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.
And what about our schools? I think I should stress again! By law, you are no more allowed to teach religious values and religious views in our public schools than you are in the schools of Russia tonight. We don’t teach Marxism over here in most of our schools, but as far as all religious teaching (except the religion of Humanism, which is a different kind of a thing) it is just as banned by law from our schools, and our schools are just as secular as the schools in Soviet Russia — just exactly! Not ten years from now. Tonight!
Congress opens with prayer. Why? Because Congress always is opened with prayer. Back there, the founding fathers didn’t consider the 13 provincial congresses that sent representatives to form our country in Philadelphia really open until there was prayer. The Congress in Washington, where Edith and I have just been, speaking to various men in political areas and circles — that Congress is not open until there is prayer. It’s illegal, in many places, for youngsters to merely meet and pray on the geographical location of the public schools. I would repeat, we are not only immoral, we’re stupid. I mean that. I don’t know which is the worst: being immoral or stupid on such an issue. We are not only immoral, we are stupid for the place we have allowed ourselves to come to without noticing.
I would now repeat again the word I used before. There is no other word we can use for our present situation that I have just been describing, except the word TYRANNY! TYRANNY! That’s what we face! We face a world view which never would have given us our freedoms. It has been forced upon us by the courts and the government — the men holding this other world view, whether we want it or not, even though it’s destroying the very freedoms which give the freedoms for the excesses and for the things which are wrong.
We, who are Christians, and others who love liberty, should be acting in our day as the founding fathers acted in their day. Those who founded this country believed that they were facing tyranny. All you have to do is read their writings. That’s why the war was fought. That’s why this country was founded. They believed that God never, never, never wanted people to be under tyrannical governments. They did it not as a pragmatic or economic thing, though that was involved too, I guess, but for principle. They were against tyranny, and if the founding fathers stood against tyranny, we ought to recognize, in this year 1982, if they were back here and one of them was standing right here, he would say the same thing — what you are facing is tyranny. The very kind of tyranny we fought, he would say, in order that we might escape.
And we face a very hidden censorship. Every once in a while, as soon as we begin to talk about the need of re-entering Christian values into the discussion, someone shouts “Khomeni.” Someone says that what you are after is theocracy. Absolutely not! We must make absolutely plain, we are not in favor of theocracy, in name or in fact. But, having said that, nevertheless, we must realize that we already face a hidden censorship — a hidden censorship in which it is impossible to get the other world view presented in something like public television. It’s absolutely impossible.
I could give you a couple of examples. I’ll give you one because it’s so close to me. And that is, that after we made Whatever Happened to the Human Race, Franky made an 80 minute cutting for TV of the first 3 episodes (and people who know television say that it’s one of the best television films they have ever seen technically, so that’s not a problem). Their representative presented it to a director of public television, and as soon as she heard (It happened to be a woman. I’m sure that’s incidental.) that it was against abortion, she said, “We can’t show that. We only shoe things that give both sides.” And, at exactly the same time, they were showing that abominable Hard Choices, which is just straight propaganda for abortion. As I point out, the study guide that went with it (as I quote it in Christian Manifesto[the book] with a long quote) was even worse. It was saying that the only possible view of reality was this material thing — this material reality. They spelled it out in that study guide more clearly than I have tonight as to what the issue is. They said, “that’s it!” What do you call that? That’s hidden censorship.
Dr. Koop, one of the great surgeons of the world, when he was nominated as Surgeon General, much of the press (printed) great swelling things against him — a lot of them not true, a lot of them twisted. Certainly though, lots of space was made for trying to not get his nomination accepted. When it was accepted though, I looked like mad in some of the papers, and in most of them what I found was about one inch on the third page that said that Dr. Koop had been accepted. What do you call that? Just one thing: hidden censorship.
You must realize that this other view is totally intolerant. It is totally intolerant. I do not think we are going to get another opportunity if we do not take it now in this country. I would repeat, we are a long way down the road. I do not think we are going to get another opportunity. If the Christians, specifically, but others also, who love liberty, do not do something about it now, I don’t believe your grandchildren are going to get a chance. In the present so-called conservative swing in the last election, we have an opportunity, but we must remember this, and I would really brand this into your thinking: A conservative Humanism is no better than a liberal Humanism. It’s the Humanism that is wrong, not merely the coloration. And therefore, at the present moment, what we must insist on, to people in our government who represent us, is that we do not just end with words. We must see, at the present opportunity, if it continues, a real change. We mustn’t allow it to just drift off into mere words.
The New Yorker released its tribute cover of Steve Jobs, which will grace the October 17 edition of the magazine. In a blog post, The New Yorker shows that the cover will depict Steve Jobs meeting Saint Peter at the pearly gates. Saint Peter is using an iPad, apparently using it to do a little research before deciding if Jobs will be admitted to heaven or sent to a place with a warmer climate.
There’s only one problem here: Steve Jobs was a Buddhist.
The New Yorker’s Cover: Apple Co-Founder Meets St. Peter
I’m sure New York means well by devoting a cover to Apple’s co-founder, but this illustration smacks of ignorance. Yes, the New Yorker’s known for satire, but is this really the right way to approach it before his family’s even heldservices for him? How about showing Steve Jobs a little respect by at least depicting him with a religious idol he’s believed in?
Anil Dash, a writer and entrepreneur tweeted the following in reaction to The New Yorker:
Always annoys me when non-Christians are portrayed as reaching a Christian heaven when they die. It’s not a compliment.
@anildash also the depiction is inaccurate since non-Christians go to hell when they die
Each religion has its own theory of what happens to us in the afterlife. Whatever your beliefs (or lack of religios beliefs) are, it’s an ultimate sign of disrespect to be memorialized in a manner which doesn’t reflect how you lived. You wouldn’t place a a cross over a Jew’s grave or hold a Catholic mass for an atheist, would you? The New Yorker most certainly wouldn’t dare depicting a deceased celebrity in any stage of Islmaic rites unless its editors were 1000% sure he was a Muslim.
It’s wrong for The New Yorker to either assume Steve Jobs was Catholic or simply ignore his religious beliefs and depict him in front of the pearly gates. Why couldn’t The New Yorker do just a little bit of research and maybe depict him interacting with Buddha under a Bodhi tree?
What do you think about The New Yorker’s tribute to Steve Jobs? I think there’s a bit of ignorance on The New Yorker’s part here. The magazine’s publishers should illustrate a more fitting cover if it they hope to honor Steve Jobs.
Xavier Lanier is a mobile technology enthusiast and avid photographer. Based in San Francisco, Xavier is the publisher of GottaBeMobile.com and Notebooks.com
The U.S. Men’s National Team earned a 1-0 win against Honduras at Sun Life Stadium in Miami, Fla. Clint Dempsey’s first half goal and a strong performance from Tim Howard were enough to give Jurgen Klinsmann his first win as U.S. MNT head coach.
MIAMI — The United States got Jurgen Klinsmann a victory in his fourth try as American coach.
Clint Dempsey scored in the 36th minute and goalkeeper Tim Howard made several key saves in a 1-0 exhibition victory over Honduras on Saturday night.
“It’s huge for all of us. You don’t ever want to go a long period of time without winning,” Howard said. “We performed well, I think, and we’re trying to set a foundation, but ultimately you have to win. That was the focus coming in.”
Since Klinsmann replaced Bob Bradley on July 29 after the CONCACAF Gold Cup, the Americans had tied Mexico, and lost to Costa Rica and Belgium.
When Klinsmann took over as coach of Germany’s national team seven years ago, Die Mannschaft beat Austria in his debut.
“This team is hungry for success,” Klinsmann said. “They want to do well and get the results right.”
Eight days after acquiring a U.S. passport, Danny Williams started in his national team debut. The 22-year-old midfielder, the son of a U.S. serviceman and a German mother, joined Hoffenheim from Freiburg at the end of August and only made his first start for Hoffenheim against Bayern Munich last weekend.
“It was great — I had goose bumps,” Williams said. “When I heard the national anthem played I said, ‘Wow! This is the first time playing for the U.S. national team.”
He is among four German-Americans in the U.S. program. Schalke midfielder Jermaine Jonesmade his debut last October, and Nuremberg defender Timmy Chandler debuted in March. Hoffenheim midfielder Fabian Johnson, sidelined by a neck injury, was been approved by FIFA last month for a switch from Germany to the U.S.
On a rainy night in south Florida, a frog could be seen on the field. The game was the first of a pair for the U.S. during the international fixture period. The Americans host Ecuador on Tuesday night in Harrison, N.J.
The U.S. used a 4-1-3-2 formation and Howard made up for a few defensive lapses.
“I think it took us a little bit to get into a higher pace,” Klinsmann said. “The first 20 minutes were a bit too static. And then we took over, created a lot more chances.”
Dempsey put the U.S. ahead with his 23rd international goal. Brek Shea‘s centering pass got past several players and touched Michael Orozco Fiscal before Dempsey gained control at the top of the penalty area, He moved the ball from his right foot to his left and shot high past goalkeeper Donis Escobar .
“I didn’t know if the ball was going to come through, I got a little lucky,” Dempsey said. “I took my time. I was going to take it with my right foot but saw it was going to be blocked, so I pulled it back to my left and couldn’t have hit it any sweeter.”
Dempsey also appeared to score on a header in the 84th minute, but the Americans were called for offside.
With the U.S. using most top players other than Landon Donovan (strained right quadriceps) and midfielder Stuart Holden (knee surgery), the Americans seemed to better adapt to the system employed by Klinsmann.
In the 18th minute, Honduras’ Jerry Bengston broke in alone on Howard and let go a shot from the top of the box. Then in the 26th minute, Howard made a diving save of a straight-on, left-footed shot by Carlos Costly from well beyond the box.
Howard also stopped a shot from Boniek Garcia, who fired from the left corner in the 52nd minute. With his 37th win, Howard tied Tony Meola for second among U.S. goalkeepers behind Kasey Keller‘s 53.
“Tim is getting to a time in his career where he realizes these are the golden years for him ahead,” Klinsmann said. “We really enjoy what he brings to the table.”
Oguchi Onyewu, appearing for the first time under Klinsmann, squandered a scoring chance in the 66th minute when he volleyed a rebound over the crossbar. Escobar had made a save on Dempsey and the ball landed at Onyewu’s feet.
NOTES: Carlos Bocanegra and Howard are the only players to start all four games under Klinsmann. … Williams was the first player to make his debut under Klinsmann. DaMarcus Beasley replaced Williams in the 65th minute, his first international appearance since last year’s World Cup game against Algeria. … Jonathan Spector made his first appearance under Klinsmann, replacing Chandler in the 76th. Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press
PrintWith the sad passing of Steve Jobs, everyone is talking about what an awesome entrepreneur he was. But what exactly do entrepreneurs like Jobs do for the economy?I’ve studied the stories of dozens of America’s pioneering business leaders from Samuel Morse and Thomas Edison to Bill Gates and Fred Smith. What I’ve found is that while Steve Jobs was great, the rise of his Apple Computer was far from unique in our history.
Historians Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell found that “new enterprises, specializing in new technologies, were instrumental in the introduction of electricity, the internal-combustion engine, automobiles, aircraft, electronics, aluminum, petroleum, plastic materials, and many other advances.” At the start of nearly every industry, a few gutsy people have taken huge risks to challenge old ways, to undermine dominant firms, and often to battle against government barriers that stood in their way.
Looking at Jobs and other great entrepreneurs, I’ve found five key roles they play in generating growth:
Entrepreneurs are Radical Innovators. Their inventions are usually unexpected and very disruptive to exiting businesses. Rosenberg and Birdzell note that Apple’s pioneering early products were not thought of “by any of the leading American computer manufacturers, nor by the Soviet Union, nor by the French Commissariat du Plan, nor by MITI in Japan.” Another radical innovator of the 1970s was Fred Smith of Federal Express. Today, we take overnight delivery for granted, but it was up to Smith to battle regulatory roadblocks and to show that there was a huge demand for the service.
Entrepreneurs Grow Niches into Big Industries. Bill Gates began his career in the 1970s writing code for an obscure hobbyist computer called the MITS Altair. That would not have seemed like the path to the top at the time — it was a niche market (software) within a niche market (microcomputers). But leaders of the giant mini and mainframe computer firms overlooked the microcomputer that outsiders like Gates and Jobs were developing. Just last year, Apple’s iPad looked like a niche product, but tablet computing has exploded.
Entrepreneurs Generate Competition. Apple Computer has played a crucial role in providing an alternative to giant Microsoft by always staying one step ahead. American history is full of agile and upstart firms providing a crucial competitive check to dominant firms. One great story is the rise of William McGowan’s MCI Corporation in the 1970s and 1980s. MCI helped destroy the AT&T monopoly, thus paving the way for Jobs and other entrepreneurs to marry computers with telecommunications technology.
Entrepreneurs are Guinea Pigs. The modern economy is steeped in uncertainty. No one can accurately predict the future, not even the best entrepreneurs. Instead, what makes entrepreneurs unique is that they act in the face of uncertainty. Steve Jobs was a great high-tech guinea pig, and he had plenty of product failures. But good entrepreneurs learn from their mistakes and try again. Ransom Olds, the father of the U.S. automobile industry, failed numerous times with steam-powered cars and other technologies before he succeeded with the first mass-produced gasoline car in 1901. Even by 1910, Thomas Edison was still insisting that “the nickel-iron battery will put the gasoline buggy … out of existence in no time.”
Entrepreneurs Turn Inventions into Innovations. America’s rise to prosperity is often portrayed as a steady process of accumulating new inventions. That “science push” understanding of history is often implicit in calls for government funding of science. But that view is wrong. Economies grow because of innovations, which are inventions that entrepreneurs package and test in the marketplace. The Chinese invented paper, but it was in pluralistic Europe where printing exploded after Gutenberg’s advances. Apple Computer has been brilliant at both making technological breakthroughs and guessing the demands of the marketplace.
What are the policy lessons from America’s great entrepreneurial history? One lesson is that the politicians who steer subsidies to solar firms, fast trains, and other schemes are ignorant of the real sources of economic growth. Because market uncertainties are pervasive, government agencies and dominant companies cannot be relied upon to secure our economic future.
Instead, we can spur growth by encouraging a culture of entrepreneurship, repealing barriers to entry, reducing taxes on risky investments, and simply getting out of the way of the next generation of Steve Jobses.
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 10)
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.
Tipton Calls for Common Sense, Balanced Approach to the Debt Ceiling
“The American people can’t call their banks and arbitrarily raise their spending limits; they have to cut back and tighten their budgets to live within their means, and they expect Washington to play by the same rules.”—Rep. Scott Tipton
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Stressing that Washington needs to start spending within its means like American families and businesses, Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-R) called for a common sense, balanced approach to the debt ceiling and spending problem.
“This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but an American issue. It is my hope that we can come together to reach a solution that embraces the common sense principles of living within our means and acting responsibly,” Tipton said. “We have an opportunity to cut, cap and balance, and chart a sustainable course in this country, rather than just cut and run. This is the balanced approach that the president has been asking for.”
The Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011 seeks to cut $111 billion in spending in FY2012 and $5.8 trillion over ten years, cap federal spending to under 20% of GDP by 2017, and pass a balanced budget amendment for passage by the states. Tipton plans to vote in favor of the Act later today.
“Forty-nine of our fifty states have some form of a balanced budget requirement. The President’s comment that a balanced budget is unrealistic for the federal government is out of touch,” Tipton said. “American families and small businesses balance their budgets every day; the states do it every day; it’s time that Washington does the same. With unemployment above 8 percent for 29 consecutive months, American families know all too well what it’s like to face a real debt ceiling. The American people can’t call their banks and arbitrarily raise their limits; they have to cut back and tighten their budgets to live within their means, and they expect Washington to play by the same rules.”
While House Republicans have passed a budget, and put forward solutions to curb Washington’s runaway spending and prevent Medicare and Social Security from going bankrupt, the President and Senate Democrats have yet to propose any plan.
“We are still waiting to see a plan from the President, and the silence has been deafening,” Tipton said. “The President cannot continue to punt on this issue. The time to act is now, and that’s what Republicans are doing by passing this plan to Cut, Cap, and Balance.”
What business owners are saying about the debt ceiling in the Third District:
“I’ve operated a small business for 25 years– meeting payrolls, keeping a balanced budget and never taking on more debt than we were able to payoff quickly. It’s time Washington politicians take off their political hats, start thinking like business owners and start living within their means. The American people and the business community want to see fundamental changes in the way Washington does business. That means standing on principle to cut spending and putting a stop to our country’s unsustainable debt before raising the debt ceiling.”—Tom Abbott, Owner, Montrose Ford-Nissan
“If Washington can raise the debt ceiling every time they decide to spend beyond their ability to pay, then what is the point? In my business, I can’t call the bank and tell them that I need more money if I decided to spend beyond my ability to pay. It should be no different for Washington. Washington needs to get serious and find a solution that fixes the root of the spending problem and pay down our debt before it’s too late to reverse the course.”—Doug Simons, Owner, Enstrom Candies, Grand Junction.
“It’s time we draw a line in the sand. We cannot continue to live off of future promises from Washington that fade away with every new spending increase. We don’t need more lip-service from Washington promising to fix things eventually, we need them to act now and get spending under control now. Our children’s future is at stake.”—Dean Matthews, Independent Electrical Contractor, Cortez
Francis Schaeffer observes in How Should We Then Live: The Rise And Decline Of Western Thought And Culturethat evolutionary theory in the form of humanistic thought has reduced everything to the level of a component in a great universal machine.
Of this outlook, Schaeffer writes, “In one form of reductionism, man is explained by reducing him to the smallest particles which make up his body. Man is seen as being only the molecule or the energy particle, more complex but not intrinsically different (164).”
To prove such an observation is more than Evangelical hyperbole, Schaeffer quotes Harvard University Chemistry Professor George Wald who said, “Four hundred years ago there was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare which produced Hamlet(164).”
In order to remain consistent, those holding to such a perspective have to concede such a masterpiece is not so much the result of creative insight as it is a fortuitous case of gas. And to any naturalist offended by my remarks, they cannot very well complain about them since by their own worldview, I had no control over what I wrote.
After I read that I had the opportunity three times in the 1990′s to correspond with Dr. George Wald of Harvard. In one of his letters he suggested that Atheism and Buddhism are the same thing. I tend to agree.
Many Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation. I would call these individuals atheists. The article below points out that the others believe: “When a person becomes enlightened, reincarnation ceases.” Both views are close to the same end result of atheism.
Below is a futher discussion of Buddhism.
– Steve McConkey, president of 4 WINDS, a website also known as christianinvestigator.com, and minister to track and field athletes (www.trackandfieldreport.com): “From all indications, Steve Jobs was a Buddhist. The college dropout started Apple Computer with friend Steve Wozniak in the late 1970s. By 1980, he was a millionaire. Jobs was born in San Francisco. His favorite musicians were the Beatles and Bob Dylan. The San Francisco counterculture had an influence on Jobs. He experimented with psychedelic drugs. The name Apple was inspired by the Beatles’ Apple Corps. Like the Beatles, Jobs went to India to seek spiritual truth. He eventually converted to Buddhism. Buddhist monk Kobun Chino presided over his wedding. Also, Forbes magazine is publishing a comic book about Steve Jobs. The book focuses on Steve’s travels to Japan. The [comic] book re-creates the relationship with his mentor, Kobun Chino Otogawa, a Buddhist priest. Ö Steve Jobs’ mission was to understand Buddhism better. Steve Jobs was the Einstein of our time with advances in technology that shape everything we do. Because of his Buddhist beliefs, our concern is about this worldview. Buddha was a prince in India and founded Buddhism. Buddhists do not believe in a Supreme Being. Seven percent of the world’s population are Buddhists. Buddhists believe suffering comes from desire. In order to remedy the situation, they believe a person should have right thoughts and do good things. They follow the ‘Eightfold Path’ and ‘The Four Noble Truths.’ Many Buddhists believe in reincarnation. When a person becomes enlightened, reincarnation ceases. Christianity counters Buddhism. Christians believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. There is one God who reveals Himself eternally through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Christians believe that all people have sinned and need salvation through Jesus Christ. Good works cannot save a person. Christians believe that Jesus Christ died for man’s sins so that those who believe in Christ will be saved. Once a Christian, a person will spend eternity with Jesus Christ.”
Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 Drawing from some of the most pivotal points in his life, Steve Jobs, chief executive officer and co-founder of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, urged graduates to pursue their dreams and see the opportunities in life’s setbacks — including death […]
Another look at Steve Jobs. Best Bits From the Steve Jobs Bio By Sadie Bass | The Daily Beast – 1 hr 0 mins ago The Profound Effect of Being Adopted What’s the key to understanding Steve Jobs? According to his biographer, Walter Isaacson, it starts at the beginning—literally. Jobs was born to unwed parents and placed […]
I have posted a lot about Steve Jobs and I have the links below after this fine aricle: Steve Jobs to Obama in 2010: ‘You’re Headed for a One-Term Presidency’ Lachlan Markay October 21, 2011 at 12:04 pm Steve Jobs, the late Apple founder and digital pioneer, told President Obama in a 2010 meeting […]
Steve Jobs was raised as a conservative Lutheran but he chose to leave those beliefs behind. Below is a very good article on his life. COVER STORY ARTICLE | Issue: “Steve Jobs 1955-2011″ October 22, 2011 A god of our age Who was Steve Jobs? A revered technology pioneer and a relentless innovator, the Apple […]
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 […]
(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]
(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]
It is strange that the New Yorker Magazine did no research. (If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible […]
According to published reports Steve Jobs was a Buddhist and he had a very interesting quote on death which I discussed in another post. Back in 1979 I saw the film series HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? by Francis Schaeffer and I also read the book. Francis Schaeffer observes in How Should We Then Live: The Rise […]
Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 It was a quite moving story to hear about Steve Jobs’ adoption. Ryan Scott Bomberger (www.toomanyaborted.com), co-founder of The Radiance Foundation, an adoptee and adoptive father: “As a creative professional, [Jobs’] visionary work has helped my own visions become reality. But his […]
I have written several posts on Steve Jobs and they are listed below. Today I want to look at the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life. Below are the words of – R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.: “Christians cannot leave the matter where the secular world will […]
I loved reading this article below. (Take a look at the link to other posts I have done on Steve Jobs.) David Boaz makes some great observations: How much value is the Post Office creating this year? Or Amtrak? Or Solyndra? And if you point out that the Post Office does create value for its […]
Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 Drawing from some of the most pivotal points in his life, Steve Jobs, chief executive officer and co-founder of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, urged graduates to pursue their dreams and see the opportunities in life’s setbacks — including death […]
Things you may not know about Steve Jobs: Steve Jobs leans against his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs (Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle/Corbis) For all of his years in the spotlight at the helm of Apple, Steve Jobs in many ways remains an inscrutable figure — even in his death. Fiercely private, Jobs concealed most specifics about […]
Steve Jobs passed away on October 5, 2011. I personally am very grateful to him for helping the world so much with his ideas and I have written about that before. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute noted: He’s built a $360 billion company. That presumably means at least $352 billion of wealth in the […]
Did Steve Jobs help people even though he did not give away a lot of money? (I just finished a post concerning Steve’s religious beliefs and a post about 8 things you may not know about Steve Jobs) Uploaded by UM0kusha0kusha on Sep 16, 2010 clip from The First Round Up *1934* ~~enjoy!! ______________________________________________ In the short film […]
Bono has the wrong answer for the poor of the world (Part 3)
Bono praises the election of President Obama!!!
I love Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose.” In that film series over and over it is shown that the ability to move from poor to rich is more abundant here than any other country in the world. This article below reminded me of that that.
_________________________
This is a series of posts that show that Bono (who I have been listening to since 1983) has the wrong solution to the problem of worldwide hunger.
Politico reports here that a group of celebrities, including former Baptist pastor Mike Huckabee, shouted a four-letter obscenity for cameras in a promotion to speak up against famine. Bleeps and labels to cover mouths obscure the actual word.
In the PSA, our celebrity supporters shout out one four letter word that the majority of viewers will find offensive, in order to shine a light on something only a minority seems to be offended by. I know the tone is a bit rough for ONE — that’s no accident. If it feels like a punch in the face, then good — mission accomplished. It’s time for a wakeup call and here’s the alarm. Love it? Great. Hate it? OK. Just don’t ignore it.
I’m not sure I believe Huck did precisely as described.
_____________
One of the key parts of the solution is economic freedom, economic growth and free trade. It is not the bailout, welfare approach of President Obama who Bono supported in 2008.
Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on October 30, 2004
This article appeared on cato.org on October 30, 2004.
I’m happy to talk about how to explain the benefits of free trade to the public. It took me until I was about 35 years old to figure out that that is my calling in life, explaining free trade, and doing it not just to the high and mighty in Washington, but to people around the country and hopefully around the world. I’ve spent two thirds of my adult life outside of Washington, D.C. Twelve of those years were in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as an editorial page editor, writing daily editorials for 100,000 different households in a community that’s very much a slice of Middle America.
How we explain the benefits of free trade is hugely important today. Trade and globalization are being debated on cable TV every night. The expansion of trade and foreign investment is determining the shape of our world. And it is controversial among the public if not in the economics profession. Surveys of economist show that a large majority free trade is the right policy. Study after study confirms what theory has long taught, that countries open to trade grow faster and achieve higher incomes than those that are closed.
The public does not share the view of the economics profession on trade. People have a general notion that trade is good for the country, but then they have all sorts of qualifications. Most people will accept trade as a general principle as long as we require minimum labor and environmental standards in poor countries and protect U.S. workers. So you see this gap between the economics profession and the public.
Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.
This gap persists despite 200 plus years of having “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith. If you haven’t read “The Wealth of Nations,” I would highly recommend it, especially Book IV. Adam Smith’s writing is so lively and applicable to today. Then we have the French economist Frederic Bastiat. I’m not sure how anybody could explain free trade better than Bastiat. And yet, here we are, 150 years later, still debating and trying to explain free trade.
Trade Benefits for Producers
Another point is that companies and businesses are huge importers. Half of what we import to the United States each year is imported for businesses. They import raw materials, energy and lumber and cement and that sort of thing. They import intermediate components, parts, auto parts, computer parts, that go in for final assembly. And then of course they import re is capital machinery, machines that come in that make U.S. companies more competitive.
Here are some examples: A typical American computer has “Dell” or “Hewlett Packard” stamped on it, but most of it is made overseas. Maybe some of the most important parts are made in the United States, the brains of it, but the components, the hard drives, the flat panel display screens are made abroad. In fact, 60 percent of a typical American computer is made in the Far East. We are much better off because of that. We can afford computers in our homes, in our businesses. Our whole economy is more productive.
Consider steel. It was not one of President Bush’s finest moments when he imposed tariffs on steel in March of 2002. Yes, it probably kept one or two aging steel mills in business, but it raised the price of steel for a broad swath of U.S. industry–the automobile industry, the tool and die industry and other metal fabrication businesses, the construction industry. Those sectors use a lot of steel, and they paid a price for those tariffs.
One of the arguments the Cato Institute made that was quite effective in Congress in stopping steel protection was we pointed out that for every job in the steel industry, there are 40 jobs in the United States in industries that use steel as a component in its production. This was a perfectly legitimate free trade argument that also playing on this public desire to defend jobs. You want to protect jobs? There are more jobs in jeopardy from higher steel prices than are protected by higher steel prices.
Sugar is yet another example. Yes, sugar quotas cost costs U.S. consumers almost $2 billion a year, or $20 a year to a typical American household. But the quotas also cost jobs. Chicago used to be ringed by confectionery companies that would take sugar in as an important input and crank out Lifesavers and candy bars. In 2002 a Lifesaver factory in Holland, Michigan, announced it was moving to Canada because Canada allows sugar to be bought at the global price. We’re losing jobs because of sugar protection.
So again, you’re emphasizing the producer. You’re putting protectionists on the defensive. The sugar program is costing manufacturing jobs. The steel tariffs are costing manufacturing jobs.
When foreigners sell us something, they earn dollars, but then they have to do something with those dollars. They can’t pay their workers and suppliers back in Japan or China with dollars. They exchange the dollars they earn for their local currency, and then those dollars come back to the United States to buy our goods and services. They also come back to buy investment assets.
So what happens when we raise trade barriers? It’s harder for foreigners to earn those dollars to spend in our markets. So when you suppress imports into the United States through trade protection, you’re also going to see exports fall. You’re going to see foreign investment fall. And of course you invite retaliation, too. If we raise our trade barriers, other countries raise theirs. So import barriers put exports at risk. It’s a very important point to make.
Let me add a concluding word about production. We hear the charge that America is “de industrializing.” Here is where some simple facts can work so well. I just love to point out that, in the United States, we are manufacturing 50 percent more stuff than we were a decade ago. According to the Federal Reserve, manufacturing output in the United States is up 50 percent in the past ten year, double what it was in 1980, and triple what it was in the good old 1960s. We’re producing more stuff with fewer workers because they are so much more productive. Is that bad that our workers are more productive?
Trade and Jobs–The Real Story
This leads us to a third major battle ground–jobs. All right, you want to talk about jobs? Let’s talk about trade and jobs. Again, acknowledge the pain of workers laid off because of import competition, but we need to put those layoffs in the context of the tremendous job churn in a dynamic market economy. Our eye is always on the net jobs gained and jobs lost, but underneath that number are millions of jobs that are created and destroyed every year. This is the “creative destruction” Joseph Schumpeter talked about.
The U.S. Labor Department has actually tried to calculate total jobs lost and total jobs created, and what they found is that in a typical year, there are something like 30 million jobs in the U.S. economy that are eliminated, half of them permanently. Fifteen million jobs every year just disappear, never to come back again. The other 15 million are seasonal type jobs that disappear and then pop up again.
How many jobs do you think are lost from trade every year? It’s about 400,000. Those are jobs lost because of imports from China and other places that displacing U.S. production, from outsourcing, that sort of thing. To put that number in context, the U.S. economy employs 140 million workers. Of those, about 325,000 people every week are lining up for unemployment insurance. There is a story behind every one of them. So of the 15 million jobs that disappear permanently each year, trade and outsourcing accounts for 2 percent–2 percent–of the total jobs displaced in the U.S. economy.
What eliminates the other 98 percent? Changing consumer tastes, new technology, domestic competition. Let’s put some flesh and blood on that fact. Kodak, the good old camera company, has laid off 25, 000 workers in the past two years. Because of outsourcing? Because of trade? No. Because of those nifty digital cameras that I bet just about everybody in this room owns. You contributed to putting a Kodak worker out of work with that digital camera. Would we seriously think of banning digital cameras to save those jobs? It would be ludicrous. And yet, that’s what we’re talking about when we consider restricting outsourcing or raising tariffs. When we talk about people who have lost their jobs from trade, we should talk about everybody who has lost their jobs for whatever reason. There is nothing unique about trade when it comes to jobs.
Free Trade and the World’s Poor
Another area of positive terrain for us that we shouldn’t give up is the poor and the world’s children. The highest trade barriers remaining in the United States are aimed at products that are disproportionately consumed by poor people at home and produced by poor people abroad. Our highest trade barriers are on farm products, on textiles and apparel and shoes. And not just all shoes. We have our highest trade barriers on low end shoes, the kind you would buy in a Pay Less Shoe Store. But not on the kind you would buy in a Gucci store.
A moderate Democratic think tank in Washington called the Progressive Policy Institute issued a study in 2004 that documented that U.S. tariffs are much higher on low-end goods than high-end goods. For example, the tariff on imported silk underwear into the United States is virtually zero, but the tariff on imported synthetic or low grade cotton is higher. So if you wear silk underwear, you get a low tariff. If you wear the regular kind of underwear like the rest of us, you pay a high tariff. This study calculated that a single mother with two children earning $20,000 a year pays an effective tariff on the goods she consumes that’s three times higher than what a single executive earning $100,000 a year would pay.
Our existing trade barriers are biased against the poor at home. A trade representative in Washington likes to say that our goal should “to make sure that every discount store in America is a duty free shop for working families.”
How about the world’s poor? Here’s a headline you probably didn’t see in your local newspaper:” Global Poverty Down by Half Since 1981.” The Share of the world’s population living on dollar a day or less has dropped from 40 percent then to 20 percent today, and that share is expected to continue to fall. And by the way, virtually all that progress has happened in poor countries that have progressively globalized. Places like Sub Saharan Africa, there is very little progress. In fact, the number of poor is rising in those places.
The World Bank could not find a single example of a poor country that had kept its markets closed and chased away foreign investment, and at the same time made progress against poverty. In other words, all the poor countries that followed our example, most of them have made progress against poverty. Those that follow the teachings of the anti globalization people have made no progress.
The evidence on trade and poverty became so overwhelming that Oxfam International issue a study in 2002 that, while critical of a lot of things in the global economy, came down firmly on the side of trade being a friend of the poor. And they pointed out that by getting rid of these rich-country trade barriers, we could deliver twice as much income to poor countries as all the aid we give them.
More trade, more democracy
Let me end up with a few thoughts about war and peace and democracy, another area where we’re on solid terrain and where this does resonate with people more than the consumer issues. And this is especially effective in the post 9/11 world. September 11th made my job of promoting immigration more difficult. It made the job of promoting trade liberalization a little bit easier.
Bob Zoellick, the former U.S. Trade Representative, was fast out of the block. He had an op-ed in the Post about a month after September 11th, saying this is one more reason to progressively pursue global trade, because trade promotes higher living standards, human rights, democracy, and more cooperation among nations. And he was on solid ground. That was not an opportunistic argument; it was a factual argument.
I think this especially works with older audiences, people who can remember, or at least their parents can remember, the Great Depression. We had the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. It was a disaster by all measures. Let’s remind people of that. It’s a good history lesson. Granted, Smoot Hawley did not cause the Great Depression, but it certainly didn’t end it. It didn’t create jobs. It deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. It launched a downward global spiral in trade, by encouraging trade barriers abroad that exacerbated international tensions and helped lay the groundwork for World War II.
One of the many good decisions made during and after World War II was, in the United States, to turn away from protectionism towards freer trade. We launched the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We encouraged the Europeans to trade more with each other through the common market. And you have to say, that’s been a spectacular success in terms of promoting the peace in Western Europe. And this was a bipartisan policy supported by JFK, Eisenhower, and Truman.
The world today is more democratic and politically free because of trade and globalization. A 2004 Cato study documented that countries that are open to trade are more likely to be democracies and respect human rights. We can point to examples of South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, Mexico, Ghana–all are countries that embarked on economic liberalization, which laid the groundwork for political liberalization.
Free trade begets a growing middle class, which often forms the backbone of political pluralism. Freedom House, a New York-based think tank, has documented that a higher share of the world’s people are living under democracies today, where they enjoy political and civil liberties, than at any time in human history. That’s another headline you probably didn’t see in the New York Times recently, but it’s true.
More peace on Earth
Finally, free trade has spread peace around the world. By encouraging democracy, democracies are less likely to fight wars with each other. In fact, they virtually never do. But also globalization has given governments one more reason not to go to war because, among its evils, it disrupts trade, which raises the cost of war. Trade doesn’t prevent war, but it gives leaders one more reason to stop and think before they go to war.
Here’s another headline I bet you didn’t see in one of the major papers. This was actually an Associated Press headline from April 2004: “War declining worldwide, studies say.” And sure enough, according to a Swedish think tank, the number of people who die in international wars annually is down to about 20,000, the lowest figure in the postwar era. That compares to the 700,000 people who died in 1951. According to the World Bank, civil wars are declining in those less developed regions that are globalizing. All this dies into the war on terrorism, of course. The Middle East is one of the least globalized regions in the world. Their share of global trade and investment has been declining significantly. Outside of oil, they offer virtually nothing to the rest of the world.
Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the September 11 attacks, was not poor. He had a master’s degree can came from a well-to-do Egyptian family. He just didn’t have a future. He came from a stagnant country, socially, politically, and economically. We need to encourage, among other things, for countries in the Middle East to trade more with each other.
We do not help the situation with cotton subsidies in the United States. They deliver subsidies to 25,000 U.S. cotton farmers, with an average per capita wealth of $800,000. That drives down the global price of cotton. Where are the cotton producers in poor countries? Well, among them are Sub Saharan African countries like Mali. Mali is one of the few Muslim majority countries in the world that is free, that has a democracy, where people enjoy full civil and political liberties. How do we encourage that sort of political and economic reform in the Muslim world? We drive down the global price of their chief commodity export through our cotton program, extracting $250 million a year from that part of the world, where that is no small change.
Free trade makes us freer as individuals. It makes us better off as consumers. It makes us more productive as workers and producers, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty around the world and spreading democracy, human rights and peace around the world. That is the story we must tell.
U2 performs Pride: In the name of Love, a song about Martin Luther King, at President-elect Barack Obama’s Inaugural concert on the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. Bono told the estimated 600,000 there that on Tuesday “that dream comes to pass.” Jan. 18, 2009
It was a quite moving story to hear about Steve Jobs’ adoption.
Ryan Scott Bomberger (www.toomanyaborted.com), co-founder of The Radiance Foundation, an adoptee and adoptive father: “As a creative professional, [Jobs’] visionary work has helped my own visions become reality. But his vision, his destiny and his ability to affect people, globally, may never have happened. Jobs was adopted as a baby and loved by his parents, Clara and Paul Jobs. The baby they took into their hearts and home had a purpose in life that would be unleashed by the powerful act of adoption. It’s amazing to me that, in 2011, especially among Christians, how foreign a concept adoption is. Adoption is the essence of salvation. There is no Christianity without adoption, in the spiritual sense. Yet, in the physical sense, it is rarely considered as an option. For those who are so passionately pro-life, it is often the challenge thrown before us in our opposition to abortion, and rightfully so. We have an opportunity to unleash purpose in a child waiting to be loved. I was one of those children back in 1971. Steve Jobs was back in 1955. The beauty of possibility is that we all can play a role in helping to foster and encourage it. Who knows what my children, both adopted and biological, will become? All I know is that loving them, unconditionally, will allow their God-given purpose to flourish. There are so many well-known adopted individuals that have impacted many of our lives in one way or another: Charles Dickens, George Washington Carver, Nat King Cole, Babe Ruth, Dave Thomas (Wendy’s), Bo Diddley (musician/performer), Dan O’Brien (Olympic Decathlon gold medalist) and Faith Hill, just to name a few. Steve Jobs is among this list of infinite possibility. No matter the perceived worldly success of an adoptee, adoption is a loving act that transforms, not only the life of the child, but the entire family. And, sometimes, the world.”
Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 It was a quite moving story to hear about Steve Jobs’ adoption. Ryan Scott Bomberger (www.toomanyaborted.com), co-founder of The Radiance Foundation, an adoptee and adoptive father: “As a creative professional, [Jobs’] visionary work has helped my own visions become reality. But his […]
I have written several posts on Steve Jobs and they are listed below. Today I want to look at the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life. Below are the words of – R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.: “Christians cannot leave the matter where the secular world will […]
I loved reading this article below. (Take a look at the link to other posts I have done on Steve Jobs.) David Boaz makes some great observations: How much value is the Post Office creating this year? Or Amtrak? Or Solyndra? And if you point out that the Post Office does create value for its […]
Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 Drawing from some of the most pivotal points in his life, Steve Jobs, chief executive officer and co-founder of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, urged graduates to pursue their dreams and see the opportunities in life’s setbacks — including death […]
Things you may not know about Steve Jobs: Steve Jobs leans against his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs (Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle/Corbis) For all of his years in the spotlight at the helm of Apple, Steve Jobs in many ways remains an inscrutable figure — even in his death. Fiercely private, Jobs concealed most specifics about […]
Steve Jobs passed away on October 5, 2011. I personally am very grateful to him for helping the world so much with his ideas and I have written about that before. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute noted: He’s built a $360 billion company. That presumably means at least $352 billion of wealth in the […]
Did Steve Jobs help people even though he did not give away a lot of money? (I just finished a post concerning Steve’s religious beliefs and a post about 8 things you may not know about Steve Jobs) Uploaded by UM0kusha0kusha on Sep 16, 2010 clip from The First Round Up *1934* ~~enjoy!! ______________________________________________ In the short film […]
Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 2 of transcript and video)
Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 2 of 6.
Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools
Transcript:
Groups of concerned parents and teachers decided to do something about it. They used private funds to take over empty stores and they set up what became known as store front schools. One of the first and most successful was Harlem Prep. It was designed to cater to students for whom conventional education had failed. Many of the teachers didn’t have the right pieces of paper to qualify for employment in public schools. That didn’t stop them from doing a good job here. A lot of the students had been misfits and dropouts. Here they found the sort of teaching they wanted. After all, they had made a deliberate choice to come to Harlem Prep. It was a very successful school. Many students went on to college and some to leading colleges.
But after some years, the school ran short of cash. The board of education offered Ed Carpenter, the head of the school and one of its founders, tax money, provided he would conform to their regulations. After a long battle to preserve independence, he finally gave in. The school was taken over by bureaucrats.
Ed Carpenter, Former Principal, Harlem Preparatory School: I felt that a school like Harlem Prep would certainly die and not prosper under the rigid bureaucracy of a board of education. We had to see what was going to happen. I didn’t believe it was going to be good. I am right. What has happened since we have come to the board of education is not all good __ it is not all bad __ but it is more bad than good.
Friedman: The school may not look different yet, but 30 of the former teachers have gone. Ed Carpenter has resigned. The school is being moved to a traditional school building. No one, except maybe the bureaucrats, is very optimistic about its future.
Unfortunately, the strangling of successful experiments by bureaucrats is not unusual. The same thing happened in California, at a place called Alum Rock. For three years parents at this school could choose to send their children to any of several specially created mini-schools, each with a different curriculum. The experiment was designed to restore a choice to those who were most closely involved, the parents and the teachers.
Don Ayers, Former Principal, Millard McCollam Elementary School: Probably the most significant thing that happened was that the teachers, for the first time, had some power and they were able to build the curriculum to fit the needs of the children as they saw it. The state and local school board did not dictate the kind of curriculum that was used in the McCollam School. The parents became more involved in this school. They attended more meetings. They also had a power to pull their child out of that particular mini-school if they chose another mini-school
Friedman: Giving parents greater choice had a dramatic effect on educational quality. In terms of test scores, this school went from 13th to 2nd place among the schools in its district, but the experiment is now over. When school resumed after the summer vacation, this was just another public school, back in the hands of the bureaucrats.
Giving parents a choice is a good idea, yet it always meets with opposition from the educational establishment. This is Ashford, a town in the south of England. For four years, there have been efforts here to introduce an experiment in greater parental choice. Parents would be given vouchers covering the cost of schooling. They could use the voucher to send their child to any school of their choice. I have long believed that children, teachers, all of us, would benefit from a voucher system. But the head master here, who happens also to be secretary of the local teacher’s union, has very different views about introducing vouchers.
Mr. Dennis Gee, Headmaster, Newtown Primary School: We see this as a barrier between us and the parent. This sticky little piece of paper in their hand, coming in and under due writ you will do this or else. We make our judgment because we believe it is in the best interest of every Willy and every little Johnny that we have got, and not because someone is going to say, if you don’t do it, we will do that. It is this sort of philosophy of the marketplace that we object to.
Friedman: In other words, Mr. Gee objects to giving the customer, in this case the parent, anything to say about the kind of schooling his child gets. Instead, the bureaucrats should decide.
Mr. Gee: We are answerable to parents and to our government bodies, through the inspectorate of the county council and through her Majesty’s inspectorate to the secretary of state. These are professionals who are able to make professional judgments.
Friedman: But things look very different from the point of view of parents. Jason Walton’s parents had to fight the bureaucracy, the professionals, for a year before they could get him into the school that they thought was best suited to his needs.
Maurice Walton, Parent: As the present system stands, I think virtually parents have got no freedom of choice whatsoever. They are told what is good for them by the teachers and are told that the teachers are doing a great job, and I just got no sign at all. If the voucher system were introduced, I think it would bring teachers and parents together, I think closer. A parent that is worried about his child would remove their child from the school that wasn’t giving a good service and take it to one that was. And if a school is going to crumble because it’s got nothing but vandalism, it is generally slack on discipline, and the children aren’t learning well, then it is a good thing from my point of view.
Friedman: Even good schools like this would benefit from a voucher system. From having to shape up or see parents take children elsewhere, but that is not how it looks to the head master.
Gee: I am not sure that parents know what is best educationally for their children. They know what is best for them to eat, they know the best environment they can provide at home, but we’ve been trained to ascertain the problems of children, to detect their weaknesses, and put light in things that need putting light, and we want to do this freely, with the cooperation of parents, and not under any undue strains.
Walton: I can understand the teacher saying yes, it is a gun at my head, but they have got the same gun at the parents’ head at the moment. The parent goes up to the teacher and says, well I am not satisfied with what you are doing, and the teacher can say, well tough, you can’t take him away, you can’t remove him, you can’t do what you like so go away and stop bothering me. That can be the attitude of some teachers today __ it often is. But now that the positions are being reversed and the roles are changed, I can only say tough on the teachers __ let them pull their socks up and give us a better deal and let us participate more.
Friedman: In America there is one part of education where the market has had extensive scope, that is higher education. These students attend Dartmouth College, a private school founded in 1769. The college is supported entirely by private donations, income from endowment, and student fees. It has a high reputation and a fine record. Ninety-five percent of the students who enroll here complete their undergraduate course and get a degree.
The students here pay high fees, fees which cover most of the cost of the schooling which they get. Most of them get the money from their parents, but some are on scholarships provided either by Dartmouth or by outside sources. Still others take out loans to pay the costs of schooling, loans which they will have to pay back years later. Still others work either during the school year or during the summer to pay the costs. Many students work in the college’s own hotel. This girl is helping to pay her own way which is pretty good evidence that she is serious about getting an education.
Parents of perspective students come here on shopping expeditions to check out the product before they buy.
What you have here is a private market in education and the college is selling schooling. The students are buying schooling. And as in most such markets, both sides have a strong incentive to serve one another.
For the college, it has a strong incentive to provide the kind of schooling that its students want.
“Christians cannot leave the matter where the secular world will settle on Steve Jobs’ legacy. The secular conversation will evade questions of eternal significance, but Christians cannot. As is the case with so many kings, rulers, inventors, leaders, and shapers of history, Christians can learn from Steve Jobs and even admire many of his gifts and contributions. Yet, we must also observe what is missing here.
“I am writing this essay on an Apple laptop computer. I am listening to the strains of Bach playing from my iPad via an AirPort Express. My iPhone sits on my desk, downloading a new App from iTunes. Steve Jobs has invaded my life, my house, my office, my car, and my desktop, and I am thankful for all of these technologies.
“But Christians know what the world does not – that the mother tending her child, the farmer planting his crops, the father protecting his family, the couple faithfully living out their marital vows, the factory worker laboring to support his family, and the preacher preparing to preach the Word of God are all doing far more important work.
“We have to measure life by its eternal impact, even as we are thankful for every individual who makes this world a better place. But, don’t expect eternal impact to be the main concern of the business pages.”
Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 It was a quite moving story to hear about Steve Jobs’ adoption. Ryan Scott Bomberger (www.toomanyaborted.com), co-founder of The Radiance Foundation, an adoptee and adoptive father: “As a creative professional, [Jobs’] visionary work has helped my own visions become reality. But his […]
I have written several posts on Steve Jobs and they are listed below. Today I want to look at the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life. Below are the words of – R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.: “Christians cannot leave the matter where the secular world will […]
I loved reading this article below. (Take a look at the link to other posts I have done on Steve Jobs.) David Boaz makes some great observations: How much value is the Post Office creating this year? Or Amtrak? Or Solyndra? And if you point out that the Post Office does create value for its […]
Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 Drawing from some of the most pivotal points in his life, Steve Jobs, chief executive officer and co-founder of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, urged graduates to pursue their dreams and see the opportunities in life’s setbacks — including death […]
Things you may not know about Steve Jobs: Steve Jobs leans against his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs (Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle/Corbis) For all of his years in the spotlight at the helm of Apple, Steve Jobs in many ways remains an inscrutable figure — even in his death. Fiercely private, Jobs concealed most specifics about […]
Steve Jobs passed away on October 5, 2011. I personally am very grateful to him for helping the world so much with his ideas and I have written about that before. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute noted: He’s built a $360 billion company. That presumably means at least $352 billion of wealth in the […]
Did Steve Jobs help people even though he did not give away a lot of money? (I just finished a post concerning Steve’s religious beliefs and a post about 8 things you may not know about Steve Jobs) Uploaded by UM0kusha0kusha on Sep 16, 2010 clip from The First Round Up *1934* ~~enjoy!! ______________________________________________ In the short film […]
The New Yorker’s Cover: Apple Co-Founder Meets St. Peter
