How free is the USA today?

Uploaded by on Jan 6, 2012

According to the 2012 Index of Economic Freedom, a joint publication of The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, global economic freedom has declined over the past year. But what does this mean for America and the world?

Economic freedom empowers ordinary people with greater opportunity and individual choice, and it lets people decide for themselves how best to achieve their highest aspirations. From the amount a government spends, to the individual property rights extended to its citizens, a nation’s economic freedom is closely tied to key values like the elimination of poverty and freedom from corruption.

To learn more about economic freedom and view the 2012 Index country rankings, visit us online at heritage.org/Index

Freedom abundant in the USA? I got this info below from the Heritage Foundation:

Bar Graph of United States Economic Freedom Scores Over a Time Period 

2012 Index of Economic Freedom

United States

 

 

overall score76.3
world rank10
 
Rule of Law

Property Rights85.0

Freedom From Corruption71.0

Limited Government

Government Spending46.7

Fiscal Freedom69.8

Regulatory Efficiency

Business Freedom91.1

Labor Freedom95.8

Monetary Freedom77.2

Open Markets

Trade Freedom86.4

Investment Freedom70.0

Financial Freedom70.0

Embed This Data

Create a Comparison Chart

See how United States compares to another country using any of the measures in the Index.

vs

Download PDF

Quick Facts
  • Population:
    • 310.0 million
  • GDP (PPP):
    • $14.7 trillion
    • 2.8% growth
    • 0.9% 5-year compound annual growth
    • $47,284 per capita
  • Unemployment:
    • 9.6%
  • Inflation (CPI):
    • 1.6%
  • FDI Inflow:
    • $228.2 billion

The United States’ economic freedom score of 76.3 drops it to 10th place in the 2012 Index. Its score is 1.5 points lower than last year, reflecting deteriorating scores for government spending, freedom from corruption, and investment freedom. The U.S. is ranked 2nd out of three countries in the North America region, and its overall score remains well above the world and regional averages.

The U.S. economy faces enormous challenges. Although the foundations of economic freedom remain strong, recent government interventions have eroded limits on government, and public spending by all levels of government now exceeds one-third of total domestic output. The regulatory burden on business continues to increase rapidly, and heightened uncertainty further increases regulations’ negative impact. Fading confidence in the government’s determination to promote or even sustain open markets has discouraged entrepreneurship and dynamic investment within the private sector.

Restoring the U.S. economy to the status of a “free” economy will require significant policy changes to reduce the size of government, overhaul the tax system, and transform costly entitlement programs. By boosting growth in the private sector, such freedom-enhancing policies are the best hope for bringing down high unemployment rates and reducing public debt to manageable levels.

Background

The U.S. economy, the world’s largest, has not recovered fully from the 2008 financial crisis and ensuing recession. Under Democratic President Barack Obama, the federal system of government, designed to reserve significant powers to the state and local levels, has been strained by the national government’s rapid expansion. Spending at the national level rose to over 25 percent of GDP in 2010, and gross public debt surpassed 100 percent of GDP in 2011. A 2010 health care bill that greatly expanded the central government’s reach has been under challenge in the courts, and the Dodd–Frank financial overhaul bill has roiled credit markets. Although the election of a Republican Party majority in the House of Representatives in late 2010 slowed spending growth, divided government has left U.S. economic policy in flux.

Rule of LawView Methodology

Property Rights 85.0 Create a Graph using this measurement

Freedom From Corruption 71.0 Create a Graph using this measurement

Property rights are guaranteed, and the judiciary functions independently and predictably. Serious constitutional questions related to government-mandated health insurance have been under consideration in the courts. Corruption is a growing concern as the cronyism and economic rent-seeking associated with the growth of government have undermined institutional integrity.

Limited GovernmentView Methodology

In the absence of comprehensive tax reforms, the top individual and corporate tax rates remain at 35 percent. Other taxes include a capital gains tax and excise taxes, with the overall tax burden amounting to 24 percent of total domestic income. Government expenditures have grown to 42.2 percent of GDP, and the budget deficit is close to 10 percent of GDP. Total public debt is now larger than the size of the economy.

Regulatory EfficiencyView Methodology

Business start-up procedures are efficient, and the labor market remains flexible. However, over 70 new major regulations have been imposed since early 2009, with annual costs of more than $38 billion. There were only six major deregulatory actions during that time, with reported savings of just $1.5 billion. Although inflation is under control, price distortions caused by government interventions persist.

Open MarketsView Methodology

The trade weighted average tariff rate is 1.8 percent, with non-tariff barriers such as “buy American” procurement rules adding to the cost of trade. Investment freedom is hampered by ongoing protectionist restrictions. The impact of the recently passed financial reform bills has yet to be measured, as detailed regulations are gradually emerging. However, they are likely to increase compliance costs, complicating the banking sector’s recovery.

January 16, 2012 – 2:16 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Conservative looks at Martin Luther King Jr’s “I have a dream speech”

I really got a lot out of this article from the Cato Institute concerning Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream speech.”

The Constitutional Foundations of Martin Luther King’s Dream

By David Azerrad
January 14, 2011

 

Nearly 50 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered one of the greatest speeches in American history. Standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial before thousands assembled, King, with his characteristic vigor, shared his dream for America.

While we all know King‘s dream – breaking “the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination” to transform “the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood” – many seem to have forgotten its source. It was, he said, “a dream deeply rooted in the American dream,” one embedded in “the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

That adds a note of irony to the storm that broke out two weeks ago over the GOP-led reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives. “Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person,” opined the New York Times, highlighting the contempt many elites harbor for our founding documents.

It’s a tired refrain – the Founders were racists, the Declaration didn’t really mean all men, the Constitution is pro-slavery. It’s also a gross distortion of our history – as King well knew when he invoked the promise that “all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” at the heart of the Founding.

The Constitution, contrary to what the New York Times would have you believe, does not classify people according to race. Free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites for purposes of apportionment. As for enslaved blacks, it was the Southern states that wanted to count them as full persons, thereby inflating pro-slavery representation in the House. The three-fifths compromise was aimed at preventing Southern states from magnifying their own political power by holding slaves.

Yet this myth of a racist Founding has, unfortunately, become deeply entrenched in academia and among the chattering classes. It’s taught in high schools and colleges nationwide and has become unquestionable dogma for many.

Sadly, this pernicious tale fosters alienation and despair among those who most need to believe in the American dream. Armchair intellectuals may pontificate as they see fit at their East Hampton cocktail parties. But what hope can there be for blacks trapped in desolate inner cities and failing schools to lift themselves up from alienation and poverty if they are told that America has no place for them? Can anyone who believes that America is built on a foundation of racist ideas muster the courage necessary to solve the current black predicament?

If the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are indeed racist documents, then King‘s faith in America will appear misplaced. We will be led, as he put it, “to wallow in the valley of despair.”

Instead, we should draw inspiration, not only from King, but also from that other great black believer in America: the 19th-century abolitionist and indefatigable advocate of civic and political equality, Frederick Douglass.

A former slave who escaped to liberty, Douglass initially sided with the abolitionists of the day in rejecting America and its Constitution “for supporting and perpetuating” slavery, “this monstrous system of injustice and blood.” Yet through a careful study of the Founding, Douglass learned to love and identify with his country. He understood that America’s grounding in the natural-rights teaching of the Declaration held the promise of justice for all, regardless of skin color.

Today, as we honor Martin Luther King, we have a moral duty to reaffirm the soundness of the principles of the American Founding. We must make the case, as forcefully as we can and as vigorously as he and Douglass did, for the integrationist faith in America. King‘s dream should embolden all of us who believe in America and her dedication – shaky at times, but eventually triumphant – to the equality of men.

David Azerrad is assistant director of the Center for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation. 

 appeared in The Washington Times

January 16, 2012 – 12:16 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 19)

Coldplay

This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference.

My son Hunter Hatcher’s 2nd favorite Coldplay song is   “Sparks.”
 Hunter noted, “The most relaxing song I’ve ever heard. It’ll put you in a chill mood. Helps me sleep and I used to hum this song when we were running in basic training because it helped ease my nerves.”

 

 Here are the 11 Best Coldplay Songs:

1. Don’t Panic (Parachutes)
2. Clocks (A Rush of Blood To The Head)
3. Easy To Please (Brothers and Sisters)
4. Talk (X&Y)
5. Spies (Parachutes)
6. White Shadows (X&Y)
7. Things I Don’t Understand (B-Side)
8. Green Eyes (A Rush of Blood To The Head)
9. Speed of Sound (X&Y)
10. The Scientist (A Rush of Blood To The Head)
11. Sparks (Parachutes)

Uploaded by on Dec 9, 2008

Coldplay perform Talk live on December 7th 2005. Chris Martin then sings “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” along with a special guest.

________________________

Related posts:

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 4)

Dave Hogan/ Getty Images This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference: For the 17th best Coldplay song of all-time, Hunter picks “42.” He notes, “You thought you might […]

Documentary on Coldplay (Part 2)

The best band in the world. Below I have linked some articles I have earlier about the search for meaning in life the band seems to involved in. Chris Martin, Jonny Buckland, Guy Berryman, and Will Champion formed Coldplay in 1996 while going to University in London. The young band quickly established themselves in the […]

Review of New Coldplay song with video clip

I am presently involved in the counting down of the best Coldplay songs of all time, but I am also in a series here reviewing the upcoming songs on Coldplay’s new cd that will be released soon. Here is a review from Rolling Stone: Coldplay Debut new song ‘Charlie Brown’ June 6, 2011 Coldplay debuted […]

Documentary on Coldplay (Part 1, the song “Yellow” featured)

Great documentary on Coldplay. I have written a lot on Coldplay the last few years and I see something spiritually happening with the group as they continue to search for a deeping meaning in life. Coldplay Max Masters – Part 1 of 7 Uploaded by thepostbox on May 6, 2009 The ASTRA Award winning music documentary […]

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

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

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 3)

 This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference:   Hunter has chosen the song “Viva La Vida” as his number 18 pick. Hunter noted, “The violin synth is a […]

Review of New Coldplay songs (video clip too)

Coldplay – Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall Published on Jun 28, 2011 by ColdplayVEVO The new single, taken from Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall EP (featuring two more new tracks). Download it from http://cldp.ly/itunescp Music video by Coldplay performing Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall. (P) 2011 The copyright in this audiovisual recording is owned by […]

Chris Martin Life In Technicolor ii 1/29

Uploaded by on Jan 30, 2009

Chris Martin does a solo performance of Life In Technicolor ii for XFM Radio on January 29th, 2009.

January 16, 2012 – 8:20 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Three conservative principles Martin Luther King believed in

Why do liberals ignore these core principles that Martin Luther King Jr believed in?

Matt Spalding

January 15, 2012 at 9:00 am

Martin Luther King Day has arrived once again, and like clockwork, liberals are invoking King’s name to support their causes.

In an e-mail to activists, Obama’s former “green czar,” Van Jones, calls King the “original Occupier.” He urges activists to use MLK day meet-ups to energize left-wing campaigning for 2012.

Despite these efforts, conservatives should not surrender King’s legacy to the left.

Conservatives, of course, have reservations about certain aspects of King’s legacy. For one, he became too close, later in his career, to the welfare state. He was enamored of the theology of the Social Gospel, the movement that undermined much of mainstream Protestantism in the 20th century. Later in life, he was a vocal opponent of American involvement in the Vietnam. And we now know that in his scholarship and personal life King was far from perfect.

Nevertheless, there are three ways in which King’s message is profoundly conservative and relevant.

First, of course, concerns the question of race. King dreamed of a nation for his children where they would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. He dreamed of a color-blind society based on the equality of all Americans and their sharing of equal unalienable rights.

The American dream, King said at Lincoln University in 1961, “says that each individual has certain basic rights that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state. To discover where they came from it is necessary to move back behind the dim mist of eternity, for they are God-given.… The American dream reminds us that every man is heir to the legacy of worthiness.”

An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides, takes us away from King’s vision.

Second, King believed in the critical importance of faith and moral character. He spoke of self-improvement and self-help in both moral and practical terms. He believed in work ethic and thrift and spoke against crime and disorderly conduct. In stark contrast to modern liberalism’s militant secularism, King explicitly ground his efforts in the Christian tradition. King believed that churches and other faith-based associations were necessary for a grassroots revival of American culture.

He also stressed the importance of the family. Indeed, King’s fears about black family breakdown led him to become one of the few civil-rights leaders not to reject Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s controversial 1965 report that warned of rising illegitimacy rates among blacks.

This forgotten aspect of King’s thought is told expertly in an article entitled “Where Dr. King Went Wrong.” Joel Schwartz suggests that King turned to the welfare state when he became disheartened by the emergence of the black underclass.

Third, King firmly embraced the core principles of America’s founding. Unlike so many modern liberals beset with nihilistic multiculturalism, King did not talk about remaking America. His dream was one “deeply rooted in the American dream,” as he said, and one that hearkened back to America’s founding principles

Unlike so many modern liberals beset with nihilistic multiculturalism, King did not talk about remaking America. His dream was one “deeply rooted in the American dream,” as he said, and one that hearkened back to America’s founding principles. It was not a rejection of our past but a vision of hope based on the principles of our past.

“When these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters,” King wrote in his “Letter From a Birmingham Jail,” “they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s understanding of these things—equality, the importance of faith and morality, and America’s founding principles—has great implications for our politics and policies today. While all Americans recall his ringing words, honest liberals and discerning conservatives ought to remind us of King’s real legacy.

January 16, 2012 – 8:19 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Margaret Thatcher (Part 5)

Margaret Thatcher is one of my heroes and I have a three part series on her I am posting. “What We Can Learn from Margaret Thatcher,”By Sir Rhodes Boyson and Antonio Martino, Heritage Foundation, November 24, 1999, is an excellent article and here is a portion of it below:

What Can We Learn from Thatcher?

The lesson to be drawn is quite simple and not particularly encouraging: Mrs. Thatcher’s success owes much to the intellectual revolution in economic theory. She did not invent anything new; there was nothing novel or original in her economic policies. However, while those ideas had been available for a long time, they had not been translated into policy changes until she came about. It was her leadership, courage, determination, and intellectual integrity that allowed those intellectual insights to inspire actual economic policies and change Britain.

Which brings me to my unpleasant conclusion: The limiting factor in politics today is not the comprehension of the nature of social problems and of their desirable solution — even though we still have a long way to go to make the case for economic freedom fully grasped by the majority of public opinion and of politicians. The really scarce resource is leadership. A principled and uncompromising leader capable of building a coalition, a majority consensus around his platform is essential if we want to move toward a freer world.

Unfortunately, however, the likes of Thatcher and Reagan are not in large supply, and we can’t wait for another one to come about. “So long as the people of any country place their hopes of political salvation in leadership of any description, so long will disappointment attend them.”37 We must continue polishing our case, making it more convincing, exploring new ways to enlarge our freedoms, and above all converting politicians to our cause. This is what Heritage is all about.

Antonio Martino is Professor of Economics at LUISS “G. Carli” University in Rome. He is currently on leave as a Member of Parliament. He delivered these remarks at a meeting of The Heritage Foundation’s Windsor Society in Sea Island, Georgia, on October 3-6, 1999.

January 16, 2012 – 8:12 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Evidently having guns does deter crime in certain circumstances.

Evidently having guns does deter crime in certain circumstances. Why are ships not being hijacked at the same rate as last year?

While I have great admiration and affection for the English people, most of them are downright daft on the issues of guns. And the politicians are the worst of the lot, having imposed draconian gun bans.

But they’ve gone way beyond run-of-the-mill gun control.

This is the nation, for instance, that arrested a man for the “crime” of turning in a gun found on his property. Yes, you read correctly. I’m not making that up.

The government is so bloody clueless on this issue that we’ve seen mind-boggling examples of anti-gun political correctness.

Okay, I cheated. The last example was about a knife rather than a gun, but I think it underscores the central point that the UK government believes in a helpless and passive citizenry.

But perhaps, in a small way, we’re seeing a bit of progress. It seems that a few people realize that this culture of surrender and appeasement isn’t always a good idea.

At least when it comes to thwarting pirates. Here is an excerpt from The Economist about a big decline in attacks off the Horn of Africa.

…the fall in the number of successful hijackings since the peak of 2009-11 has been dramatic. The International Maritime Bureau, a body that fights shipping crime, counted 219 cases of pirates trying to board a vessel in 2010 and 236 in 2011. This year’s total is just 71, against 199 for the same period last year. Successful seizures are down from 49 in 2010 to 28 in 2011 and only 13 this year.

Want to take a wild guess about the reason?

Five out of five pirates surveyed prefer unarmed victims

Yup, you’re right. Guns.

…the biggest game changer of all is…that more than a quarter of vessels now carry armed security guards. The shipping industry used to oppose this, fearing that armed guards would escalate violence. But not a single vessel with guards has been boarded. Usually a warning shot is enough to deter the pirates. Lieut-Commander Sherrif says: “The pirates go to sea to make money, not die in a firefight.” BIMCO, the biggest international shipping organisation, has recently produced a standard contract for the industry, known as GUARDCON. Most of the security firms supplying guards are British. Admiral Rix says that his company hires mostly former Royal Marines.

Let’s emphasize part of that passage. It says that “not a single vessel with guards has been boarded.”

That’s a perfect batting average. As John Lott might say, this is an example of “more guns, less crime.” What a novel idea.

Now for the bad news. I doubt that the writers at The Economist or the politicians at Westminster will draw the right lesson from any of this.

So we still have a long way to go before we liberate the British people from the anti-gun superstitions of the political elite. Maybe we should share these very clever pro-gun images (here, here, here, here, here, and here) with our friends on the other side of the Atlantic.

Well, there seems to be a never-ending supply of good material supporting the Second Amendment. Let’s start with this set of dueling signs. You may notice a common theme between the thinking of the guy on the right and the thinking of the guy who owns this vehicle.

What’s the opposite of a gun-free zone? Well, it’s a place that thugs and crazies avoid when deciding to go on a killing spree.

Last but not least, ask yourself what you would prefer if one of your kids was trapped in a building with a nutcase. I’ll take the option on the top of this image.

January 16, 2012 – 7:49 am Categories: Gun Control | Post a comment

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 130)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself:

GUIDELINE #2: Turn local programs back to the states.
Only the federal government can handle national defense, international relations, and the administration of federal laws. But why should politicians in Washington decide which roads are built in Appleton, Wisconsin? Or which community development projects are funded in St. Louis, Missouri? Or how education dollars are spent in Cheyenne, Wyoming?
The federal government taxes families, subtracts a hefty administrative cost, and then sends the remaining tax revenues back to the state and local governmentswith specific rules dictating how they may and may not spend the money. In that sense, the federal government is merely an expensive middleman, contributing little more than meddling mandates that constrain the flexibility that state and local governments need to address their own issues creatively.
No distant bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., can know which policies are best for every state and locality. One-size-fits-all federal mandates rarely succeed as well as flexible programs designed by state and local officials who are closer to the people affected. Moreover, legislators have little incentive to design programs that work beyond their home constituencies.
State and local governments, which often consider federal grants “free money,” also lack sufficient incentives to spend this money well because they did not have to extract the taxes themselves. (Many seem to forget the high federal taxes that local residents paid for this “free money.”) Consequently, local officials rarely object to federal grants for unnecessary projects.
Few local governments, for example, would consider taxing their own residents to fund the following pork-barrel projects found in the 2004 federal budget:2
  • $725,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
  • $200,000 for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio;
  • $150,000 for a single traffic light in Briarcliff Manor, New York;
  • $100,000 for the International Storytelling Center in Jonesborough, Tennessee;
  • $500,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute; and
  • $50 million to construct an indoor rainforest in Coralville, Iowa.
The federal government can promote accountability, flexibility, and local control by eliminating many of the mandates on how state and local governments address their own issues and letting them raise their own revenues and create their own programs without meddling Washington bureaucrats and politicians. Specifically, Congress should:
  • Turn back the federal gas tax, as well as all federal highway and mass transit spending, to the states (2004 spending: $37 billion, discretionary);3
  • Devolve federal housing programs to state and local governments and cut federal strings on how the programs are operated ($31 billion, discretionary);
  • Send job training programs back to the states ($5,600 million, discretionary);
  • Transfer economic development programs (e.g., Community Development Block Grants, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Denali Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority) back to the regions that best know how to address their local economies ($5,952 million, discretionary);
  • Devolve Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers projects to state and regional authorities ($5,614 million, discretionary);
  • Allow states flexibility and control over their own education programs;
  • Send the Superfund program to the states and allow local flexibility in deciding how to clean contaminated sites ($1,108 million, discretionary);
  • Turn back law enforcement grant programs to the states ($3,041 million, discretionary);
  • Devolve the Natural Resources Conservation Service to the states ($3,046 million, discretionary);
  • Transfer the Institute of Museum Services and Library Sciences to the states ($262 million, discretionary);
  • Devolve Youth Opportunity Grants to local governments ($40 million, discretionary);
  • Send the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to the cities it affects ($114 million, discretionary); and
  • Eliminate the practice of earmarking federal funds for local projects.
January 16, 2012 – 12:22 am Categories: spending out of control, Taxes | Post a comment

Christopher Hitchens’ debate with Douglas Wilson (Part 12)

Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 12 of 12

Douglas Wilson

I am afraid your argument is tangled up with greater difficulties than the ethnicity of the Samaritan, and so that issue really need not detain us any longer. I have been asking you to provide a warrant for morality, given atheism, and you have mostly responded with assertions that atheists can make what some people call moral choices. Well, sure. But what I have been after is what rational warrant they can give for calling one choice “moral” and another choice “not moral.” You finally appealed to “innate human solidarity,” a phrase that prompted a series of pointed questions from me. In response, you now tell us that we have an innate predisposition to both good and wicked behavior. But we are still stuck. What I want to know (still) is what

warrant you have for calling some behaviors “good” and others “wicked.” If both are innate, what distinguishes them? What could be wrong with just flipping a coin? With regard to your retort that my “talent for needless complexity” has simply gotten me “God’s coexistence with evil,” I reply that I would rather have my God and the problem of evil than your no God and “Evil? No problem!”

After this many installments, I now feel comfortable in asserting that I have posed this question to you from every point of the compass and have not yet received anything that approaches the semblance of an answer. On this question I am tempted to quote Wyatt Earp from the film Tombstone— ”You gonna do something or just stand there and bleed?”—but I think I’ll pass.

Earp was not very much like the Good Samaritan. But it is interesting that the same thing happens to you when you have to give some warrant for trusting in “reason.”. I noted your citation of LaPlace in your book and am glad you  brought him up here. LaPlace believed he was not in need of the God hypothesis, just like you, but you should also know he held this position as a firm believer in celestial and terrestrial mechanics. He was a causal determinist, meaning that he believed that every element of the universe in the present was “the effect of its past and the cause of its future.”

So if LaPlace is why you think belief in God is now “optional,” this appeal of yours actually turns into quite a fun business. This doctrine means (although LaPlace admittedly got distracted before these implications caught up with him) that you, Christopher Hitchens, are not thinking your thoughts and writing them down because they are true, but rather because the position and velocity of all the atoms in the universe one hundred years ago necessitated it. And I am not sitting here thinking my Christian thoughts because they are the truth of God, but rather because that is what these assembled chemicals in my head always do in this condition and at this temperature. “LaPlace’s demon” could have calculated and predicted your arguments (and word count) a century ago in just the same way that he could have calculated the water levels of the puddles in my driveway — and could have done so using the same formulae. This means that your arguments and my puddles are actually the same kind of thing. They are on the same level, so to speak.

If you were to take a bottle of Mountain Dew and another of Dr. Pepper, shake them vigorously, and put them on a table, it would not occur to anyone to ask which one is “winning the debate.”

They aren’t debating; they are just fizzing. You refer to “language in which to write this argument,” and you do so as though you believed in a universe where argument was a meaningful concept. Argument?

Argument? I have no need for your “argument hypothesis.” Just matter in motion, man.

You dismiss the idea that the death of Jesus—the “torture and death of a single individual in a backward part of the Middle East” — could possibly be the solution to the sorrows of our brutish existence. When I said that Jesus is good for the world because he is the life of the world, you just tossed this away. You said, “You cannot possibly ‘know’ this. Nor can you present any evidence for it.”

Actually, I believe I can present evidence for what I know. But evidence comes to us like food, and that is why we say grace over it. And we are supposed to eat it, not push it around on the plate—and if we don’t give thanks, it never tastes right. But here is some evidence for you, in no particular order. The engineering that went into ankles. The taste of beer. That Jesus rose from

the dead on the third day, just like he said. A woman’s neck. Bees fooling around in the flower bed. The ability of acorns to manufacture enormous oaks out of stuff they find in the air and dirt.

Forgiveness of sin. Storms out of the North, the kind with lightning. Joyous laughter (diaphragm spasms to the atheistic materialist). The ocean at night with a full moon. Delta blues. The peacock that lives in my yard. Sunrise, in color. Baptizing babies. The pleasure of sneezing. Eye contact. Having your feet removed from the miry clay, and established forever on the rock. You may say none of this tastes right to you. But suppose you were to bow your head and say grace over all of it. Try it that way.

You say that you cannot believe that Christ’s death on the Cross was salvation for the world because the idea is absurd. I have shown in various ways that absurdity has not been a disqualifier for any number of your current beliefs. You praise reason to the heights, yet will not give reasons for your strident and inflexible moral judgments, or why you have arbitrarily dubbed certain chemical processes “rational argument.” That’s absurd right now, and yet there you are, holding it. So for you to refuse to accept Christ because it is absurd is like a man at one end of the pool refusing to move to the other end because he might get wet. Given your premises, you will have to come up with a different reason for rejecting Christ as you do.

But for you to make this move would reveal the two fundamental tenets of true atheism. One: There is no God. Two: I hate Him.

Related posts: 

Christopher Hitchens’ view on abortion may surprise you

Christopher Hitchens – Against Abortion Uploaded by BritishNeoCon on Dec 2, 2010 An issue Christopher doesn’t seem to have addressed much in his life. He doesn’t explicitly say that he is against abortion in this segment, but that he does believe that the ‘unborn child’ is a real concept. ___________________________ I was suprised when I […]

Christopher Hitchens discusses Ron Paul in 3-2-11 inteview

Max Brantley in the Arkansas Times Blog reports that Ron Paul is leading in Iowa. Maybe it is time to take a closer look at his views. In the above clip you will see Chistopher Hitchens discuss Ron Paul’s views. In the clip below you will find Ron Paul’s latest commercial. Below is a short […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 3)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 07 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death:   Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust   DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 08 Author and […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 2)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 04 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 05 Author and speaker Christopher […]

Evangelicals react to Christopher Hitchens’ death plus video clips of Hitchens debate (part 1)

DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 01 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust Author and speaker Christopher Hitchens, a leader of an aggressive form of atheism that eventually […]

January 16, 2012 – 12:17 am Categories: Atheists Confronted, Current Events | Post a comment

Review from Cato Institute of “The Iron Lady”

The Weinstein Marketing Team Understands Margaret Thatcher’s Appeal Better than the Writer and Director of “The Iron Lady” Do

Posted by David Boaz

The reviewers warned me — don’t see The Iron Lady, the new movie starring Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher. Kelly Jane Torrance of the Washington Examiner mourns, “The climax of this movie about one of the most important people — not just women, but people — of the 20th century comes when Margaret Thatcher decides to throw out her dead husband’s clothes.” James Verniere of the Boston Herald asks, “Mamma mia! Why would you turn the story of Margaret Thatcher into a tale of a sweet, dotty old lady having a love affair with her beloved late husband?” Virginia Postrel excoriates the filmmakers: “These supposedly feminist filmmakers could have portrayed Thatcher as an ambitious woman who had nothing to feel guilty about. Instead they chose to inject guilt where it did not belong. They obscured Thatcher’s public accomplishments in a fog of private angst. The portrait of dementia isn’t the problem. The way the film uses old age to punish a lifetime of accomplishment is.”

Even the Washington Post, the New York Times (“You are left with the impression of an old woman who can’t quite remember who she used to be and of a movie that is not so sure either.”), and the New Yorker wonder why you would make a movie about one of the most influential and controversial political figures, the first woman to lead a Western country, the woman who arguably saved Great Britain and helped Ronald Reagan win the Cold War, and then spend half the film depicting her as a confused old lady with hallucinations.

Nevertheless, Thatcher is indeed a compelling figure, and the commercials and trailers showed Streep portraying her as a leader of conviction and strength. So I ignored the critics and bought a ticket. And the film was slightly better than I expected. It absolutely wastes about 40 percent of its time on the imagined scenes of a confused old lady. How much more rewarding it would have been to see a great actress play a pioneering political figure rising to power, leading her country, and facing opposition from both friends and enemies. Instead, we get a few vignettes of that, about half the film’s running time. So it wasn’t terrible, just a lost opportunity.

Interestingly, the marketing team at Weinstein Company seems to understand the appeal of a film on Margaret Thatcher far better than the writer and director. They know what the audience wants. Take a look at the trailer:

_____________

You’ll notice that there’s not a single shot of the old-lady part of the movie. Instead, it’s two fast minutes of Margaret Thatcher in action. Including a final scene (“Gentlemen, shall we join the ladies”) that harks back to an earlier scene of Thatcher on her way up, dramatizes her uniqueness — and is actually not in the film.

So I have a suggestion: Often the DVD of a film will include the film as released to theaters and also a “Director’s Cut” that reflects the director’s own artistic choices that the studio may have blocked. I recommend that the DVD of The Iron Lady include a “Marketer’s Cut” that omits all the old-lady scenes and just shows us Margaret Thatcher the political figure. And if there’s good material like the “join the ladies” scene left on the cutting-room floor, then the marketers could add that back in. In that case, I’d buy the DVD. In fact, someone should start a Facebook campaign: “Put a Marketer’s Cut of The Iron Lady on the DVD.”

By the way, Mitt Romney should not want Republicans to watch this movie: It will remind them of what it means to be inspired by a political leader.

January 15, 2012 – 6:14 pm Categories: Cato Institute | Post a comment

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, and Missionary

by Rit Nosotro First Published:: 2003

( Last updated: 09/02/2010 18:08:13)

One of the greatest Christian thinkers of the 20th century, Francis Schaeffer, was born January 30, 1912 in Germantown, Pennsylvania. He was the only son of a tradesman and grew up in a Christian home. However, during his years as an adolescent he rejected Christianity and became an agnostic. In his senior year of high school he began reading the Bible in search of answers, and months later he converted to Christianity at a tent meeting held by Anthony Zeoli. After graduating high school he enrolled in night school to study mechanical engineering. However, he soon decided he wanted to enter the ministry so he enrolled in Hampden Sydney College. During his time there he met his future wife Edith Seville, who was the daughter of missionaries working with China Inland Mission. In 1935 he graduated magna cum laude and that same summer he married Edith Seville. Together they had four children, Janet Priscilla born in 1938, Susan born in 1941, Deborah born in 1945, and Francis August Schaeffer V in 1952. After graduating college Schaeffer enrolled in Westminster Theological Seminary where he studied with Cornelius Van Til and J. Gresham Machen. Then in 1937 he transferred to Faith Theological Seminary where he became the first student to graduate from the seminary and ordained as a minister of the Bible Presbyterian Church. From there he went on to serve as a pastor.

After graduating from Faith Theological Seminary Schaeffer served as the pastor for churches in Grove City and Chester, Pennsylvania and then later went on to serve in St. Louis, Missouri. During those years he left the Bible Presbyterian Church and joined the Reformed Presbyterian Church. In 1947 he was sent to Europe as a representative for the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. His job was to survey the state of the churches in countries affected by World War II. In 1948 he moved the family to Switzerland to serve as missionaries. In 1954 Schaeffer severed ties with the board due to conflicts in emphasis in missionary work. That same year he was awarded the honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Highland College. A year later he and his wife Edith opened up their home to become L’Abri, which is the French word for shelter. L’Abri became an international spiritual retreat center where people could come to study and discuss Christian thought, lifestyle, and goals. L’Abri was opened to be a center for authentic Christian community. People came from all over to talk to Schaeffer and ask difficult philosophical questions. Several years after the opening of L’Abri, Schaeffer received the honorary Doctor of Letters degree from Gordon College. Then in 1979 he began L’Abri in America. During his last few years of life, Schaeffer spent his time writing books and encouraging Christians to be active in the fight against abortion. He died of cancer May 15, 1984 in his home.

Francis Schaeffer is most famous for his writings and for the establishment of L’Abri community in Switzerland. He wrote twenty two books on topics ranging from the Christian view of philosophy and culture, the inerrancy of the Bible, the Christian view of spirituality and the church, and the Christian view of the west. Some of his works include The God Who Is There, A Christian Manifesto, and How Should We Then Live?. He is often credited for sparking a return to political activism among Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists. He has been cited numerous times in works by other Christians and is considered to be one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the 20th century alongside C.S. Lewis.

Matthew 7:7 says “Ask, and you will receive; seek, and you will find; knock and the door will be opened for you.” That is exactly what Francis Schaeffer did. He sought after the truth and found it. Ever since that time Schaeffer sought the truth as a senior in high school, he has aided thousands of other people in their search for truth. Instead of ignoring the difficult questions he sought answers and found them. Francis Schaeffer demonstrated that Christianity is not a blind faith without valid reasons for what it believes, but rather that Biblical Christianity is the only worldview compatible with reality. He also demonstrated what Christian community really looks like through the L’Abri communities. President Ronald Reagan summed up Francis Schaeffer’s life nicely when he said “It can rarely be said of an individual that his life touched many others and affected them for the better; it will be said of Dr. Francis Schaeffer that his life touched millions of souls and brought them to the truth of their Creator.”

Sources

“Francis Schaeffer” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schaeffer

“Francis Schaeffer biography” at http://www.heroesofhistory.com/page57.html

“Francis Schaeffer biography” at http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/GUIDES/220.htm

“Francis Schaeffer biography” at ttp://members.aol.com/JAMIETAMPA/Schaeffer/index2.html

“Francis Schaeffer” at http://prayerfoundation.org/books/book_r19.jpg

January 15, 2012 – 12:32 am Categories: Francis Schaeffer | Post a comment