberalizing labor markets brings more economic growth, increased employment, less debt, and more prosperity. The opposite is also true: Bigger government and higher taxes result in more economic misery — see Greece, Spain, etc.

As the United States looks to its future, it is time to decide which path we will follow.

June 21, 2012 – 7:10 am Categories: Current Events, spending out of control | Post a comment

Pictures from Woody Allen’s latest movie “To Rome with Love” Part 1

2012 LA FILM FEST – To Rome With Love Red Carpet

Below is a picture from Woody Allen’s latest movie and then below are some Italian films that influenced him over the years.

null
<

  • By Philippe Antonello, Sony Pictures Classics
  •  
Appearing in one of his own movies for the first time since 2006, Allen plays an unhappily retired and somewhat neurotic opera director who pins a comeback attempt on his discovery of an Italian mortician who can sing like Pavarotti — but only in the shower.null
<

  • The Kobal Collection
  •  
The White Sheik (1952). An early romantic comedy by Federico Fellini about a bride honeymooning in Rome who leaves her husband behind to find the hero of her romantic novels. A direct influence on To Rome with Love’s similar story of a young couple who are split apart in the bustling city.
Allen’s observation: “It’s a film I love very much.”
 
 
null
<

  • The Kobal Collection
  •  
Amarcord (1973). Fellini’s autobiographical coming-of-age tale set in a small seaside town in 1930s Italy is overrun with colorful characters, from a blind accordion player to the village beauty.
Allen’s observation: “Great fun.”
 
 

null
<The Kobal Collection 
Blow-Up (1966). Michelangelo Antonioni created waves with his first English-language film when he turned his camera on swinging London as personified by a cocky fashion photographer (David Hemmings) who believes his lens has accidentally captured a murder.
Allen’s observation: “Not in the same class as the other films, but interesting to see.”
 
June 21, 2012 – 7:09 am Categories: Uncategorized | Post a comment

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

Sadly Senator Pryor has voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment over and over in his long time in the Senate. Senator Pryor: “There are a lot of people who think a balanced-budget amendment solves all the fiscal problems. I completely disagree.” (Peter Urban, Pryor Tilts Balanced Budget, Southwest Times Record, 11/17/11)

Dear Senator Pryor,

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

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

You asked for ideas to cut spending, but you voted for the 800 billion dollar stimulus that did not help the economy at all. I have included an article below that makes a very good point about the Balanced Budget Amendment and the stimulus:

Lee believes there are several key components to a balanced budget amendment which he outlines in his book, including making tax increases contingent on a two-thirds vote in Congress so that the option to increase taxes is not the default maneuver to balance a budget. He believes the amendment should require Congress spends no more than it takes in, and in fact should cap the spending at a fixed percent of GDP (the proposal submitted in the Senate caps it at 18 percent of GDP, just about the historical average). There would also be a supermajority vote required to raise the debt ceiling.

And for those who argue that stimulus packages wouldn’t have been possible under the amendment, Lee sees little difficulty responding.

“That’s exibit A for why we ought to have it,” Lee said of the Obama stimulus package.

That is a very good point in favor of having a balanced budget amendment in my view. I have been critical of you for supporting the stimulus in the past.

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

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher

Lee Makes His Case for a Balanced Budget Amendment

By Elisabeth Meinecke

7/18/2011

As Washington spends the summer arguing over its spending addiction, GOP Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has a solution to help prevent the same crisis for future generations: a balanced budget amendment.

The House made news last week when, in the heat of negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, they announced a vote on a balanced budget amendment this Wednesday. Though the Senate GOP introduced a one earlier this year, President Obama has stated emphatically otherwise, telling Americans last week during a press conference that the country does not need a balanced budget amendment.

“Yes, we do,” Lee told Townhall when asked to respond to the president, adding later when talking about simultaneously raising the debt ceiling and cutting spending, “We can’t bind what a future Congress will do. We can pass laws that will affect this year, but there will be a new Congress that takes power in January of 2013, and then another new one that will take power in January 2015. And they will make their own spending decisions then — we can’t bind them unless we amend the Constitution to do so.”

Lee points out that the American people support the idea of a balanced budget – 65 percent, according to a Sachs/Mason Dixon poll from this year – but politicians have been reluctant to wade into the debate.

“The fact that we’re in this debate, the fact that we’re sort of deadlocked, or we’ve reached a point of gridlock in the discussions, is indicative of the problem that we have,” Lee said.

In fact, Lee thinks a balanced budget amendment is so important to the future of the country that he’s written a book on it: The Freedom Agenda: Why a Balanced Budget Amendment Is Necessary to Restore Constitutional Government.

Lee even takes the argument a step beyond fiscal issues, saying a balanced budget amendment safeguards individual liberties.

““The more money it [Congress] has access to, whether it’s through borrowing or through taxation, either way, that’s going to fuel Congress’ expansion, and whenever government acts, it does so at the expanse of individual liberty,” Lee said. “We become less free every time government expands.”

Lee believes there are several key components to a balanced budget amendment which he outlines in his book, including making tax increases contingent on a two-thirds vote in Congress so that the option to increase taxes is not the default maneuver to balance a budget. He believes the amendment should require Congress spends no more than it takes in, and in fact should cap the spending at a fixed percent of GDP (the proposal submitted in the Senate caps it at 18 percent of GDP, just about the historical average). There would also be a supermajority vote required to raise the debt ceiling.

And for those who argue that stimulus packages wouldn’t have been possible under the amendment, Lee sees little difficulty responding.

“That’s exibit A for why we ought to have it,” Lee said of the Obama stimulus package.

Lee also pointed out that his balanced budget amendment includes an exception to the spending restriction in time of war – “not a blank check, but to the extent necessary.” Congress would also be able to supersede the amendment with a two-thirds vote.

“We wanted to make it difficult, but not impossible, for Congress to spend more than it had access to,” Lee said, citing as an example a massive or immediate crisis created by a national emergency or natural disaster. “What this is designed to do is to make it more difficult – to make it impossible – for Congress to just do this as a matter of course.”

Elisabeth Meinecke

Elisabeth Meinecke is Associate Editor with Townhall.com

June 21, 2012 – 6:59 am Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

Former Arkansas Razorback football coach Hugo Bezdek Part 1

Uploaded by on Jul 21, 2009

Arkansas held a celebration on Dickson Street in Fayetteville to commemorate the start of the 100th year of the school’s Razorbacks mascot on July 21. Coaches, administrators and even a Hugo Bezdek impersonator, were on hand at the event. The Razorbacks debuted a historical maker near the old train station on Dickson Street, where Bezdek called the Arkansas Cardinals a “wild bunch of razorback hogs” after they defeated LSU 16-0 on Nov. 13, 1909.

From Wikipedia:

Hugo Francis Bezdek (April 1, 1884 – September 19, 1952) was a Czech–American sports figure who played American football and was a coach of football, basketball, and baseball. He was the head football coach at the University of Oregon (1906, 1913–1917), the University of Arkansas (1908–1912), Penn State University (1918–1929), and Delaware Valley College (1949). Bezdek also coached the Mare Island Marines in the 1918 Rose Bowl and the Cleveland Rams of the NFL in 1937 and part of the 1938 season. In addition, Bezdek coached basketball at Oregon (1906–1907, 1913–1917) and Penn State (1919), coached baseball at Arkansas (1909–1913), Oregon (1914–1917) and Penn State (1920–1930), and served at the manager of Major League Baseball‘s Pittsburgh Pirates (1917–1919). He was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame as a coach in 1954.

Contents

 [hide] 

[edit] Coaching career

After playing as a fullback at the University of Chicago, Bezdek began his football coaching career at the University of Oregon in 1906, but left after a year to become head coach at the University of Arkansas. Arkansas athletic teams carried the name of Cardinals until the close of 1909 season. Coach Bezdek referred to his team as “a wild band of Razorbacks” at a post-season rally following an unbeaten season. This nickname has been applied to Arkansas teams since that time. After five years at Arkansas, he returned to Oregon for six seasons.

While coaching in Oregon, Bezdek also served as a scout for Major League Baseball‘s Pittsburgh Pirates, who hired him as their manager in the middle of the 1917 season. He managed the Pirates through 1919, compiling a 166–187 record.

While managing the Pirates, Bezdek continued his football coaching career, moving from Oregon to Penn State in 1919. He was head coach there until 1929, amassing a 65–30–11 record that included two undefeated seasons and an appearance in the 1923 Rose Bowl. Bezdek was noted for changing the Nittany Lions’ style of play.[1]

Bezdek also served as Penn State’s athletic director from 1918 to 1936, was interim basketball coach in 1919, garnering an 11–2 record, and director of the School of Physical Education and Athletics from 1930 to 1937.

In 1937, Bezdek was hired by the Cleveland Rams as their first head coach after the team joined the NFL. His career with the Rams was brief, ending three games into the 1938 season with an abysmal 1–13 record. Nevertheless, Bezdek holds the distinction of being the only person to have served as both manager of a Major League Baseball team and head coach in the NFL.

As a college football coach, Bezdek tallied a career record of 127–58–16. He was elected to the College Football Hall of Fame in 1954.

[edit] Head coaching record

[edit] College football

Year Team Overall Conference Standing Bowl/playoffs
Oregon Webfoots (Independent) (1906)
1906 Oregon 5–0–1      
Arkansas Cardinals/Razorbacks (Independent) (1908–1912)
1908 Arkansas 5–4      
1909 Arkansas 7–0      
1910 Arkansas 7–1      
1911 Arkansas 6–2–1      
1912 Arkansas 4–6      
Arkansas: 29–13–1    
Oregon Webfoots (Independent) (1913–1915)
1913 Oregon 3–3–1      
1914 Oregon 4–2–1      
1915 Oregon 7–2      
Oregon Webfoots (Pacific Coast Conference) (1916–1917)
1916 Oregon 7–0–1 2–0–1 2nd W Rose
1917 Oregon 4–3 1–2 4th  
Oregon: 30–10–4 3–2–1  
Mare Island Marines (Independent) (1917)
1917 Mare Island 1–0     W Rose
Mare Island: 1–0    
Penn State Nittany Lions (Independent) (1918–1929)
1918 Penn State 1–2–1      
1919 Penn State 7–1      
1920 Penn State 7–0–2      
1921 Penn State 8–0–2      
1922 Penn State 6–4–1     L Rose
1923 Penn State 6–2–1      
1924 Penn State 6–3–1      
1925 Penn State 4–4–1      
1926 Penn State 5–4      
1927 Penn State 6–2–1      
1928 Penn State 3–5–1      
1929 Penn State 6–3      
Penn State: 65–30–11    
Delaware Valley Aggies (Independent) (1949)
1949 Delaware Valley 2–5      
Delaware Valley: 2–5    
Total: 127–58–16  

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ COACH BEZDEK CHANGES TEAM’S STYLE OF PLAY FOR THIRD TIME TROJANS TO TACKLE A REORGANIZED ELEVEN; Nittany Lions to Take Field With Almost a Completely New Bunch of Regulars. Los Angeles Times, December 27, 1922. Hugo “Spinx” Bezdek, commander-in-chief of the Penn State football squad, which is to meet the University of Southern California in the annual East-West Tournament of Roses New Year’s Day game, changes the style of his eleven’s play almost as much as a woman changes her mind.
June 21, 2012 – 6:27 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Q/A: Marco Rubio on His Faith of Many Colors

Good interview:

Q & A: Marco Rubio on His Faith of Many Colors

Interview by Sarah Pulliam Bailey
[ posted 6/19/2012 10:31AM ]
Q & A: Marco Rubio on His Faith of Many Colors

 

Photo by Susana Raab

As speculation has grown over who Mitt Romney will pick as his running mate, Florida Senator Marco Rubio has topped nearly every list. Rubio has also drawn attention with the release of his memoir, An American Son, as well as his brief time in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, his baptism into the Roman Catholic Church, and his ties to an evangelical church. Christianity Today online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey spoke with Rubio about his diverse faith background, how his faith influences his policy positions, and why Christians should be involved in the public square.You were baptized as a Mormon and then as a Roman Catholic. Can you describe your faith journey?My mother desperately wanted to give her kids a wholesome environment, and we were born into a traditional Catholic family. We had extended family members who were and remain active members of the LDS church, which does provide a very wholesome environment. We joined the church for a little less than three years when I was very young, after we moved to Las Vegas in 1979. I’m not sure my mom ever fully understood the church theologically. As a family we were never fully immersed in it because my father didn’t buy in, so there are many intricacies to the faith that we never really got involved in. By the time I was in sixth grade, we had left the Mormon Church and gone back to Catholicism, and I did my First Communion on Christmas Day 1984.And you attended an evangelical church for a period of time?Sometime in 2000, I unfortunately got really busy with my political stuff. I perhaps didn’t do a good job of spiritually leading my family, which is one of the roles I play alongside my wife. In the meantime, my wife and my sister found an excellent local church, Christ Fellowship. It does a phenomenal job on two fronts: bringing people to Jesus, and teaching the written Word through phenomenal preachers. And it has a fantastic children’s program. For a period of time, it became our church home almost exclusively. I felt called back to Catholicism around 2004, but have maintained the relationship with Christ Fellowship and attend their services often or listen to the podcasts.

‘I really don’t endorse criticisms of the President’s faith.’ -Marco Rubio

Did you have a conversion moment when you acknowledged your sins and Jesus’ death on the cross?

There has never been a moment when faith hasn’t been an important part of my life. There have been moments when I’ve been more alive in my faith than others. There have been times when I’ve been more involved in my faith, dedicating more to it, and giving it more importance. Like everybody else, unfortunately, it’s usually in time of need that we tend to turn to our faith.

It would be unfair to say I had a moment of conversion. But one moment when my faith journey took on a different aspect was when my children became a bit older. I recognized that perhaps the most important part of my job in raising them is that I have only a handful of years to influence them and to inspire in them the knowledge of Jesus, Christianity, and what it means for salvation. If I fail in that regard, everything else becomes less meaningful.

Would you describe yourself as an evangelical?

I’m a Roman Catholic. I’m theologically in line with the Roman Catholic Church. I believe in the authority of the church, but I also have tremendous respect for my brothers and sisters in other Christian faiths. I recognize, as the Catholic Church does, that there are excellent teachings of the Word throughout other denominations. The elements of salvation are found in these churches as well. Some unifying principles bind all Christians: that God became a man and died for our sins, and that without that sacrifice, all of us would be doomed.

Since your faith has come up on occasion as a political issue, what would you say to those who suggest President Obama is a Muslim or not a “real Christian”?

I really don’t endorse criticisms of the President’s faith. I don’t think they are fair, to be honest. One key thing about Christianity is that it requires voluntary acceptance of faith. If someone says he is a Christian, it is a sign of Christianity in and of itself. Christianity calls us to our salvation, and it also calls parents to contribute to their children’s salvation. It calls us to be a light in the world. It doesn’t call us to go around pointing other people out, saying so and so is deficient in their faith. It does call us to hold each other accountable. It’s really asking us to look at ourselves, and that’s really the only responsibility of Christianity. We’re responsible for our own response to God’s call in our life, and our own family’s response.

When Obama uses his faith to defend same-sex marriage or other policies, do you think he’s misinterpreting it?

I certainly don’t reach the same conclusions he does. I’ve never criticized anyone for having their faith influence their public-policy decisions. If your faith is real, burning inside of you, it’s going to influence the way you view everything. That belief influences your job and the responsibilities you have.

Are Christians who oppose gay marriage fighting a losing battle?

In terms of the Bible’s interpretation of marriage, what our faith teaches is pretty straightforward. There’s not much debate about that. The debate is about what society should tolerate, and what society should allow our laws to be. I believe marriage is a unique and specific institution that is the result of thousands of years of wisdom, which concluded that the ideal—not the only way but certainly the ideal—situation to raise children to become productive and healthy humans is in a home with a father and mother married to each other. Does that mean people who are not in that circumstance cannot be successful? Of course not.

It’s not a discriminatory thing. I’m not angry at anyone because of it, but I also have to be honest about what I believe marriage should be in our laws.

Republican leaders seem to be shying away from the issue. Is that a strategic move, or should they address gay marriage more directly?

In the short term, the number-one issue threatening our country is the economy. We have to remain focused on the primary issue before us, the fact that millions of Americans have been out of work and that’s what they look for their next President to help lead the way out of. That said, culture always matters. You can’t have a strong economy or a strong country without strong people. Just like the issue of life, it will always be important, but because the President has presided over such failed economic policies, he is deliberately looking to have a debate about anything other than the economy. From a strategic point of view, we need to be cognizant of that. After all, our faith teaches us to be as gentle as lambs but as wise as serpents.

You proposed legislation on whether employers should have to provide contraception. Do you see the Obama administration as hostile to religious freedom?

In order to make that kind of decision, you have to believe that somehow the wisdom of the government and what you believe government should do is more important than the constitutional protection of religious liberty and religious expression. They’re basically saying they believe it’s such a good and important idea that they think it is more important than what the Constitution protects. To me, it’s not even a religious argument but a constitutional one. If it were any other constitutional principle being violated, I’d be just as adamant about it.

You have also proposed legislation on immigration. From a policy perspective, should Christians emphasize compassion or the rule of law?

I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. You can do both. At no time does our faith call us to violate legal principles—on the contrary. We have to recognize that when we’re talking about immigration, we’re not talking about statistics. We’re talking about human beings, the vast majority of whom, the ones who are here legally, are here in search of jobs and a better life. That’s where the debate comes in:how do we balance those two things? That’s what I hope any future conversation about immigration reform will be balanced by—the balance between our compassion for our fellowman and the need to have rules that are followed.

As we see banks take high risks, how should the government be involved? Is market regulation a moral issue?

It certainly calls into question why the government was involved in bailing out these institutions that a couple years later are making the same risky decisions they were before. On the other hand, it reminds us that while J. P. Morgan lost $2 billion, the federal government this year will spend close to $1.5 trillion more than it takes in.

Given Christians’ view of human nature and depravity, is regulation a necessary part of policy? Can corporations be trusted to create optimal outcomes?

We want to make sure people cannot harm others by their irresponsible behavior. We have regulations on everything from how you treat your workers to how people should drive on the streets, regulations that say we can’t dump poison into our water system or pollute the air. My individual rights end where other people’s rights begin. I can’t exercise my rights to hurt other people.

Like everything else, there has to be balance, and that balance is usually in the form of a cost-benefit analysis. What is the benefit of the regulation, and what is the cost of the regulation? Sometimes the costs of the regulation are economic; sometimes there’s a cost to our personal freedom. People are willing to sacrifice a certain level of personal freedom in exchange for a public good, but there are limits to that. While government regulations are necessary, they’re not always necessary, and they’re not always good.

In this cost-benefit balance, how should the United States promote international religious freedom? What happens if it conflicts with our strategic interests?

We need to be clear that we stand for these principles. Any time America looks the other way for short-term economic or political benefit when these principles are being violated somewhere in the world, we lose a little bit of who we are and what makes us special. There’s always a temptation to make some pragmatic decision that we should tolerate some decision in some country because they’re an ally, or that we should look the other way because they’re too big and powerful and we need them for business. From the long-term perspective, we can’t afford to do that. We need to be consistent in what we stand for, principles that all men are given by our Creator.

I have to ask about your possible vice presidential nomination.

I’m not going to discuss the vice presidential nomination process. I know Mitt Romney is right now going through a process with the people he’s considering, and I am in no way going to comment on that, because it wouldn’t be fair to them.

Some have cited irregularities in your record as reasons you might not be asked to be vice president. What would you say to those who claim you have made financial slip-ups?

I’m not above criticism. I’m sure people will find fault with what I’ve done or failed to do. I would be the first to recognize that I’m not perfect. Sometimes these things are exaggerated. There are things I wish I had done differently because of perceptions. Most of these issues have been talked about extensively during my campaign in Florida. I confronted those issues and answered questions repeatedly, and I’d be more than happy to answer them again if people want to ask them specifically. Ultimately, I’ve lived a life with real mistakes and real successes. I’m proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish thanks to the opportunities this country has given me and the sacrifices my parents made.

In preparation for the 2012 election, how should Christians engage in the public sphere?

Well, there’s the spiritual activism, which saints are called to and which is separate from the political realm. If you’re living out your faith, it influences every aspect of your life. It teaches us to glorify God in everything we do. In everything we do in our lives, we’re called to bring glory to God, primarily by the way we live our lives and the things we do  so people will look to us and say, “That’s what it means to be a Christian; that’s what it means to be ambassadors of Christ.” If our faith influences every aspect of our lives, then if we decide to become politically active, it should influence that as well.

You distinguished spiritual activism from political activism. Do you see political activism as a ministry?

You can if that’s what you’re called to, for example, with how we treat the less fortunate. I believe in a safety net, not as a way of life, but as a way to help those who cannot help themselves. But I also believe the number one economic system that’s ever been created that allows people to rise above the circumstances of their birth and accomplish things beyond what they were born into is the American free enterprise system. My faith influences me in believing that. I don’t think everyone’s called to political engagement. No matter what we’re called to do, we are called to glorify God in what we do. For those of us who have been called to political action, we’re called by our faith to glorify God in the way we carry ourselves in these roles.

June 20, 2012 – 1:38 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Federal spending continues to skyrocket

Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs

Uploaded by on Sep 7, 2011

Share this on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/qnjkn9 Tweet it: http://tiny.cc/o9v9t

In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy goal, one point is forgotten: Government doesn’t create jobs. Government only diverts resources from one use to another, which doesn’t create new employment.

Video produced by Caleb Brown and Austin Bragg.

_____________

I have a lot of respect for Tea Party heroes like Tim Huelskamp , Idaho First District Congressman Raúl R. Labrador, and Justin Amash who are willing to vote against proposals that increase our spending. They all favor balancing the budget.   

It is a fact that we must balance the budget soon. I do not believe that we can wait to balance the budget at some distant time in the future. The financial markets will not allow us a long time to get our house in order. Look at how things have been going the last four years and no matter how anyone tries to spin it, we are going down the financial drain fast.

Brian Darling

May 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm

Spending has skyrocketed under President Obama, but of late some are claiming that the opposite is true. Case in point: MarketWatch columnist Rex Nutting wrote, “Obama spending binge never happened,” and Politifact rated this statement “mostly true.”

But Mitt Romney this week said that “Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelrated at a pace without precedent in recent history.” So who has it right? Mitt Romney.

What Politifact must have missed is a very important data point: President Obama signed most of the spending attributed to President George W. Bush’s last year in office, which was assigned wrongly to Bush in Nutting’s piece. (Heritage’s Emily Goff and Alison Fraser set the record straight on The Foundry.)

Nutting argues that President G.W. Bush’s second term spending bills from Fiscal Year 2006-2009 averaged 8.1% and President Obama’s annualized growth averaged 1.4%.  The reason why Nutting included FY 2009 is because it was “the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.”  This assumption is incorrect and dishonest.  This flaw in Nutting’s analysis is the reason why the Obama numbers are wrong and Nutting’s whole piece is based on flawed data.

Nutting operates under the flawed assumption that President Obama is not responsible for FY 2009 spending.  Under normal circumstances Nutting would be correct.  If Congress were a functioning body that passed appropriations bills on time, then this analysis would be correct.  The fact of the matter is that in recent history Congress has not done appropriations bills on time and in FY 2009, President Obama signed these spending bills into law that President Bush would have under different circumstances.

Usually, the president in office prior to a new president would have helped craft and sign into law government spending bills applied to the first 9 months of spending the next year and a president’s new term.  A fiscal year starts on October 1 of the year prior to the calendar year to September 30th of the calendar year.  In other words the fiscal year starts three months early.

In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008.  President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office.  They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending.  President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) maps out a history of the FY 2009 final appropriations bills (H.R. 1105 and PL 111-8), that would lead one to attribute most of the accelerated spending in FY 2009 to President Obama in a piece titled “2009 Legislative Summary: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus.” From CQ, “the omnibus provided a total of $1.05 trillion — $410 billion of it for discretionary programs — and included many of the domestic spending increases Democrats were unable to get enacted while George W. Bush was president.”  If accepted as true, this statement alone undercuts Nutting’s whole premise that FY 2009 is wholly Bush spending.

President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009:  Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security.  President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels.  President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills.  Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills.  Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills.  CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.”  And they did.

If you trust CQ’s reporting, and I do, then this is damning.  Democrats in Congress purposely held off on pushing bloated appropriations bills because they knew President Bush would not sign the bill and Republicans in the Senate would block consideration of it.  You have to remember that the Senate went from 51-49 Democrat control under President Bush’s last year to 59-41 in the early days of President Obama.  On April 28, 2009, Senator Arlen Specter switched parties from Republican to Democrat to give the Democrats a 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  The House had a similar conversion from a 233-202 Democrat majority to 257-178 Democrat majority. Democrats were banking on a big enough majorities in the Senate and House that they could pass the bloated spending bill and they got it.

Bush issued a veto threat on the bloated spending bills pending in Congress in late 2008.  CQ estimated that the final spending bill “provided about $31 billion more in discretionary funding than was included in the fiscal 2008 versions of the nine bills” which is “about $19 billion more than Bush sought.”  I would argue that Obama gets credit for the whole $31 billion in new spending.  The most damning fact from the CQ piece is that “Bush had threatened to veto spending bills that exceeded his request.”

Now one can argue that even $31 billion is a drop in the bucket when one considers that spending went from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.  Much of the spike in increased spending is on the mandatory spending side, and much of it can be attributed to President Obama.  Look at OMB Tables on FY 2008 spending versus FY 2009 spending and you can see why the numbers spiked between those two years.

Overall spending, mandatory and discretionary spending went from $2.98 trillion in FY 2008 to $3.52 trillion in FY 2009.  There were two of the big spikes in spending from FY’08 to ’09.  One was in Federal Payments for Individuals not including Social Security and Medicare from $758 billion in FY’08 to 918 billion in FY’09.  President Obama’s Stimulus spending bill included an increase in food stamps and an extension of unemployment benefits that should not be attributable to President Bush.  Also, the category of “Other Federal” spending spiked from $261 billion to $540 billion.  This includes TARP spending that was recovered on the back end by President Obama further distorting the Nutting analysis.

So how can Nutting attribute spending to President Bush that he expressly vowed to veto?  Also, some of the mandatory spending has been wrongly attributed to President Bush in Nutting’s analysis.  Finally, TARP spending under Bush and the recovery of TARP money under Obama further distorts these numbers.

This is unethical and fuzzy math.  The Truth-O-Meter may want to consider these facts when further analyzing the complications and distortions in analysis used by Nutting to argue that Obama is more fiscally responsible than his predecessors.

June 20, 2012 – 8:26 am Categories: President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

“Woody Wednesday” Allen new movie

Stardust Memories (1980) 1/7

Uploaded by on Oct 24, 2010

Stardust Memories is a 1980 film written and directed by Woody Allen, who considers this to be one of his best films in addition to The Purple Rose of Cairo and Match Point.[1] The film is shot in black-and-white, particularly reminiscent of Federico Fellini’s 8½ (1963), which it parodies. It was nominated for a Writers Guild of America award for “Best Comedy written directly for screen”.

It is the story of a famous filmmaker Sandy Bates (Allen), who is plagued by fans who prefer his “earlier, funnier movies” to his more recent artistic efforts, while he tries to reconcile his conflicting attraction to two very different women: the earnest, intellectual Daisy (Jessica Harper), and the more maternal Isobel (Marie-Christine Barrault). Meanwhile, he is also haunted by memories of his ex-girlfriend, the mercurial Dorrie (Charlotte Rampling).

______________________

To Rome With Love – Official Trailer [HD]

 Woody Allen new movie is “To Rome with Love” and it reminds many of the 1980 Allen movie “Stardust Memories.”

Woody Allen plays out his psychology on screen

By Susan Wloszczyna, USA TODAY June 19, 2012

NEW YORK — Ozymandias melancholia.

It’s a psychological state that is mentioned by two characters in Woody Allen‘s latest film, To Rome With Love, which opens Friday: Alec Baldwin’s wistful architect and Ellen Page‘s self-absorbed actress, both of whom claim to be afflicted.

It is also a rare clue about what makes one of American cinema’s greatest and most prolific artists tick.

Borrowing from the title of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s 1818 poem about a broken statue of a once-mighty king that is found in a desert, the phrase refers to a depression over the realization that nothing is permanent.

Don’t look for the malady in any medical textbook, though. Instead, watch Allen’s Stardust Memories from 1980, a caustic portrait of a filmmaker looking back over his life and creative output that stylistically echoes Italian master Federico Fellini‘s similarly autobiographical 8½ from 1963.

“It is a phrase I coined and felt entitled to use again,” Allen says while seated in the dark velvet-lined womb of his office and screening room on Park Avenue. “It is a contemporary syndrome.”

Does he worry that his films won’t be remembered? “I don’t care about my work lasting. I would like to last. They can turn my movies into guitar picks. Nothing lasts. Nothing at all. Not even the sun.”

Given such disturbing insights, it is hard to know whether all those years Allen spent in therapy paid off — or just made his existential despair into fodder for future features.

Turns out the locale of his new comedy is the perfect place to experience this condition amid all the crumbling ancient ruins. “You get that feeling in Rome all the time,” he says. “You are surrounded by what would have been a grand palace or building or statue. Now, like Ozymandias in the poem, it’s nothing but a headless trunk.”

He did find some refuge in the city’s reliably delicious cuisine. “That is one of the great treats of being there,” Allen says of his first filmmaking foray in the Eternal City. Jesse Eisenberg, who plays Page’s admirer, observed firsthand as the director enjoyed a pizza. “He eats it like everyone else,” reports the star of The Social Network. “One leg at a time.”

At least Woody fans now know the reason why, after more than 40 films in nearly half a century, the 76-year-old director refuses to take a break from his pace of averaging a movie a year.

Basically, he doesn’t want to think about being a headless trunk someday.

It also explains why he is not overly impressed by the fact that he just achieved the biggest box-office hit of his career with last year’s dreamily romantic Midnight in Paris.

The most enthusiasm he can summon for the $60-million-grossing film that led to his record third Oscar for an original screenplay is to describe it as “a happy accident.”

“I try my best on all of them,” says Allen, who has had his fair share of misses — most recently, 2010’s You Will Meet aTall Dark Stranger landed with a tall dark thud — mingled among successes. “Some work out nicely. Some work out not as nicely. Some work out better than that. For some reason, people had a great affection for Midnight in Paris. Who knows why?”

Baldwin, who appeared in Allen’s Alice in 1990 and already has signed up for his third Woody vehicle — a yet-to-be-titled project that starts shooting in August in New York and San Francisco — is grateful that the movies keep on coming. “A lesser effort by Woody is better than most of what is out there. If only every third movie grabs you by the lapels, it’s worth sitting by with the other two and waiting. Like rings on a tree, there are so many levels to his work.”

The setting sets the tone

Allen rarely affords himself the luxury of pondering the public’s reception of his efforts, especially as he continues to explore shooting in places far beyond his Manhattan comfort zone. To Rome With Love, which reflects the major influence of Italian cinema on his work, serves up a quartet of humorous vignettes, peppered with unfaithful lovers and reflections on the nature of celebrity, with a soundtrack that is heavy on Volare and Arrivederci Roma.

Ever since he switched to European settings, starting with London in 2005’s Match Point, Allen has allowed the mood of each city to dictate the tone of the movie. And his version of comedy Italian-style is very much a farce, albeit with an undercurrent of dark satire.

“There are such strong personalities to these cities,” he says. “Rome is chaotic, hilarious, joyfully alive and full of farce. Paris has a romantic lovers’ feel, a nostalgic feeling. In Italy, you don’t think back to the earlier eras so much. It really came into its own post-World War II, and that is when Italian filmmakers began to define their country for Americans. It is very energetic and lusty.”

As usual, the cast features Allen veterans such as Baldwin and Penelope Cruz (who in 2009 won an Oscar for Allen’s Vicky Cristina Barcelona), along with newcomers such as Eisenberg, Page and indie darling Greta Gerwig. Homegrown performers include Roberto Benigni, an Oscar winner for 1998’s Life Is Beautiful, as an average man who is suddenly hounded by paparazzi.

But the most noteworthy participant on-screen might be Allen himself, showing up in one of his own films for the first time since 2006’s Scoop. The conversation turns bittersweet as he regrets that he can no longer pull off the wisecracking swain role that he perfected in 1977’s Annie Hall.

“I would have liked to have played Jesse Eisenberg’s part, but I am too old,” he says. “I was always the guy sitting opposite the girl in the café, pitching her and making jokes and trying to make her fall in love with me.”

Not that he minds Queens native Eisenberg, 28, as his substitute. In fact, he agrees that they seem to have been fated to collaborate. “He gets it right off,” Allen says. “He speaks at double my speed. He is in that scrapbook of characters that I could be.”

Instead, Allen plays an unhappily retired and somewhat neurotic opera director who pins a comeback attempt on his discovery of an Italian mortician who can sing like Pavarotti — but only in the shower.

Though he says the retirement angle is parenthetical to the humor of the segment, it once again underlines his need to maintain his continuing existence in the world.

“I don’t see myself not working,” Allen says. “Not because of any great contribution I have to make, but because I would be sitting at home, brooding and being depressed. When I work, it keeps my mind on stupid, solvable problems. I’m thinking of the third act and how I can make it work.”

Being cast in your first Woody Allen film has long been a rite of passage, and Eisenberg is no different from the rest of his generation in coveting such a chance. He was fascinated to watch one of his idols on the job.

“There is such efficiency on his set,” he says. “He is so adept at handling all the myriad things that can come up. He does it with such ease. It is intimidating to work with someone who is a million times more interesting as a performer than you are.”

No spotlight for him

As is his routine, Allen was a no-show at this year’s Oscar ceremony despite four nominations for Midnight in Paris, including best picture. He can’t even vote, because he isn’t a member of the academy.

“I’m not a joiner,” Allen explains while missing an opportunity to reference his hero Groucho Marx‘s infamous quip: “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.”

Nor does the onetime stand-up comic who specialized in self-belittlement display his trophies — his directing win for Annie Hall brings his Oscar tally to four — in a place where others may admire them. “I hate to tell you where,” he says of the potential mini-Ozymandiases. “They’re in my closet on the top shelf. I’m not a person who has photographs around the house of movies that I’ve been in or people I’ve worked with or things I’ve won. It’s always embarrassed me.”

Besides, “I see them whenever I take my underwear out — which is every morning.”

Related posts:

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

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

“Woody Wednesday” Allen new movie

Stardust Memories (1980) 1/7 Uploaded by ghostrepublic on Oct 24, 2010 Stardust Memories is a 1980 film written and directed by Woody Allen, who considers this to be one of his best films in addition to The Purple Rose of Cairo and Match Point.[1] The film is shot in black-and-white, particularly reminiscent of Federico Fellini’s […]

Review of “To Rome with Love”

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

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

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

Sam Tanenhaus on Woody Allen’s Black Magic

To Rome with Love Trailer Official 2012 [HD] – Alec Baldwin, Jesse Eisenberg To Rome with Love hits theaters on June 22nd, 2012. Cast: Woody Allen, Alec Baldwin, Penelope Cruz, Jesse Eisenberg, Greta Gerwig, Ellen Page, Judy Davis, Alison Pill, Roberto Benigni, Isabella Ferrari, Sergio Rubini, Antonio Albanese, Fabio Armiliata, Alessandra Mastronardi, Ornella Muti, Flavio […]

Review: Allen’s ‘Rome’ delivers lackluster love

Penelope Cruz at “To Rome with Love” premiere Published on Jun 15, 2012 by CBSNewsOnline The Los Angeles Film Festival kicked off with Woody Allen’s latest film starring Penelope Cruz. KCAL 9′s Suzanne Marques reports from downtown L.A. at the premiere of “To Rome With Love.” _______________ Review of “To Rome with Love.” Review: Allen’s […]

Woody Allen: “I’m Immune to Whether My Films Do Well or Not”

Voto 10 Web TV – To Rome with Love – Jesse Eisenberg Published on Apr 20, 2012 by voto10cinema Puntata speciale su To Rome with Love della Web TV di Voto 10. Direttamente dal red carpet con Sonia Serafini e Eva Carducci l’intervista a Jesse Eisenberg. ____________________________ I really like the fact that Woody Allen […]

Review: Penelope Cruz, Robert Benigni Make Woody Allen’s “Rome” Movie

Ellen Page with Craig Ferguson 13.06.12 (‘To Rome With Love’) 1080p HD Good review of Woody Allen’s latest movie: Review: Penelope Cruz, Robert Benigni Make Woody Allen’s “Rome” Movie <!– –> After “Midnight in Paris,” you’re not getting–we’re not getting –a sequel, so forget it. Woody Allen’s “To Rome with Love” opens June 22nd after […]

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

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

Woody Allen’s worldview as seen in his movies

  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 […]

“Woody Wednesdays” Woody Allen on God and Death

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

Woody Allen’s career in pictures “Woody Wednesday”

  Sleepers (1973)   Allen (left) wrote, directed and starred in this oddball love story, set 200 years in the future.  It was his first on-screen collaboration with Diane Keaton (second left), who went on to become one of the director’s muses in the early days of his career.   Bananas (1971)    en cast […]

Woody Allen on politics “Woody Wednesday”

Woody Allen on politics. Top political strategist Woody Allen thinks Obama would get much more done as dictator; No, really May 18, 2010 |  2:22 am The notorious and formerly funny movie director Woody Allen is apparently frustrated with the cumbersome operations of American democracy too. The one-time-father-now-husband-of-his-daughter tells the Spanish-language magazine La Vanguardia that the […]

 

June 20, 2012 – 8:25 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Lowering taxes is the way to generate jobs

“Raise taxes now!” Thom has a rumble w/ JD Foster of the Heritage Foundation

The flat tax is the way to get the job creators in our nations geared up. Is there any better way to get job creation started?

Curtis Dubay

May 10, 2012 at 2:30 pm

There he goes again. It seems that President Obama just can’t help himself. He keeps pushing Congress to pass policies it has rejected in the past or has foolishly passed to little beneficial effect.

The latest recycling of policies comes from the President’s Post-It note to-do list for Congress. If only Congress’s actual to-do list was so small.

Besides leaving out the most pressing issues facing the country—reforming entitlement programs and full-scale tax reform—the President’s to-do list for Congress curiously leaves off the most urgent issue it needs to tackle right now. That would be Taxmageddon and the $494 billion tax hike that will slam the economy on January 1, 2013, unless Congress and President Obama act soon to stop it.

In addition to calling for an extension of the Wind Production Tax Credit and an expansion of the 30 percent tax credit for investments in clean energy manufacturing, the tax polices the to-do list contains are a credit for small businesses that hire new workers and the President’s misguided “insourcing” agenda.

Really? Again with this hiring tax credit stuff? We’ve been there, done that, and have no jobs to show for it. In 2010, Congress passed and President Obama signed into law a tax credit for businesses that added new workers. It failed to create jobs then, and repeating it will fail to create jobs now.

Hiring tax credits do not work, because businesses add new workers when those additional employees will increase profitability over the duration of their tenure. A temporary one-year credit does little to tip this basic calculation in favor of adding new positions, because most businesses expect to retain workers for longer than a year.

The President first proposed his insourcing plan earlier this year. It would take away tax deductions for businesses that supposedly move jobs overseas and reward businesses that move jobs here. The whole premise of the idea is fatally flawed, and his pushing this plan shows that President Obama fundamentally misunderstands how the global economy works.

U.S. businesses rarely pack up their operations here and move them overseas. Instead, they open new operations in other countries as a way to chase growing demand for their goods or services in new, emerging markets. This is nothing but good news for the U.S. An American business finding a new market for its product means more jobs created at the business’s U.S. headquarters and more income flowing back to America. Why would President Obama want to discourage this?

By punishing companies that seek opportunity abroad and rewarding those that happen to bring jobs back, Obama assumes that those businesses doing the latter are better for the economy and are creating more jobs. But he cannot possibly know which businesses are better or which create more jobs.

The government can never know which businesses are better at creating jobs, because it does not have access to the broad range of information available to the diffuse network of individuals and businesses that comprise the free market.

It is time for President Obama to stop rehashing and recycling old, failed tax policies for perceived narrow political benefit and focus on the tax policies that would be broadly beneficial to the economy. First, stop Taxmageddon right now. Second, implement fundamental tax reform along the lines of the New Flat Tax.

Now that fits neatly on a Post-It note.

June 20, 2012 – 8:24 am Categories: President Obama, Taxes | Post a comment

Review of “To Rome with Love”

Jesse Eisenberg – Press Conference “To Rome With Love”

Published on Apr 21, 2012 by

Review: Allen’s ‘Rome’ delivers lackluster love

Published: Tuesday, June 19 2012 11:06 a.m. MDT

By David Germain

This film image released by Sony Pictures Classics shows, : Alec Baldwin as John, left, and Jesse Eisenberg as Jack in a scene from “To Rome With Love.”

Sony Pictures Classics, Philippe Antonello, Associated Press

INTERVIEW: Jesse Eisenberg on working with Woody Allen at the To Rome With Love Press Conference at Hotel Parco Dei Principi in Rome, Italy on April 13, 2012.

____________

Woody Allen’s “To Rome with Love” began with better titles. Yet despite the exquisite locations of the filmmaker’s first story of love, Italian style, this bland ensemble romance deserves the generic name rather than the clever working titles it started with.

Allen initially called it “Bop Decameron,” then changed it to “Nero Fiddled” before he and his distributor decided to slip in the name of the Eternal City.

Hey, it helped to have the City of Light mentioned in the title of last year’s Allen hit “Midnight in Paris.” So putting Rome in the name makes good marketing sense to hint that his latest continues the trend of light romance in a beautiful Old World capital.

Unfortunately, “To Rome with Love” lives up — or rather, lives down — to the superficial postcard sentiment of its title.

Weaving four stories of Italians and American visitors, the writer-director creates a lot of clever moments with his ensemble comedy that features Allen’s first on-screen appearance since 2006’s “Scoop.” In between the good times, the story and characters just drift about awkwardly, stuck on a walking tour of Rome that continually bumps up against dead ends, or worse, circles back so we wind up seeing the same things a few times too many.

It’s hard to even pick out a highlight among the four stories. Parts of each story work quite well, while other portions just weigh the scenarios down.

The film almost comes down to how well the actors inhabit their roles. Allen’s known for giving his cast plenty of leeway. That’s often resulted in Academy Award performances, and just as often has left Allen’s stars nervously milling around.

There are no Oscar prospects on screen in “To Rome with Love,” but Alec Baldwin conveys a sense of wistful nostalgia as an architect seemingly strolling into his own memories of Italy in his youth.

Baldwin’s a wry, omniscient commentator wafting in and out of a love triangle involving Jack (Jesse Eisenberg), Sally (Greta Gerwig) and her seductive pal Monica (Ellen Page). Gerwig’s sadly cast as a flavorless third wheel, but Eisenberg and Page are so tentative and cold in their supposedly impetuous fling that they seem like neutered pups alongside old hound Baldwin.

Roberto Benigni manages a few laughs as a dreary but contented family man hurled into notoriety after Rome’s press and paparazzi inexplicably choose him as a person of interest, shadowing him like an A-lister and hanging on his every word about what he had for breakfast. It’s a lightweight commentary on fleeting fame, and the gimmick quickly wears thin.

The weakest of the stories centers on naive newlyweds Antonio and Milly (Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi), who come to Rome for a fresh start but end up separated and tossed into romantic misadventures with others. Antonio winds up with a bombshell hooker (Penelope Cruz, an Oscar winner for Allen’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”), Milly with an Italian movie star (Antonio Albanese).

Antonio and Milly’s meanderings are pointless and uninvolving. Cruz, however, knows how to play voluptuous in her sleep, so she makes her little corner of the scenario fun and sexy.

Allen co-stars as retired music producer Jerry, who comes to Rome with his wife, Phyllis (Allen veteran Judy Davis) to meet the Italian fiance of their daughter, Hayley (“Midnight in Paris” co-star Alison Pill).

After Jerry hears the sublime opera vocals of Hayley’s future father-in-law, Giancarlo (Italian tenor Fabio Armiliato) from the shower, he’s determined to make the humble undertaker into a star. Giancarlo insists he sings only for personal pleasure, and when he auditions at Jerry’s insistence, he discovers that his talent fails him outside the shower.

You can guess the rest. The scenes of Giancarlo performing on stage could have become as repetitious as the media’s pursuit of Benigni, but Allen shows enough restraint and gives the sequences enough diversity that they remain consistently funny.

The time away from the screen hasn’t helped Allen’s acting chops. He’s curiously listless as Jerry, and Davis, who was razor-sharp in Allen’s “Husbands and Wives,” rarely rises above dreary hen-pecking as his wife.

The ineffable magic that made “Midnight in Paris” click eludes Allen here. When in Paris, Allen’s gimmicks coalesced into a sly, engaging romantic fantasy.

When in Rome, though, it’s not Nero who’s fiddling, but Allen, bopping and dithering around the city like a tourist so desperate to cram in all the sights that he comes away only with a few crisp highlights and a lot of out-of-focus snapshots.

“To Rome with Love,” a Sony Pictures Classics release, is rated R for some sexual references. Running time: 112 minutes. Two stars out of four.

Related posts:

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

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

“Woody Wednesday” Allen new movie

Stardust Memories (1980) 1/7 Uploaded by ghostrepublic on Oct 24, 2010 Stardust Memories is a 1980 film written and directed by Woody Allen, who considers this to be one of his best films in addition to The Purple Rose of Cairo and Match Point.[1] The film is shot in black-and-white, particularly reminiscent of Federico Fellini’s […]

Review of “To Rome with Love”

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

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

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

Sam Tanenhaus on Woody Allen’s Black Magic

To Rome with Love Trailer Official 2012 [HD] – Alec Baldwin, Jesse Eisenberg To Rome with Love hits theaters on June 22nd, 2012. Cast: Woody Allen, Alec Baldwin, Penelope Cruz, Jesse Eisenberg, Greta Gerwig, Ellen Page, Judy Davis, Alison Pill, Roberto Benigni, Isabella Ferrari, Sergio Rubini, Antonio Albanese, Fabio Armiliata, Alessandra Mastronardi, Ornella Muti, Flavio […]

Review: Allen’s ‘Rome’ delivers lackluster love

Penelope Cruz at “To Rome with Love” premiere Published on Jun 15, 2012 by CBSNewsOnline The Los Angeles Film Festival kicked off with Woody Allen’s latest film starring Penelope Cruz. KCAL 9′s Suzanne Marques reports from downtown L.A. at the premiere of “To Rome With Love.” _______________ Review of “To Rome with Love.” Review: Allen’s […]

Woody Allen: “I’m Immune to Whether My Films Do Well or Not”

Voto 10 Web TV – To Rome with Love – Jesse Eisenberg Published on Apr 20, 2012 by voto10cinema Puntata speciale su To Rome with Love della Web TV di Voto 10. Direttamente dal red carpet con Sonia Serafini e Eva Carducci l’intervista a Jesse Eisenberg. ____________________________ I really like the fact that Woody Allen […]

Review: Penelope Cruz, Robert Benigni Make Woody Allen’s “Rome” Movie

Ellen Page with Craig Ferguson 13.06.12 (‘To Rome With Love’) 1080p HD Good review of Woody Allen’s latest movie: Review: Penelope Cruz, Robert Benigni Make Woody Allen’s “Rome” Movie <!– –> After “Midnight in Paris,” you’re not getting–we’re not getting –a sequel, so forget it. Woody Allen’s “To Rome with Love” opens June 22nd after […]

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

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

Woody Allen’s worldview as seen in his movies

  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 […]

“Woody Wednesdays” Woody Allen on God and Death

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

Woody Allen’s career in pictures “Woody Wednesday”

  Sleepers (1973)   Allen (left) wrote, directed and starred in this oddball love story, set 200 years in the future.  It was his first on-screen collaboration with Diane Keaton (second left), who went on to become one of the director’s muses in the early days of his career.   Bananas (1971)    en cast […]

Woody Allen on politics “Woody Wednesday”

Woody Allen on politics. Top political strategist Woody Allen thinks Obama would get much more done as dictator; No, really May 18, 2010 |  2:22 am The notorious and formerly funny movie director Woody Allen is apparently frustrated with the cumbersome operations of American democracy too. The one-time-father-now-husband-of-his-daughter tells the Spanish-language magazine La Vanguardia that the […]

 

June 20, 2012 – 8:23 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment