Mike Tomlin (Part 2 of series “Christians in Athletics”)

I noticed that several coaches on the Steelers football staff have spent lots of time in the Mid-South. Keith Butler was a Memphis State Tiger back in the 70’s and spent 11 years in the NFL with Seattle. I used to watch him do some impressive hits as a linebacker for the Tigers.

Mike Tomlin knew Butler both from his time at Memphis and Arkansas State.

Mike Tomlin, Steelers head coach, talks about his faith 

Posted on Jan 29, 2009 | by Art StricklinTAMPA, Fla. (BP)–Since becoming head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers two years ago, Mike Tomlin has talked often of his appreciation and respect for former Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy, who first brought him into the NFL as an assistant coach.Until this week’s Super Bowl XLIII between the Steelers and the Arizona Cardinals, Tomlin had never had the international platform to follow his mentor Dungy and speak about his faith in Jesus Christ. But that’s exactly what he did before hundreds of reporters in Tampa.”First and foremost, I want people to know who I am and what the most important thing is in my life, my relationship with Jesus Christ,” Tomlin said in response to a Baptist Press question about his personal faith.

“Football is what we do; faith is who we are all the time.”

Tomlin, who attends Pittsburgh’s Allegheny Center Alliance Church, was mentored by Dungy, who hired him as a defensive backs coach with Tampa Bay before Dungy moved on to Indianapolis.

When then-Pittsburgh coach Bill Cowher retired, Tomlin was ready for the promotion, stemming from his time with Dungy, leading men onto the football field and leading men’s hearts off the field.

“I want to lead with a servant’s heart,” Tomlin stated to media members who will be covering Sunday’s Super Bowl.

“The biggest thing I learned from Tony Dungy was an unyielding belief in his message of faith,” Tomlin recalled. “It was displayed all the time with him. He was extremely consistent and that’s what I want to take to maximize my faith.”

Tomlin’s first expression of his faith during Super Bowl week came as no surprise to Steelers assistant coaches and players who have heard the same spiritual passion in private.

“It’s a great blessing when a man of God is leading your team,” defensive end Nick Eason said. “It’s like a godly father in the household.”

Tomlin said he is glad to share his faith in sport’s brightest media spotlight, noting, “We embrace and appreciate this platform.”

Amos Jones, the Steelers’ assistant special teams coach, was baptized on the same day with his dad, Sam, at West End Baptist Church in Aliceville, Ala., where his mother still attends.

Having a Christian head coach has made a big difference to the team and has contributed to the Steelers’ Super Bowl run, Jones said.

“I think his [Tomlin’s] faith in the Lord is a blessing,” the Jones said. “It’s just a peace of mind knowing that he has everybody’s best interest at heart.

“Mike and I share the same faith and it’s amazing how many times something he might say to the team in the locker room could have a spiritual meaning.”

Like most coaches, Jones has held plenty of jobs in his lengthy career in both college and NFL ranks, but he has always had the Lord as his one constant.

“I have always been blessed by the Lord. When I didn’t have a job, He provided one. He gave me this job and allowed me to go to the Super Bowl. It’s been a blessing,” Jones said.

In the often hard-hitting world of the NFL, Jones said his wife Stacey has reminded him to see God’s hand everywhere.

“She sits in the stands and can see the defensive backs praying together on the sideline. She sees Troy Polamalu, encouraging and praying with people.”

Linebackers coach Keith Butler sat in the stands during Tuesday’s media day silently watching the frenzied interaction between players and hoards of reporters.

“This isn’t life-or-death pressure,” Butler said of Super Bowl week. “It’s not like life or death in eternity without God.

“Is this game important? Yes. Is it the most important thing? Not even close.”
–30–
Art Stricklin, a Baptist Press sports correspondent based in Dallas, is in Tampa covering activities leading up to Sunday’s Super Bowl.

October 16, 2011 – 4:02 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

Myth:Conservative Herbert Hoover responsible for Depression?

Myth:Conservative Herbert Hoover responsible for Depression

When I grew up I always heard that the conservative Herbert Hoover was responsible for the depression. Is that true?

The Hoover Myth Marches On

Posted by David Boaz

In the New York Times today,  columnist Joseph Nocera quotes a book published in 1940 on Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression:

Herbert Hoover was “leery of any direct governmental offensive against the Depression,” writes Allen. “So he stood aside and waited for the healing process to assert itself, as according to the hallowed principles of laissez-faire economics it should.”

OK, let’s go to the tape. In a new Cato study economist Steve Horwitz notes what Hoover really did:

  • He almost doubled federal spending from 1929 to 1933.
  • He expanded public works projects to “create jobs.”
  • He pressured businesses not to cut wages, even in the face of deflation.
  • He signed the Davis-Bacon Act and the Norris-LaGuardia acts to prop up unions.
  • He signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff.
  • He created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
  • He proposed and signed the largest peacetime tax increase in
    American history.

And that’s why FDR brains-trusters Rexford Guy Tugwell and Raymond Moley acknowledged later that Hoover “really invented” all the devices of the New Deal. Frederick Lewis Allen might not have recognized that in 1940, but Joseph Nocera should. And if we don’t want to relive the Great Depression, as Nocera worries, then we’d better learn what didn’t work in 1929-33 any better than it worked in 1933-39.

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 1

FREE TO CHOOSE: Anatomy of Crisis
Friedman Delancy Street in New York’s lower east side, hardly one of the city’s best known sites, yet what happened in this street nearly 50 years ago continues to effect all of us today. Wall Street. Most of us know what happened here 50 years ago. Inside the Stock Exchange on October 29, 1929, the market collapsed. It came to be known as Black Thursday. The Wall Street crash was followed by the worst depression in American history. That depression has been blamed on the failure of capitalism. It was no such thing but the myth lives on. What really happened was very different.
Although things looked healthy on the surface, business had begun to turn down in mid 1929. The crash intensified the recession. So did continuing bank failures in the south and Midwest. But the recession only became a crisis when these failures spread to New York and in particular to this building, then the headquarters of the Bank of United States. The failure of this bank had far reaching effects and need never have happened.
It was something of a historical accident that this particular bank played the role it did. Why did it fail? It was a perfectly good bank. Banks that were in far worse financial shape had come under difficulties before it did and had, through the cooperation of other banks, been saved. The reason why it wasn’t saved has to do with its rather special character. First its name, Bank of United States, a name that made immigrants believe it was an official governmental bank although in fact it was an ordinary commercial bank. Second its ownership, Jewish, both its name and the character of its ownership which had so much to do with attracting the large number of depositors from the many Jewish businessmen in the city of New York. Both of them also had the effect of alienating other bankers who did not like the special advantage of the name and did not like the character of the ownership. As a result, other banks were all too ready to spread rumors, to help promote an atmosphere in which runs got started on the bank and which it came into difficulty. And they were less then usually willing to cooperate in the efforts that were made to save it.
Only a few blocks away is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was here that the Bank of United States could have been saved. Indeed, the Federal Reserve System had been set up 17 years earlier precisely to prevent the worst consequences of bank failures.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose directors today meet in this room, devised a plan in cooperation with the superintendent of banking of the State of New York to save the Bank of United States. Their plan called for merging the Bank of United States with several other banks and also providing a guarantee fund to be subscribed to by still other bankers to assure the depositors that the assets of the Bank of United States were safe and sound. The Reserve Bank called meeting after meeting to try to put the plan into effect. It was on again, off again. But finally, after an all night meeting on December 10, 1930, the other bankers, including in particular John Pierpont Morgan, refused to subscribe to the guarantee fund and the plan was off. The next day the Bank of United States closed its doors, never again to open for business. For its depositors who saw their savings tied up and their businesses destroyed, the closing was tragic. Yet when the bank was finally liquidated, in the worst years of the depression, it paid back 92.5 cents on the dollar. Had the other banks cooperated to save it, no one would have lost a penny.
For the other New York banks, they thought closing the Bank of United States would have purely local effects. They were wrong. Partly because it had so many depositors, partly because so many of the depositors were small businessmen, partly because it was the largest bank that had ever been permitted to fail in the United States up to this time, the effects were far reaching. Depositors all over the country were frightened about the safety of their funds and rushed to withdraw them. There were runs. There were failures of banks by the droves. And all the time the Federal Reserve System stood idly by when it had the power and the duty and the responsibility to provide the cash that would have enabled the banks to meet the insistent demands of their depositors without closing their doors.
The way runs on banks can spread and can be stopped is a consequence of the way our bank system works. You may think that when you take some cash to a bank and deposit it, the bank takes that money and sticks it in a vault somewhere to wait until you need it again to turn it back over to you.
Bank teller: Okay, how would you like this? Two tens, one five and five ones. Okay.
Friedman: The bank does no such thing with it. It immediately takes a large part of what you put in and lends it out to somebody else. How do you suppose it earns interest, to pay its expenses, or pay you something for the use of your money? The result is that if all depositors in all the banks tried all at once to convert their deposits into cash, there wouldn’t be anything like enough cash in the banks of the country to meet their demands. In order to prevent such an outcome, in order to cut short a run, it is necessary to have some way either to stop people from asking for it, or to have some additional source from which cash can be obtained. That was intended to be the purpose of the Federal Reserve System. It was to provide the additional cash to meet the demands of the depositors when a run arose.
A classic example of how this system could and did work properly can be found over 2,000 miles from New York near the great Salt Lake in Utah.
In the early 30’s some banks in Salt Lake City and surrounding towns began to get into difficulties. The owners of one them were smart enough to see what had to be done to keep their banks open and courageous enough to do it. When fearful depositors began to clamor to withdraw all their money, one of George Eccles jobs was to brief his cashiers on how to handle the run.
October 16, 2011 – 11:43 am Categories: Cato Institute, Milton Friedman | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

Switchfoot is a Christian Band with a great message (Part 1)

Switchfoot is a Christian Band with a great message (Part 1)

 

My niece Mallory Nail went to see Switchfoot in concert at John Brown University on Oct 14, 2011 and I am very jealous.

969 Switchfoot Interview #2

Interview with Tim Foreman and Chad Butler airing March 13th, 2007.
Discuss: idea of success, fan interaction
________________________________________

Switchfoot is a Christian Band with a great message (Part 1)

One of my favorite bands is Switchfoot. Tim Foreman is the front man and this band has always been very vocal about their Christian faith. I am really enjoying this series on their band.

Switchfoot: Tim Foreman
by Robert Frezza
Static Noise
http://www.staticnoise.net

Rock band Switchfoot took the stage in Buffalo last night with label mates and co-headliners Copeland. I was fortunate not only to watch the show, but to interview both bassist Tim Foreman from Switchfoot and lead singer Bryan Laurenson from Copeland as well. Here is what they had to say:

StaticNoise: Switchfoot was first noticed as Christian band. Is that a stereotype or mold that the band is trying to break now??
Tim Foreman: “We’ve always been pretty honest about our faith. From one sense it is a compliment. To be associated with Christ, in my opinion, it is a really high honor. As an artist, though, it is can be limiting in the scope that what you are trying to do if you are grouped in that genre. If I was not a Christian, I wouldn’t listen to the songs and somehow they would not relate to me. We always tried to write music for everyone. We’ve been labeled a lot of things—Christian, Political, etcetera, but we just want to make music that is outside of the box.”

SN: Tim Palmer, who is noted for his work with U2’s Joshua Tree and Grammy award winning producer Steve Lillywhite worked on your latest album Oh! Gravity. Was this the first time you worked with both producers??
TF: “Yes! It seems like you have to be British to work on the track.” Foreman says with a chuckle. “Those guys are our heroes. They have been involved with a lot of our favorite records. What they both brought to the table was a big picture perspective. Lillywhite was big on not soloing tracks. Lillywhite wanted us to hear it when things came together.”

SN: So is the more edgier Switchfoot, then??
TF: “It’s a little bit more reckless. More reckless in the way that it’s not taken itself too seriously. When we started recording Oh! Gravity, we weren’t trying to make a record. We just had some free time and some songs and we wanted to record an EP. I think when you are recording when not thinking about it, there’s a lot of freedom there.”

SN: What is the best city you have played in so far on this tour and where do you think Buffalo will rank after tonight??
TF: “We had some great shows so far and I expect big things from Buffalo after tonight.”

October 16, 2011 – 11:03 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer (Part 7) (Schaeffer Sundays)

Part 1

Part 2

Below is a summary of “A Christian Manifesto” which is a very important book written by Francis Schaeffer just a couple of years before his death in 1984.

A Christian Manifesto
by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer

This address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title.

Now I want to say something with great force, right here. What I have been talking about, whether you know it or not, is true spirituality. This is true spirituality. Spirituality, after you are a Christian and have accepted Christ as your Savior, means that Christ is the Lord of ALL your life — not just your religious life, and if you make a dichotomy in these things, you are denying your Lord His proper place. I don’t care how many butterflies you have in your stomach, you are poor spiritually. True spirituality means that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord of all of life, and except for the things that He has specifically told us in the Bible are sinful and we’ve set them aside — all of life is spiritual and all of life is equally spiritual. That includes (as our forefathers did) standing for these things of freedom and standing for these things of human life and all these other matters that are so crucial, if indeed, this living God does exist as we know that He does exist.

We have forgotten our heritage. A lot of the evangelical complex like to talk about the old revivals and they tell us we ought to have another revival. We need another revival — you and I need revival. We need another revival in our hearts. But they have forgotten something. Most of the Christians have forgotten and most of the pastors have forgotten something. That is the factor that every single revival that has ever been a real revival, whether it was the great awakening before the American Revolution; whether it was the great revivals of Scandinavia; whether it was Wesley and Whitefield; wherever you have found a great revival, it’s always had three parts. First, it has called for the individual to accept Christ as Savior, and thankfully, in all of these that I have named, thousands have been saved. Then, it has called upon the Christians to bow their hearts to God and really let the Holy Spirit have His place in fullness in their life. But there has always been, in every revival, a third element. It has always brought SOCIAL CHANGE!

Cambridge historians who aren’t Christians would tell you that if it wasn’t for the Wesley revival and the social change that Wesley’s revival had brought, England would have had its own form of the French Revolution. It was Wesley saying people must be treated correctly and dealing down into the social needs of the day that made it possible for England to have its bloodless revolution in contrast to France’s bloody revolution.

The Wall Street Journal, not too long ago, and I quote it again in A Christian Manifesto, pointed out that it was the Great Awakening, that great revival prior to the founding of the United States, that opened the way and prepared for the founding of the United States. Every one of the great revivals had tremendous social implications. What I am saying is, that I am afraid that we have forgotten our heritage, and we must go on even when the cost is high.

I think the Church has failed to meet its obligation in these last 40 years for two specific reasons. The first is this false, truncated view of spirituality that doesn’t see true spirituality touching all of life. The other thing is that too many Christians, whether they are doctors, lawyers, pastors, evangelists — whatever they are — too many of them are afraid to really speak out because they did not want to rock the boat for their own project. I am convinced that these two reasons, both of which are a tragedy and really horrible for the Christian, are an explanation of why we have walked the road we have walked in the last 40 years.

We must understand, it’s going to cost you to take a stand on these things. There are doctors who are going to get kicked out of hospitals because they refuse to perform abortions; there are nurses that see a little sign on a crib that says, “Do not feed,” and they feed and they are fired. There’s a cost, but I’d ask you, what is loyalty to Christ worth to you? How much do you believe this is true? Why are you a Christian? Are you a Christian for some lesser reason, or are you a Christian because you know that this is the truth of reality? And then, how much do you love the Lord Jesus Christ? How much are you willing to pay the price for loyalty to the Lord Jesus?

October 16, 2011 – 12:47 am Categories: Francis Schaeffer | Post a comment

Crowd at Occupy Arkansas pales in comparison to annual pro-life march

Demonstrators march through the streets of Little Rock on Saturday in a protest organized by Occupy Little Rock. (John Lyon photo)

Occupy Arkansas got cranked up today in Little Rock with their first march and several hundred showed up. It was unlike the pro-life marches that I have been a part of that have had crowds of up to 10,000 people in Little Rock every January.

Here is a post that I did back in January on the pro-life march:

Rep. Tim Griffin and Lt. Gov. Mark Darr at the Arkansas March for Life in Little Rock from Tolbert Report.

Go to Fox 16 website and you will read this story below and watch a video clip on both marches. What you will not read is the fact that only 150 people showed up for the pro-choice march on Jan 22, 2011 while over 5000 came out for the pro-life rally the following day. In fact, on the video the reporter notes, “A similar scene on Saturday..” The reporter summarizes, “Both pro-choice and pro-life rally organizers say they were pleased with the crowd their events drew.” In the article on the website are these words, “Both pro-life and pro-choice rally-goers came out strong, equally passionate about their beliefs.”

Read this info below from the Fox 16 website:

LITTLE ROCK, AR – Thousands of Arkansans marched near the Capitol this weekend to make their voices heard. Saturday it was those in favor of a woman’s right to choose. Sunday, pro-life supporters gathered for the 33rd Annual March for Life. Both pro-life and pro-choice rally-goers came out strong, equally passionate about their beliefs.Lauren Long is pro-life and says, “I’m 16 today because my mom chose life and I’m really proud of that.”Politicians, doctors, religious leaders and even the famous TV family from Arkansas, the Duggar’s, came out for the Right to Life March. Jill Duggar says her family is a prime example of what it means to be pro-life. “Life is precious and a lot of people don’t understand the significance of it. It’s not just a ball of tissue, it’s a baby from the very start.”Dr. Matt Sellers is an OB/GYN with the Cornerstone Clinic for Woman. He says, “Every unborn life is a treasure that should be treated as such.”Congressman Tim Griffin also attended Sunday’s pro-life rally. He says, “We need to respect life and all our policies in the way we treat other people, and the way we think about public policy, we need to think about life.”Pro-choice rally-goers lined the steps of the Capitol on Saturday. Senator Joyce Elliott spoke to the crowd. “Trust women, show respect for women and the choices they make.” Senator Elliott also added, “It’s in our national and economic best interest to make sure women have the choice of good healthcare services.”Stephanie Oshrin, with the National Organization for Women says, “We believe every person has a right to choose their family and plan their family. We advocate strong, healthy women, and happy children.” Oshrin also mentioned, “We’ve made monumental gains over the last decade, however we recognize with all the gains, we still have many struggles that we will continue to fight for.”

Both pro-life and pro-choice rally organizers say, they’re pleased with the crowd their events drew, and hope to continue to spread their messages long after these rallies are over. Both rallies were peaceful and respectful, and while police were present at both events, there have been no reports of any problems. Both crowds drew larger numbers than last year.

This weekend’s rallies coincide with the 38th anniversary of the landmark Roe versus Wade case which legalized abortion. In a statement Saturday, President Obama says, he’s committed to protecting a constitutional right to choose. Obama says, he’s committed to policies preventing unwanted pregnancies, supporting pregnant women, and promoting adoption.

Related posts:

Occupy Wall Street vs. Steve Jobs

COUNTER-DEMONSTRATION: At Kappa Sigma house in Fayetteville. The Drew Wilson photo above went viral last night — at least in Arkansas e-mail and social media users — after the Fayetteville Flyer posted it in coverage of an Occupy Northwest Arkansas demonstration in Fayetteville. The 1 percent banner was unfurled briefly on the Kappa Sigma frat […]

Big Bad Wall St Corporations

I found this article interesting from the Wall Street Journal: OCTOBER 10, 2011 The Corporate Exec: Hollywood Demon Nazis are getting old, moviemakers don’t want to offend foreign audiences, so corporate types top the list of evil stereotypes By EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN It is not surprising that pop-culture protesters are now intent on occupying Wall […]

Herman Cain tells Wall St marchers where to march

The Arkansas Times Blog reported today: Around 100 were on hand for tonight’s Occupy Little Rock planning meeting, the second since the group formed in Little Rock earlier this month. Organizers and attendees struggled with a somewhat complicated voting-by-hand-signals process, but the assembly did get some key points ironed out, including the start time and […]

Jim Lendall of “Let them Pay” Guillotine fame shows up at “Occupy Arkansas” group meeting

Left leaning blogs like Blue Arkansas have praised the “Occupy Arkansas” but I wonder if they know about some of the crazy things the leaders of this movement have said. Jason Tolbert noted on October 7, 2011: Max Brantley with the Arkansas Times reports on the efforts currently under way to organize an “Occupy Arkansas” […]

October 15, 2011 – 3:52 pm Categories: Current Events, Prolife | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

President Obama is wrong about atms hurting employment

I have a great article below from the Cato Institute that refutes this claim. Automation does not hurt employment in the long run. I read this incorrect claim all the time. 
Here is a portion of  interview by NBC’s Ann Curry with President Obama:

Q: Why, at a time of record profits, have you been unable to convince businesses to hire more people Mr. President?

A: [….] the other thing that happened, though, and this goes to the point you were just making: there are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to be a lot more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and there’s an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.

_______

 President Obama blames America’s current unemployment problem on… automation. ATMs and airport kiosks are singled out.

These words could only be uttered by someone who knows very little about economics or the history of human progress. In fact, they could only be uttered by someone who has never reflected on this question before in his  life. Because if you reflect for one moment, you come up with this glaringly obvious counterfactual: we use a lot more  labor-saving technology today than in previous generations, and yet we also employ far more people. Therefore, increased automation does not lead to decreased national employment.

If you do more than just think for a second — if you read an economic history book, for instance — you discover that increased automation doesn’t even necessarily lead to decreased employment in the industry being automated! The classic example is the 19th century British textile industry. The so-called “Luddites” smashed automated looms fearing that they would lead to rampant unemployment in their industry. But, as the new technology proliferated, textile industry employment rose. Among other reasons, increased efficiency drastically lowered the prices of textile goods, that shot demand through the roof, and to meet the new demand new workers were required to operate and maintain the new machinery.

There are other examples, of course, and the president will save the American people a great deal of hardship, and himself further embarrassment,  if he familiarizes himself with them. Here’s a good brief introduction from the British Secretary of State… under Margaret Thatcher.


October 15, 2011 – 3:27 pm Categories: Cato Institute, President Obama | Post a comment

Tagged , , , |

“Soccer Saturday” Pele the greatest player of all time?

“Soccer Saturday” Pele the greatest player of all time?

Here is an article by Gi discussing Pele:

Pele as can be expected came back to play with Brazil in the 1962 World Cup which was played in Chile. This time however Pele was much more known to the fans as well as opposing players; who were not really all that eager to see him score another six goals or perhaps more in this world cup. Brazil were defending champions with basically the same players which won the world cup in 58 and who despite the passage of four years were still relatively young. All of which making it easy to see why a second world cup for Brazil in as many tournaments was not out of the realms of realistic possibilities. Specially since there were no other teams which were really strong enough to challenge them. Germany going through a rebuilding period while Italy still did not have the sort of team which could aspire to recapture their glory days of the 30s. Uruguay pretty much being but a shadow of their former selves.

The world cup known as Chile 62 however become a very defensive affair as teams were no longer willing to score as many as three goals or more in loosing efforts as had been the case in Switzerland 54 and Sweden 58. Teams became more eager to hold on to their leads once they had them and not risk them by going forward for more goals. This making most teams play with four defenders and only three forwards where before it had been with two defenders and five forwards.

Brazil for its part got off to what looking back might have been considered a good start in beating Mexico by 2-0 with Pele scoring Brazil’s first goal yet despite this victory; Brazil was severely criticized with much of the blame falling not only on their performance but on Pele. This despite Pele’s having scored one of Brazil’s two goals. This perhaps allowing Pele to see for himself what Mazola had experienced four years earlier when despite having scored two goals in Brazil’s first match; still had people saying he should not be on Brazil’s team. It being a case that Brazilian fans in those days were used to seeing Brazil beat Mexico by much more goals than only two. Brazil, after all had beaten Mexico by 5-0 in Brazil 50 and by 4-0 in Switzerland 54. All of which standing to their reason that a defending world champion should be able to beat Mexico, once again by at least as wide a margin as their teams in the past had done if not by a wider one.

Brazil’s next game came against Czechoslovakia. This a match which ended in a 0-0 draw and with even more criticism aimed at Brazil by their fans and media back home. It was also in this match that Pele left the field injured not to return for the rest of the tournament. Pele had not even been touched by any of Czechoslovakia’s players yet despite this managed to do damage on himself which would take him out of the remainder of the world cup.

For my part, I being skeptical about almost everything, wonder if Pele’s injury was such that he could not have played Brazil’s next game against Spain. Pele after all had not broken anything and had not even been fouled. Was it perhaps an attempt to try another player? Pele had not really played all that well in Brazil’s first two matches or such it was perceived by the fans and the media back home. So I often wonder if perhaps Brazil’s trainer did not exaggerate the gravity of Pele’s injury in order to try another player in his place like he had done with Pele in Mazola’s place four years earlier. It being Amarildo who took Pele’s place against Spain in a game which though not an absolute must win game for Brazil; was one in which they would have to do better than they had in their first two matches. This if perhaps not to qualify, at least to demonstrate to their fans that they were still a team capable of producing great football.

The game started with Spain taking a 1-0 lead when Adelardo scored 35 minutes in to the game. Spain would even take a 1-0 lead in to the second half. This something which had not happened in a very long that that Brazil ended the first half behind on the scoreboard. Brazil at this point even finding themselves in danger of being eliminated in the first round. This being the case that Spain with a win would have had four points which would have put them first in the group. Brazil with a loss would have had three points which would leave them depending on what Mexico (who was already out of the competition) could do against Czechoslovakia. Naturally a Czech victory or even a tie would have left Brazil out had they lost.

All however proved to be academic, as Brazil came back in the second half to win the game by two goals to one with both goals being scored by Amarildo; who just happened to be the man playing in Pele’s place. Obviously Pele’s replacement was doing his duty so I wonder if Pele would have been able to return to the starting team even if he had been healthy or if his injury was such that it was the real reason he was kept out of the starting lineup.

Amarildo had played well against Spain, this there was no doubts about and specially in a world cup in which defensive play was the order of the day unlike it had been in the last two previous world cups. Spain, in fact having a strong team back then which two years later went on to win the European nations cup.

Brazil went on to win their next two matches with relative ease. First against England by 3-1. This in a game which Garrincha scored two truly amazing goals. First one off a header and the next one of a free kick which could not have been better placed. Brazil’s other goal being scored by Vava, who continued where he left off in Sweden 58. Brazil’s next win came in the semifinals against the home team, Chile whom they defeated by a score of 4-2 with once again; Garrincha and Vava doing the scoring for Brazil. It being Garrincha who scored Brazil’s first two while Vava scored Brazil’s third and fourth.

Brazil was clearly playing well and was in top form and all without Pele. It was a case of this team being of such a high quality that even the absence of Pele did not disturb anything. Apparently Amarildo had been more than capable of filling the void left by Pele while the rest by just keeping up their level allowed Brazil to easily get in to the final. Of course, one could always say that this world cup did not really have very strong teams and those which were in fact solid such as the Soviet Union (winner of the 1960 European Championship) and Hungary did not really live up to expectations; apart the fact that Brazil did not have to face them anyway. Brazil was in the finals however and to their credit deservedly so and all without the man who many would later call the best player of all time.

In the finals Brazil met Czechoslovakia for the second time in the tournament yet unlike in their first match; this one could not end in a draw. Czechoslovakia, for its part like Sweden four years earlier also scored the first goal though not as early in the match as Sweden. Czechoslovakia in fact having to wait till the 15th minute of the game when Masopust slipped past Brazil’s defense to give his team a 1-0 lead. Brazil however being the solid team they were did not take long to reply. Brazil in fact having to wait but two minutes till Amarildo (Pele’s replacement) scored to level matters at one a piece. Amarildo, scoring a brilliant goal from a very tight angle which perhaps Czechoslovakia’s goalkeeper; Schroijf should have saved yet the score none the less was tied at one all.

Czechoslovakia for what concerned them, were playing well and went in to the half time break tied at one though it is my opinion that they perhaps celebrated too much after scoring. This allowing Brazil to get back in to the game after only two minutes of having gone down by a goal to nil. Czechoslovakia had its chances in the first period and had it not been for their lack of concentration after scoring and Schroijf’s error perhaps would have gone in to the half time break with a one goal lead or perhaps a two goal lead. This if they had continued with the solid play which had gotten them to the final in the first place.

Brazil however regrouped at the half and came out strong with Zito scoring his first world cup goal and Brazil’s second in the final to put them up by 2-1. Brazil perhaps was not dominating as strongly as they had in 58 yet were definitely in the drivers seat. It being in the 78th minute of the game that Garrincha sent up a high ball which in all honesty should not have given Czech goalkeeper, Schroijf any problems what so ever yet he somehow managed to drop it. The ball falling straight in to the path of the ever opportunistic Vava, who scored his first goal of the match and Brazil’s third to make the score 3-1; which is how it would end.

This last goal making Vava the first player to score in two finals. Brazil had won the world cup and became just the second team, after Italy to win two in a row and to a certain extent Pele had picked up his second world cup win though in all truth, as I have clearly pointed out; he hardly played. Naturally, to many at the time this did not really matter as Pele was a man who at the age of 21 had already won two world cups even if the second one was just for being on the team and little else. This perhaps making it possible for Argentina to say that Pasarella won two world cups with Argentina, who as a matter of fact only played in their first game against South Korea but I ask is this enough to say he is a double world champion? I would go one step further and ask if Brazil had beaten France in 98 then could Ronaldo claim to have won three world cups as well since he was on their world cup winning team in 94 though did not play at all? This being a matter of interpretation of course.

As an added comment, I would like to say that I feel it is sad that Amarildo did not really get the credit he earned for his performance in Chile 62. It being Amarildo, who to a certain extent with his two goals against Spain saved Brazil from the humiliation of being eliminated in the first round. Amarildo even scoring in the final when Brazil was loosing by 1-0 yet despite his efforts which were important in Brazil’s second world cup win, is rarely if ever mentioned amongst the great players of all time though he undoubtedly was.

My name is Gianni Truvianni, author of many an article to be found on the internet along with the book “New York’s Opera Society”. My works also include the books “What Should Not Matter”, “Love Your Sister” and several others which still remain unpublished though I am presently looking to change this.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6221508

October 15, 2011 – 2:58 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 16)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 16)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

Broun Statement on the Budget Control Act

 
 

Washington, Jul 28 –

Congressman Paul Broun, M.D. (GA-10) today released the following statement on his vote against the Republican Budget Control Act, which passed the House of Representatives 218 to 210 votes:

“I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that puts the future of my grandchildren and of generations to come in jeopardy.  While I respect my Republican colleagues’ efforts to come up with a compromise, the people in the 10th Congressional District of Georgia did not send me to Washington to follow the herd.  They sent me here to protect their liberty and to fundamentally change the way our federal government spends their money.  I do support a Balanced Budget Amendment, but I do not support raising the debt ceiling and allowing President Obama to put more debt on the backs of the American people.  Congress needs to first acknowledge that we have lost all control of our fiscal house, and then we need to focus on finding a real solution for paying down the national debt.”

###

October 15, 2011 – 8:15 am Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

Total Welfare Spending Is Rising Despite Attempts at Reform

Total Welfare Spending Is Rising Despite Attempts at Reform

Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.

Total means-tested welfare spending (cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services for the poor) has increased 17-fold since the beginning of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty in 1964. Though the current trend is unsustainable, the Obama Administration plans to increase future welfare spending rather than enact true policy reforms.

WELFARE SPENDING IN INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS (2010)

Receive Information on Federal Budget Data

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Zip Code
SUBMIT
Download

Total Welfare Spending Is Rising Despite Attempts at Reform

Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on data from current and previous White House Office of Management and Budget documents and other official government sources.

Chart 10 of 42

In Depth

  • Policy Papers for Researchers

  • Technical Notes

    The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More

  • Authors

    Emily GoffResearch Assistant
    Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
    Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor

October 14, 2011 – 11:59 am Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

Ark Times blogger asks “…you do know there is a slight difference between fetal tissue and babies, don’t you? Don’t you?” jh53

The Arkansas  Times blogger going by the username “Sound Policy” asserted, “…you do know there is a slight difference between fetal tissue and babies, don’t you? Don’t you?”

My response was taken from the material below:

Science Matters: Former supermodel Kathy Ireland tells Mike Huckabee about how she became pro-life after reading what the science books have to say.

My good friend Dr. Kevin R. Henke is a scientist and also an atheistic evolutionist. I had a lot of discussions with Kevin over religious views. I remember going over John 7:17 with him one day. It says:

John 7:17 (Amplified Bible)

17If any man desires to do His will (God’s pleasure), he will know (have the needed illumination to recognize, and can tell for himself) whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking from Myself and of My own accord and on My own authority.

I challenged Kevin to read a chapter a day of the Book of John and pray to God and ask God, “Dear God, if you are there then reveal yourself to me, and I pledge to serve you the rest of my life.”

Kevin did that and he even wrote down the thoughts that came to his mind and sent it to me and these thoughts filled a notebook.

Kevin did not become a Christian, but I am still praying for him. I do respect Kevin because he is an honest man. Interestingly enough he  told me that he was pro-life because the unborn baby has all the genetic code at  the time of conception that they will have for the rest of their life. Below are some other comments by other scientists:

Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic): “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School): “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania): “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, “the Father of Modern Genetics” (University of Descartes, Paris): “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”

Back on April 27, 2009 Fox News ran a story by Hollie McKay(“Supermodel Kathy Ireland Lashes Out Against Pro Choice,”) on Jill Ireland.

It’s no secret that the majority of Hollywood stars are strong advocates for a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to terminate a pregnancy, however former “Sports Illustrated” supermodel-turned-entrepreneur-turned-author Kathy Ireland has gone against the grain of the glitterati and spoken out against abortion.

“My entire life I was pro-choice — who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldn’t do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science,” Ireland told Tarts while promoting her insightful new book “Real Solutions for Busy Mom: Your Guide to Success and Sanity.”

“What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there.”

However Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life.

“I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesn’t even look like a baby. Well, we’re all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesn’t suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time,” Ireland argued. “I’ve also asked leading scientists across our country to please show me some shred of evidence that the unborn is not a human being. I didn’t want to be pro-life, but this is not a woman’s rights issue but a human rights issue.”

October 14, 2011 – 11:03 am Categories: Current Events, Prolife | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |