Remembering Francis Schaeffer at 100 (Part 11) “Schaeffer Sunday”

The Gospel of Christ in the pages of the Bible

_______________________

 This year Francis Schaeffer would have turned 100 on Jan 30, 2012. I remember like yesterday when I first was introduced to his books. I was even more amazed when I first saw his films. I was so influenced by them that I bought every one of his 30 something books and his two film series. Chuck Colson’s website www.breakpoint.org  and I was directed from there to Probe’s website where I found this great article below. I will share it in 4 parts. Todd Kappelman is the author and here is some info on him and Probe.

Todd KappelmanTodd A. Kappelman is a field associate with Probe Ministries. He is a graduate of Dallas Baptist University (B.A. and M.A.B.S., religion and Greek), and the University of Dallas (M.A., philosophy/humanities). Currently he is pursuing a Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Dallas. He has served as assistant director of the Trinity Institute, a study center devoted to Christian thought and inquiry. He has been the managing editor of The Antithesis, a bi-monthly publication devoted to the critique of foreign and independent film. His central area of expertise is Continental philosophy (especially nineteenth and twentieth century) and postmodern thought.

What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3-minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.

Further information about Probe’s materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:

Probe Ministries
2001 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 2000
Plano TX 75075
(972) 941-4565
info@probe.org
www.probe.org
Copyright information

This is the fifth part:

The Need to Read: Francis Schaeffer Print E-mail

Todd Kappelman Written by Todd Kappelman

The Need to Read series began several months ago with a program on C.S. Lewis . The rationale for this series is that many of the great writers who have helped many Christians mature are now either unknown or neglected by many who could use these authors insights into the faith.

This installment focuses on Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984), one of the most recognized and respected Christian authors of the twentieth century.

Francis Schaeffer and “The Man Without a Bible”

The purpose of this discussion of the works of Francis Schaeffer is that we hope Christians will once again turn to this great apologist for the Christian faith and learn from him. In closing, we will address one of his lesser known works titled Death In The City. In chapter seven, The Man Without a Bible, Schaeffer offers some advice for Christians living in a post-Christian world. He argues very convincingly that the church in America has largely turned away from God and the knowledge of the things of God. This occurred in just a few short decades, from the 1920s to the 1960s.{12}

We must always bear in mind that many people do not believe that the Bible is inspired or authoritative. For these people the Bible is just another book. The dismantling of biblical authority has been very efficient in the last 150 years. Very few of our major secular universities treat the Bible as authoritative anymore. Yet many of these universities were founded at a time when no one would have doubted the importance of the Holy Scriptures. The majority of men at the end of this century hold vastly different views about the Bible than did their ancestors at the close of the previous century. So, how do we share the Christian message with the man without the Bible?

Schaeffer cites three instances where Paul spoke to non-Christians and did not appeal to the Scriptures. These are found in Acts 14:15-17; 17:16-32, and Romans 1:18-2:16. The reason that Paul did not use the Scriptures on these three occasions is that the people he was addressing did not recognize the claims that the Holy Scriptures made on their lives. In approaching these individuals, Paul appealed to the moral knowledge that men possess as a feature of their created being. Schaeffer refers to this as the manishness of man.

In Romans 1:18 we have the description of Gods wrath being poured out on man. Schaeffer believes that this is an ideal place to approach modern man. We may tell the modern non-believer that he knows that God exists and that he has suppressed this knowledge. (The knowledge of God must be understood here as natural revelation, and not the gospel.) Paul means that each and every man, regardless of what he says, knows that God exists. This knowledge of God that the non-believer possesses is supplemented by the moral argument for Gods existence. The fact that men hold beliefs about right and wrong betrays the fact that they know that God necessarily exists. Men willingly suppress this knowledge of God and this brings His wrath.

The man without the Bible has suppressed the natural revelation of God, not the special revelation found in the Scriptures. The man without the Bible has not followed his initial knowledge of God to the proper conclusions and therefore remains lost. The many men without the Bible present both an opportunity and a challenge for the Christian. The opportunity is that this man is lost and Christians can share their faith with him. The challenge is in showing these lost people how the world around them and the human nature within them point toward the existence of God.

Francis Schaeffer was wonderful at discussing Christian truths with non-believers without appealing to the Scriptures. It is our loss if we do not familiarize ourselves with, and use, the works of one of this countrys greatest Christian thinkers.

Notes

  1. J.I. Packer, forward to Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy, by Francis Schaeffer (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 1990), xiv.
  2. Hosea 4:6.
  3. Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There in Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 1990), 109-114.
  4. Ibid., 196.
  5. Ibid., 217-224.
  6. Ibid., 225-236.
  7. Ibid., 261-270.
  8. Ibid., 207-208.
  9. Francis Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent in Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 1990), 277.
  10. Ibid., 275-290.
  11. Ibid., 291-302.
  12. Ibid., 211.

©1999 Probe Ministries.

schaeffer

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer would be 100 years old this year (Schaeffer Sunday)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2 Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970′s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him. Francis Schaeffer 1912-1984 Christian Theologian, Philosopher, […]

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

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

Fellow admirer of Francis Schaeffer, Michele Bachmann quits presidential race

What Ever Happened to the Human Race? Bachmann was a student of the works of Francis Schaeffer like I am and I know she was pro-life because of it. (Observe video clip above and picture of Schaeffer.) I hated to see her go.  DES MOINES, Iowa — Last night, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann vowed to […]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Francis Schaeffer would be 100 years old this year (Schaeffer Sunday)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2 Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970′s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him. Francis Schaeffer 1912-1984 Christian Theologian, Philosopher, […]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Rooney was an atheist

How Now Shall We LiveClick here to purchase Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey’s How Now Shall We Live?, dedicated to Francis Schaeffer.


Click here for a list of Francis Schaeffer’s greatest works, from the Colson Center store!
SchaefferBooks
June 16, 2012 – 7:00 pm Categories: Francis Schaeffer | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , |

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

Uploaded by on Jul 15, 2009

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

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

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

_________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, that’s my position.

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

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

June 16, 2012 – 7:39 am Categories: Atheists Confronted, Current Events | Post a comment

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

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

From Wikipedia:

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

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

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

Grand Slam finals (11)

[edit] Singles: (7–4)

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

Related posts:

Jack Sock “Tennis Tuesday”

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

Gael Monfils “Tennis Tuesday”

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

“Tennis Tuesday” David Wheaton (Part 4)

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

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 6

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

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 5

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

 

June 16, 2012 – 7:38 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry Part 3

Uploaded by on Oct 22, 2011

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

__________

Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry Part 3

Wikipedia talks about the Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry:

[edit] Notable games

[edit] 1908 – First Meeting

Arkansas 33 – Ole Miss 0

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

[edit] 1914 – Contentious result

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

[edit] 1954 – Powder River Pass

Arkansas 6 – Ole Miss 0

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

[edit] 1959

Ole Miss 28 – Arkansas 0

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

[edit] 1960

Ole Miss 10 – Arkansas 7

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

[edit] 1963 Sugar Bowl with National Championship implications

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

Ole Miss 17 – Arkansas 13

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

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

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

[edit] 2001 – Record 7-Overtime Game

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

Arkansas 58 – Ole Miss 56 (7OT)

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

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

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

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

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

June 15, 2012 – 10:48 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Michael Tanner: “Time for Republicans to live up to the hype and get truly serious about cutting spending.”

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

Uploaded by on Dec 15, 2008

Based on a theory known as Keynesianism, politicians are resuscitating the notion that more government spending can stimulate an economy. This mini-documentary produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation examines both theory and evidence and finds that allowing politicians to spend more money is not a recipe for better economic performance.

_____________

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,  and they want to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment.    

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 and headed to Greece!!!

Baby Budget Hawks of the GOP

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 May 23, 2012

This article appeared in National Review (Online) on May 23, 2012

The conventional wisdom, pushed for very different reasons by both Republicans and Democrats, is that Republicans in Congress, controlled by radical tea-partiers, have been slashing government spending. Thus it becomes a little hard to understand how, in the few short months since last year’s debt-ceiling deal, the federal debt has increased by more than $1.5 trillion, roughly $13,000 per household. If Republicans are such great budget cutters, how come we continue to spend more, run more deficits, and accumulate more debt?

The latest evidence suggests that it is because, contrary to conventional wisdom, Republicans still aren’t such radical budget hawks after all.

For example, the latest Club for Growth scorecard suggests that, on the whole, Republicans in this congress have actually been less fiscally responsible than those in past congresses. For 2011, the average Republican received a weighted score of 69.5 out of 100. That’s far short of the 86.3 average score in 2010, and it hardly suggests a tea-party-led wave of austerity.

Forty Republicans received scores of 90 or higher, and nine — Representatives Amash (Mich.), Chaffetz (Utah), Flake (Ariz.), Franks (Ariz.), Graves (Ga.), Huelskamp (Kan.), Jordan (Ohio), Labrador (Idaho), and Lamborn (Colo.) — received perfect scores of 100 percent. However, 25 Republicans had scores below 50. In fact six Republicans – Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Diaz-Balart (Fla.), McKinley (W.Va.), Smith (N.J.), Young (Alaska), and LoBiando (N.J.) — had scores worse than those of some Democrats, such as Dan Boren (Okla.). Interestingly, for all the attention paid to freshmen representatives who are supposedly in hock to the Tea Party, only three freshmen — Amash, Huelskamp, and Labrador — received perfect scores, while three other freshmen — Representatives Dold (Ill.), Meehan (Pa.), and McKinley — were among the worst-performing Republicans. Compare this with 2010, when 28 Republicans received a perfect score from the Club for Growth and only two had scores below 50.

Republicans still seem unwilling to make the tough choices when it comes to spending cuts.

Of course one could be argue that scorecards that focus on specific votes are not a particularly good measure of a lawmaker’s overall record. Perhaps the votes were tougher this year, or the Club for Growth stopped scoring on a curve. Let’s take a look, then, at a slightly different measure of fiscal responsibility, the National Taxpayer Union’s latest measure of proposed spending increases and cuts by members of Congress. By this measure, there has also been an improvement by Republicans in this congress, but not an overwhelming one.

On an annualized basis, Republicans in the House proposed spending increases of $5.3 billion and cuts of $135 billion. Thus, if every one of their proposals had passed, total federal spending would have been reduced by $130.2 billion, which is 3.6 percent of this year’s projected spending. That would still have left us with a budget deficit this year of $1.17 trillion.

That’s an improvement over last year, when Republicans proposed a net spending reduction of only $45 billion. So it’s a baby step in the right direction — but far from what we need to keep us from falling off the debt-and-deficit cliff.

Moreover, the actual Republican record is not quite as good as even this baby step looks, because nearly all Republicans backed the repeal of Obamacare, which accounts for $40.3 billion of the annualized savings. Supporting repeal was easy, and it had no actual chance of passing. If we take that away, then Republicans called for only $95.3 billion in other cuts, which is roughly 2.6 percent of federal spending. Overall, Republicans still seem unwilling to make the tough choices when it comes to spending cuts.

Those Republicans proposing the biggest net reductions in spending are Representatives Jason Chaffetz (Utah), Trent Franks (Ariz.), and Jeff Duncan (S.C.). Among the freshmen class in the House, Representatives Duncan, Huelskamp, Labrador, and Guinta proposed the largest net reductions, with the first three also receiving near-perfect Club for Growth scores.

On the other side, ten House Republicans actually proposed net spending increases, among them Representatives Chris Smith (N.J.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.) and Patrick Meehan (Pa.). Notably, Representatives Gibson and Meehan were also among those with the worst voting records, according to the Club for Growth.

Let’s look at one more measure of Republican seriousness when it comes to debt and deficit reduction: the most recent budget votes. Nearly all House Republicans, of course, voted in favor of the Ryan budget. While certainly not perfect — it would take more than 20 years to achieve balance — the Ryan budget nonetheless laid down an important marker on entitlement reform and spending restraint. Among the ten House Republicans who voted against the Ryan budget were both those who thought it spent too much money (Representatives Amash and Huelskamp) and those who thought it didn’t spend enough (Representatives Gibson and McKinley, of course).

In the Senate, Republicans were less likely to support the Ryan budget, in part because Senate rules allowed them more alternatives. Still, the results from a fiscal-responsibility perspective were mixed. Only 16 Republicans supported the most fiscally conservative alternative, proposed by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. They picked up one more vote for a proposed budget by Senator Mike Lee of Utah. A third proposal by Pennsylvania’s Senator Pat Toomey garnered 32 votes, and the original Ryan budget received 41. Four Republican senators voted against all four alternatives: Brown (Mass.), Collins (Maine), Heller (Nev.), and Snowe (Maine).

Recent weeks have also seen Republicans in the House vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, an example of corporate welfare if there ever was one, and abandon the sequester for cuts in military spending. Senate Republicans also agreed on a highway bill that hikes the deficit in the long run.

None of this suggests that Republicans were not generally more fiscally conservative than Democrats. The average Democrat score on the Club for Growth Scorecard was only 10.95 out of 100. All but three Democrats in the House scored below every Republican, and six Democrats received a score of 0. The average Democrat proposed net spending increases of $496 billion — almost half a trillion dollars in new net spending. Not a single Democrat voted for the Ryan budget, or for any of the lower-spending alternatives.

But better is not good enough.

Unless Washington gets spending under control, we are headed toward a debt crisis of Greek proportions, and time is running out. It’s time for Republicans to live up to the hype and get truly serious about cutting spending.

June 15, 2012 – 7:18 am Categories: Cato Institute, spending out of control | Post a comment

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

chelsea_clinton1.jpg

Milton Friedman – Redistribution of Wealth

Uploaded by on Feb 12, 2010

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

_______________________________

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

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

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

Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times noted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________

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

Uploaded by on Nov 1, 2009

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

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

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

Our Economic Past | Burton W. Folsom Jr.

Equality, Markets, and Morality

September 2008 • Volume: 58 • Issue: 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failure During the New Deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressive Claims in Light of History

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

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

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

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

June 15, 2012 – 7:18 am Categories: Current Events, Milton Friedman, spending out of control, Taxes | Post a comment

FDR’s D-day prayer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 15, 2012 – 7:15 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

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

Saturday 14 July 2012

Switchfoot

Venue

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

Venue info and map

Uploaded by  on Aug 20, 2007

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

_______________________________________

SwitchfootSwitchfootCourtesy of: EMI

 

Making of Stars-Switchfoot

 

Switchfoot The Documentary

 

June 15, 2012 – 7:12 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry Part 1

1970 Sugar Bowl 1st Quarter

Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry Part 1

Wikipedia talks about the Arkansas and Ole Miss football rivalry:

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

1970 Sugar Bowl 2nd Quarter (2)

History

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

1970 Sugar Bowl 3rd Quarter

Pre 1980s

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

1970 Sugar Bowl 4th Quarter

June 14, 2012 – 7:18 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

“The Failure of Socialism” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 4)

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full)

Published on Mar 19, 2012 by

Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you.

Ronald Reagan introduces this program, and traces a line from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” to Milton Friedman’s work, describing Free to Choose as “a survival kit for you, for our nation and for freedom.” Dr. Friedman travels to Hungary and Czechoslovakia to learn how Eastern Europeans are rebuilding their collapsed economies. His conclusion: they must accept the verdict of history that governments create no wealth. Economic freedom is the only source of prosperity. That means free, private markets. Attempts to find a “third way” between socialism and free markets are doomed from the start. If the people of Eastern Europe are given the chance to make their own choices they will achieve a high level of prosperity. Friedman tells us individual stories about how small businesses struggle to survive against the remains of extensive government control. Friedman says, “Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state, needs to be gotten into the hands of private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values.” Eastern Europe has observed the history of free markets in the United States and wants to copy our success. After the documentary, Dr. Friedman talks further about government and the economy with Gary Becker of the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. In a wide-ranging discussion, they disagree about the results of economic controls in countries around the world, with Friedman defending his thesis that the best government role is the smallest one.
___________
Below is a portion of the transcript of the program and above you will find the complete video of the program:
 

DISCUSSION

Hello, I am Linda Chavez and welcome to Free to Choose. Joining Dr. Friedman for a discussion of the failure of socialism are Gary Becker from the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. Dr. Bowles, I think we can all agree that socialism has failed Eastern Europe. Dr. Friedman believes that the path out of that is the free market and I think he thinks there are lessons for the United States.

Chavez: I would like to bring this discussion back to the United States for a moment. What about socialism in the United States. There has been one area where we have tried to redistribute wealth. We have done that through our welfare policies and social security. Has that worked?

Friedman: For some people, it benefited, but taken as a whole, I think it has been a failure.

Becker: I agree with that. I think the big problem in the United States has been, of course, some of the welfare programs have been successful. But by trying to do too many things, the government is no longer doing the things that it should be doing. We all agree there are many things government should be doing. I agree with Milton __ he is a strong man to be say this is an issue between no government and 100% government. The question is what are the tasks that government should be doing. I believe the tasks are, of course, defense against outside aggression, internal protection, some infrastructure, protection of the people can’t make it. In every one of these areas, we are not doing very well. I think we are not doing well mainly because we are trying to do a lot of things we shouldn’t be doing. They can’t do all of them.

Chavez: I couldn’t help but think, Dr. Bowles, as I watched that film that the public housing area that we saw in Eastern Europe and the problems that we have here in the United States. Aren’t there some lessons to be learned?

Bowles: There is absolutely no reason why housing shouldn’t be privately owned. That does not mean that the government has no role in housing. It seems to me that housing is precisely something that ought to be a matter of private property. But we also know, from the experience of this country, that the market itself doesn’t provide housing that the rest of the public thinks is adequate for the vast majority of poor people in this country. Now that doesn’t mean it has to be done by government building the houses, but it certainly does mean that something has to be done or we are going to have the kind of homeless crisis that we have in this country and they are getting one in Eastern Europe too.

Becker: The homeless crisis is a tiny fraction of the population of the United States. Let’s not make that a major part of the housing problem in the United States. I am not at all convinced that there is any evidence suggesting that the private system cannot provide adequate housing. I think there is a good case to be made that there are poor people in this country and the government obviously has to help them out. We all agree on that. But should they be doing it by building housing or by giving them income and permitting them to spend as they see fit. I see no evidence from the U.S. or any other country who were better off when then government takes a major role in housing or any of these other particular activities that allocate resources.

Friedman: What role has been played in the difficulty of getting housing by government interventions? By rent control? By excessive building code regulations, many of which are designed to protect the interests of special groups. Government played a very large role.

June 14, 2012 – 7:16 am Categories: Milton Friedman | Post a comment